SOURCE SECTION: optatus_01_book .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 1. pp. 1-56.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 1. pp. 1-56.
I. The Divine Gift of Peace, bestowed upon all Christians.
II. This Peace was disturbed by the Schism.
III. Why Schismatics should be called Brethren.
IV. Why Optatus thought it well to undertake the task of refuting Parmenian's book.
V. The Nature of Parmenian's book.
VI. The arguments set forth in Parmenian's treatise.
VII. The division of this work and the contents of its several books.
VIII. The Flesh of Christ is not sinful.
IX. Mention of Heretics made by Parmenian to no good purpose.
X. The distinction between heretics and schismatics.
XI. The marks of the Catholic Church, and of Schism.
XII. To return to the difference between heretics and schismatics.
XIII. The originators of the Donatist schism were Betrayers.
XIV. The acts of the Council of Cirta.
XV.The schism took its rise from the consecration of Majorinus.
XVI. The quarrel of Lucilla against Caecilian.
XVII.Mensurius when summoned to the court entrusted the ornaments of the Church to certain seniors.
XVIII. The Consecration of Caecilian as Bishop of Carthage. The cause and the beginning of the Schism.
XIX. The unlawful consecration by Numidian bishops of Majorinus against Caecilian.
XX. The letter of the Numidiau Bishops against Felix, the consecrator of Caecilian.
XXI. How grave is the evil of Schism, of which the Donatists are guilty.
XXII. The Letter of the Donatist Bishops to the Emperor Constantine, in which they ask for judges of their case.
XXIII. The answer of Constantine. He appointed Judges to meet at Rome.
XXIV. The acquittal of Caecilian by the Roman Council.
XXV.How Constantine received the appeal of Donatus from the Roman judgement.
XXVI.What took place in Africa after the Roman Synod.
XXVII.The clearing of Felix, the Consecrator of Caecilian.
XXVIII. The end of this First Book.
THE WORK OF ST. OPTATUS THE AFRICAN
BISHOP OF MILEVIS
ON THE SCHISM OF THE DONATISTS AGAINST PARMENIAN
BOOK THE FIRST
Who were the Betrayers at the Time of the Persecution. The Causes of the Schism. Where and by whom the Schism was made.
I. The Divine Gift of Peace, bestowed upon all Christians.
One Faith,1 most honoured brethren,2 commends 3 |2 us all, who are Christians, to the keeping of Almighty God. To this Faith it appertains to believe that the Son of God, the Lord,4 shall come to judge the world----that He, who has already come, has been born, according to His Human Nature, through 5 Mary a Virgin, that He has suffered, died, and (after having been buried) has risen from the grave. |3
Also, before ascending to Heaven, whence He had descended,6 He left behind, through His Apostles, as His parting gift,7 to all Christians, Peace.8 |4 And, lest it should seem that to His Apostles only He had left this Peace, He said:
'That which I say to you, I say to all.' 9
And He also said:
'My peace I give unto you, My peace I leave unto you.' 10
Thus we see that Peace has been given to all Christians..
That it is God's Peace, we know, inasmuch as He says 'My Peace.' But when He says 'I give to you,' we know that He willed that it should belong not only to Himself, but to all those as well who should believe in Him,
II. This Peace was disturbed by the Schism.
If this Peace had remained whole and inviolate 11 as it was given, and had not been disturbed by the authors of the schism, there would not be any disagreement to-day between us and our brethren, nor would they be causing God inconsolable tears (as Isaiah the prophet bears witness 12), nor would they deserve the |5 name, and do the deeds, of false prophets 13; nor would they have built a crumbling and whitened wall 14; nor would they overturn simple but too credulous minds; nor would they, by wickedly imposing hands 15 upon the heads of all, place upon them the veils of destruction 16; nor would they speak evil things to God 17; nor would they re-baptise the Faithful; nor should we now be grieving for the souls which they have either destroyed or slain,----souls of the innocent, for whom God was the first to grieve, saying by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet:
'Woe to you who place a veil over every head and over every age, for the destruction of souls. The souls of My people have been destroyed; and they spoke evil things to Me amongst My people, that they might slay souls which ought not to die, whilst they proclaim to My people their empty deceits.' 18 |6
III. Why Schismatics should be called Brethren.
Lest any one should say, that without thought I call them brethren, I would reply that such they are, for we cannot escape from the words of the prophet Isaiah 19; and, although they would not deny (as all men know well) that they hold us in abhorrence, and ban us utterly and are unwilling to be called our brethren,20 still we may not depart from the fear of God, for the Holy Spirit exhorts us by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
'You who fear the Word of the Lord, hear ye the Word of the Lord.
'To those who detest and curse you, and are unwilling to be called your brethren,21 say ye nevertheless:
' "You are our brethren." ' 22
They therefore are without doubt brothers, though not good brothers. Wherefore let no one marvel that I term those brothers, who are unable to escape being our brethren.23 They and we have one spiritual birth, though widely differing is our conduct.
For even Ham, who mocked undutifully at his father's shame,24 was the brother of the innocent. In |7 accordance with his deserts, he incurred the yoke of slavery, so that he----their brother----was assigned in bondage to his brethren. From this we see that, even where there is sin, the name of brotherhood is not lost.
Concerning the sins of these our brethren, I will speak in another place. For they, sitting over against us, speak 25 evil things about us.26 They consort with that Thief 27 who robs God, and share their lot with adulterers 28 (that is, with heretics), and make their sins an object of praise,29 and plan reproachful words against us Catholics.
IV. Why Optatus thought it well to undertake the task of refuting Parmenian's book.
They all----each in his own district----make a great noise with wicked words. To some of their statements I may reply when opportunity arises.30 But we have found only one with whom it is possible to discuss these matters either by correspondence, or by the exchange of treatises----Parmenian our brother, if indeed he will allow us to call him brother. Since they are unwilling to be in communion, as we are, with |8 the whole body of Bishops,31 let it be freely granted that they are not colleagues, if they refuse so to be, but (as we have already said), brothers they are.
Now, my brother Parmenian, in order that he might not speak like the rest, in a windy 32 and unconvincing manner, has not only given utterance to his opinions in speech, but has also set them down in writing. Since, then, love of truth compels us 33 to answer what he has said, we may still have some sort of conference ----even though we cannot meet together.34
By this means also the wishes of certain people will be satisfied. For many have often expressed a desire for a public discussion between champions drawn from both sides, in order to elicit the truth. And this might well have been done. At any rate, though the Donatists forbid their people to come to us, and close the way to any approach to us, and avoid a meeting,35 and refuse to speak with us, let there be a conference, my brother Parmenian, between us two in this way, that, as I have not thought little of, nor |9 despised, your treatises, which you have wished to be read and quoted by many, but on the contrary have patiently listened to everything that you have brought forward,----so do you, in your turn, attend to the reply which, with humility, I make to you.
V. The Nature of Parmenian's book.
Now I understand well, and you do not deny,----and every man, who is not a fool, will quite plainly see for himself----that you never would have written at such a length for any other purpose, excepting that you might, by your writings, strike an undeserved blow at the Catholic Church. But (as it has been given me to discover) whilst your wishes say one thing, your arguments shout another. Moreover, I perceive that not all that you have written is an argument against Catholicism.36
Indeed, though you are not a Catholic, what you say often tells in favour of the Catholic Church.37 Therefore it will only be necessary for us to answer you when through wrong information you write, not of what you have yourself seen,38 but of what you have heard from others speaking falsely (although we have read in the Epistle of Peter:
'Be ye unwilling to judge your brother without certainty ' 39). |10
For instance, amongst other things which have no reference to us (that they have no such reference I shall prove), you say that we asked for armed troops to be employed against you.
But in other parts of your treatise there are some things which tell in our favour, and against you----such are the analogy of the Flood, and that of Circumcision.40
Some things there are which tell both for us and for you. For example, what you have written in praise of Baptism (excepting that you have said untrue things concerning the Flesh of Christ) tells in your favour 41 as well as in ours, because, although you are outside, still, from us you went forth.
It would also be in favour of both sides----if you had not joined yourselves to those who are certainly schismatics 42----that you have proved that heretics are strangers to Catholic Sacraments.43
Some things are arguments for us alone. Such is your reference to the One Church.
Some things that you have mentioned tell the wrong way for you, in consequence of your ignorance, |11 as a foreigner,44 [of the facts]----for instance, your indictment of 'Betrayers' 45 and schismatics.
The way in which you have written concerning the Sacraments and Sacrifice,46 offered by one who is in sin, also goes against you.
So, when we investigate, we discover that in reality you have brought nothing against us except your mistaken charge, that we asked to have troops employed against you. That this is a calumny we shall be able to prove to absolute demonstration. Take this calumny out of your book, and you are ours.
For what can be more to our purpose than your argument from the fact that there was only one Flood ----the type of Baptism? And, in maintaining that the one 47 Circumcision availed for the salvation of the people of the Jews, you have written in defence of our doctrine, as though you were one of us. For this is our argument, who defend the Unity of Baptism conferred in [the Name of] the Trinity.48 It is not an argument in favour of you, who dare to repeat, against |12 the laws,49 that Baptism, of which the one Flood and one Circumcision are typical. And this, although you yourselves would not deny that what has been commanded to be done once only, ought not to be repeated. But whilst you have praised with acuteness that which is worthy of all praise,50 you have by a quibble introduced your own persons, as if----since it is only lawful once [to baptise]----for you it were lawful, for others unlawful.51
If it be unlawful for Betrayers to baptise, it cannot be lawful for you, for we can prove that your first fathers were Betrayers.
If it be unlawful for schismatics to baptise, it must therefore be unlawful for you, for you originated the Schism.
If it be unlawful for sinners to baptise, we can prove from divine testimony that you are sinners also.
Finally, since the validity of Baptism does not depend upon the character of the man who has been chosen to baptise, but upon an act which lawfully is done but once, for this reason we do not set right 52 baptisms which have been administered by you, |13 because both amongst us and amongst you the Sacrament is one.53
The whole nature of this Sacrament we shall set forth in our fifth book.
VI. The arguments set forth in Parmenian's treatise.
My brother Parmenian, you have indeed treated of many things, but I see that I must not answer you point by point, in the same order as that which you have employed. For you have written in the first place of the figures and praise of Baptism. Here (with the exception of your error concerning the Flesh of Christ) you have written well. But this, however, tells in our favour, as we shall show in its proper place.
Secondly, you have maintained that there is only One Church, from which heretics are shut out. You have, however, been unwilling to recognise where this One Church is to be found.
Thirdly, you have denounced the 'Betrayers' without fixing names or describing persons.
Fourthly, you have attacked the makers of Unity.54
Fifthly (to pass over matters of but trifling |14 importance), you have written about the Sacraments and Sacrifice of a sinner.
VII. The division of this work and the contents of its several books.
But it seems to me that in the first place the cities, positions, and names of the Betrayers and schismatics should be pointed out.55 In this way the true authors of the crimes, concerning which you have written, may be convicted of their certain guilt.
Secondly,56 I shall have to say which is the Church, or where is to be found the One Church----which is the Church----because, besides the One Church, there is no other.
Thirdly, I shall prove that we did not ask for the troops and that what is said to have been done by the makers of Unity does not concern us.
In the fourth place, I shall show who is the sinner whose sacrifice God repudiates, or from whose Sacraments 57 we must flee.
Fifthly, I shall treat of Baptism; and in the sixth place of your ill-considered assumptions and mistakes.
VIII. The Flesh of Christ is not sinful.
But before I say anything of these subjects separately, I shall show briefly that you have spoken wrongfully 58 of the Flesh of Christ, for you have said that the Flesh which was drowned by the floods of |15 the Jordan, and was thus cleansed from all stains, was the Flesh of Sin. You might have said this with reason if the Baptism of the Flesh of Christ had sufficed for all, so that it were not necessary for any man to be baptised for himself. Had this been so, the whole human family would have been in the Jordan, and all that which is born in the flesh would have been there. In that case there would have been no difference between the Faithful and any one of the heathen, for flesh belongs to them all; and since there is no man who is without flesh, if, according to your mode of expression, the Flesh of Christ was drowned in the waters of the Jordan, the flesh of all men would have gained this benefit. But the Flesh of Christ is one thing in Christ----quite another is the flesh of each man in himself. What came over you to call the Flesh of Christ sinful? Would that you had said 'the flesh of men in the Flesh of Christ.' But even thus, you would have spoken without reason,59 since each believer is baptised in the Name of Christ, not in the Flesh of Christ, which belonged to Himself exclusively. I may add that His Flesh, which was conceived by the Holy Ghost, could not be washed, amongst others, for the remission of sins, for It was without any sin.60 You have gone on to say that It was drowned in the floods of the Jordan.61 This word drowned, you have used inadvisedly enough, for it is a word which should be used only of Pharaoh and his people, who were so drowned by the weight |16 of their offences, as to remain, like lead, beneath the waters. But the Flesh of Christ, when It went down into and came up from the Jordan, ought not to have been spoken of by you as drowned. His Flesh was found to be more holy than the very Jordan, so that rather did It cleanse the water by Its entrance, than Itself was cleansed.
IX. Mention of Heretics made by Parmenian to no good purpose.
Moreover, I cannot pass over a matter in which I think you have acted craftily. In order that you might lead the minds of your readers off the point, or deceive them, after you had described Circumcision and the Flood, and after you had praised Baptism, you thought fit to raise, as it were from the dead, heretics who were already dead and, together with their heresies, buried in oblivion----and this although not only their errors, but even their names, were unknown throughout Africa----Marcion, Praxeas, Sabellius, Valentinus, and the rest up to the Cataphrygae, all of whom were confuted in their time by Victorinus of Pettau,62 by Zephyrinus of Rome,63 by Tertullian of Carthage, and by other champions of the Catholic Church.64 Why, then, do you wage a war with the dead, who have nothing to do with the affairs |17 of our time? For no reason, excepting that you, who are a schismatic of to-day, having nothing that you can prove against Catholics, have been pleased to enumerate so many heretics and their heresies, to spin out your somewhat wordy treatise.
X. The distinction between heretics and schismatics.
Now there is another question: For what purpose have you mentioned those who have not the Sacraments which you and we alike possess? 65 Sound health does not clamour for medicine; strength which is secure in itself does not need outside help; truth has no lack of arguments; it is the mark of a sick man to seek remedies; it is the sign of a sluggard and a weakling to run in search of auxiliaries; it belongs to a liar to rake up arguments.66 |18 To return to your book, you have said 67 that the Endowments 68 of the Church cannot be with heretics, and in this you have said rightly,69 for we know that the churches of each of the heretics have no lawful Sacraments, since they are adulteresses, without the rights of honest wedlock,70 and are rejected by Christ, who is the Bridegroom of One Church,71 as strangers.72 This He Himself makes clear in the Canticle of Canticles. When He praises One,73 He condemns the others because, besides the One which is the true Catholic Church, the others amongst the heretics are thought to be churches, but are not such.74 Thus He declares in the Canticle of Canticles (as we have already pointed out) that His Dove is One, and that |19 she is also 75 the chosen Spouse, and again 76 a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up.77
Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received,78 or the Ring,79 with which we read that the Fountain 80 has been sealed 81; nor is any heretic one of those to whom that Garden |20 belongs in which God plants His young trees.82 Concerning these men, that which you have written at length (although it has nothing to do with our present business) is abundantly sufficient.
But to my surprise you have thought good to attach yourselves to those who certainly are schismatics, for in denying the Endowments of the Church both to those who are heretics, and also to schismatics, you have denied them to yourselves.
Amongst other things you have said that schismatics have been cut off, like branches, from the Vine, and that they have been reserved, marked off for punishment, like dried wood, for the fires of Hell.
But I see that you do not yet know that the Schism at Carthage was begun by your fathers. Search out the beginning of these affairs, and you will find that in associating heretics with schismatics, you have pronounced judgement against yourselves.
For it was not Caecilian 83 who went forth from Majorinus, your father's father,84 but it was Majorinus who deserted Caecilian; nor was it Caecilian who separated himself from the Chair of Peter,85 or from |21 the Chair of Cyprian 86 ----but Majorinus,87 on whose Chair you sit----a Chair which had no existence 88 before Majorinus himself. Since then there can be no possible doubt that these things have thus happened, and that you are the heirs of Betrayers and schismatics, I am, my brother Parmenian, sufficiently surprised----seeing that you are yourself a schismatic----that you should have thought it advisable to join schismatics to heretics. If, however, these are your principles, and you wish to do so, heap up together 89 what you have laid down only a little before. For you have said that 'It could not be that one who was stained should wash away sins in a baptism-that-is-not-Baptism,90 that one who is unclean should cleanse, that one who trips men up 91 should raise them, that one who is lost should free, |22 that one who is guilty should give pardon, that one who has been condemned should absolve.' 92
All these things might well be true of heretics alone, since they have falsified the creed,93 for amongst them one has said that there are two Gods,94 though God is One; another wishes the Father to be recognised in the Person of the Son 95; another robs the Son of God of His Flesh,96 through which the world has been reconciled to God, and there are yet others of the same kind, who admittedly are separated from Catholic Sacraments.97 Wherefore you should regret that you have coupled schismatics with such men as these, for, when you thought that you were attacking others, you failed to observe how wide is the gulf between schismatics and heretics, and turned the sword of judgement upon yourself. |23
This is the reason that you do not see which is the Holy Church,98 and have in this way made confusion of everything.99
XI. The marks of the Catholic Church, and of Schism.
Catholicism is constituted by a simple and true understanding in the law,100 by an unique and most true mystery,101 and by unity of minds. But schism, after the bond of peace has been broken, is brought into existence through passion, is nourished by hatred, is strengthened by envy and dissensions, so that the Catholic Mother is abandoned, whilst her unfilial children go forth outside and separate themselves (as you have done) from the root of Mother Church----cut off by the shears of their hatred----and wickedly depart in rebellion. They are not able, however, to do anything new, or different 102 from that which long ago they learned from their Mother. |24
XII. To return to the difference between heretics and schismatics.
But heretics, exiles from the truth, deserters of the sound and most true Creed,103 corrupted by their wicked opinions and led astray from the bosom of Holy Church, reckoning nothing of their noble birth, in order to deceive the ignorant and ill-informed, have been pleased to be born of themselves. And they, who for a long time had been nourished on living food----which not assimilated has turned to corruption 104 ----have by impious disputations vomited forth deadly poisons, to the destruction of their wretched dupes.
You see, then, my brother Parmenian, that none but heretics only----who are cut off from the home of truth----possess 'various kinds of false Baptisms with which he, who is stained, cannot wash, nor the unclean cleanse, nor the destroyer raise, nor he, who is lost, free, nor the guilty man give pardon, nor the condemned man absolve.' 105
Rightly hast thou closed the Garden to heretics; rightly hast thou claimed the Keys for Peter 106; rightly hast thou denied the right of cultivating the young trees to those who are certainly shut out 107 from the |25 garden and from the paradise of God 108; rightly hast thou withdrawn the Ring from those to whom it is not allowed to open the Fountain. But to you schismatics, although you are not in the Catholic Church,109 these things 110 cannot be denied, since you have shared true Sacraments with us.111
Wherefore, since all these things are justly denied to heretics, why did you think well to deny them to yourselves as well, who clearly are schismatics, for you have gone outside? For our part we were willing that in this matter heretics alone should be condemned, but so far as lies with you, you have chosen to strike yourselves, together with them, in one condemnation.112
XIII. The originators of the Donatist schism were Betrayers.
But now (to return to the order upon which we have determined), in the first place listen to the names of those who were Betrayers and learn more distinctly who were the originators of the schism. It is certain that two evil things have been perpetrated in Africa----even the worst of all 113 ----the first----Betrayal, the second----Schism. Both these crimes were committed, in one period of time, by the same wicked men. |26
You ought, therefore, my brother Parmenian, to learn that of which you are understood to be ignorant; for sixty years and more have passed since the storm of persecution spread abroad throughout the whole of Africa 114 ----a persecution which made some Martyrs, others Confessors, whilst not a few it laid low in a terrible death,115 leaving unharmed those who lay in hiding.
Why should I make mention of laymen who at that time were supported by no ecclesiastical dignity? Why name a host of clerics 116? Or deacons in the third,117 or priests in the second degree of the sacerdotium, when the heads and chiefs of all,118 some Bishops of that |27 period,119 in order to purchase for themselves, at the loss of Life Eternal, some very short prolongation of this uncertain day, impiously betrayed the records 120 of the law of God? Amongst whom were Donatus of Mascula, Victor of Rusicca, Merinus from the Baths of Tibilis, Donatus of Calama, and Purpurius of Limata, the murderer 121 ----who, when he was questioned on the charge of having killed his sister's sons in the prison of Mileum,122 confessed it with the words: 'Yes, I did kill them, and not them alone do I kill, but whoever shall act against me.' And Menalius who pretended that he had a pain in his eyes, and trembled at the idea of meeting his own people,123 for fear lest it should be proved against him by his fellow-citizens that he had offered incense to idols.
XIV. The acts of the Council of Cirta.
After the persecution, these Bishops and others whom we shall soon show to have been the first leaders of your schism, gathered together on the thirteenth of |28 May 124 at the town of Cirta 125 ----in the house of Urbanus Carisius----for the Basilicas had not yet been restored. This is attested by the writings of Nundinarius,126 then a deacon, and is proved by the age of the parchments, which I can show to anyone really in doubt, for in the Appendix to these books I have subjoined the whole number 127 of these documents to certify the truth of my statements. These Bishops, on being questioned by Secundus of Tigisis, acknowledged that they had been Betrayers.128 And, as Secundus 129 himself was taunted by Purpurius not for having escaped, but for having been set free after he had remained for a long time amongst the soldiers, they all stood up 130 |29 and began to mutter that he had been set free only because he betrayed the sacred books. Then Secundus, fearing their temper, received advice from his brother's son, Secundus the Less, to remit an affair of this character to God. 131 The others, who had not been accused, that is to say, Victor of Garba, Felix of Rotarium and Nabor of Centurio, were then consulted. They said that a case of this kind ought to be reserved to the Lord. Then said Secundus 'Sit down all.' They all replied 'Thanks be to God,' and sat down. You see, therefore, my brother Parmenian, that it is quite clear who were the Betrayers.
XV. The schism took its rise from the consecration of Majorinus.
It was not long after this, that these very persons whom I have mentioned, of the character I have described, Betrayers, men who had offered incense to idols, and murderers,132 proceeded to Carthage, and there, although Caecilian was already the Bishop, made the Schism by consecrating Majorinus----on whose Chair, Parmenian, you sit. And since I have shown, that men who were guilty of Betrayal were your first fathers, it follows that Betrayers were also the originators of your Schism. |30
In order to make this matter clear and beyond doubt to all, we shall have to prove from what root the branches of error have stretched themselves forth to the present day, and from what fountain this your rivulet of noxious water,133 creeping stealthily along, has flowed down even to our times. We shall have to point out whence, and where, and from whom this evil of schism has arisen; what were the causes which met together 134 to produce it; who were the persons who effected it 135; who were the authors of this wicked thing; who fostered it; by whom appeal was made to the Emperor, that he should judge between the parties; who were they that sat in judgement; where the Council was held; what were its decrees.
The question is about a Division. Now in Africa, as in other parts of the world, the Church was One, before it was divided by those who consecrated Majorinus----whose Chair you have inherited, and now occupy.136 We shall have to see who has remained in the root, with the whole world 137; who went forth; who sits on a second chair, which had no existence before the Schism 138; who has raised altar against altar; who has consecrated a Bishop when another was in undisturbed possession; who it is that lies under the judgement of John, the Apostle, when he declared that many Anti-Christs should go forth without,
'because they were not of us, for if they had been of us they would have remained with us.' 139 |31
Therefore, he who was unwilling to remain with his brethren in unity 140 has followed the heretics, and gone forth without, as an Anti-Christ.
XVI. The quarrel of Lucilla against Caecilian.
No one is unaware that the Schism, after the consecration of Caecilian, was effected at Carthage through a certain mischief-making woman named Lucilla. When the Church was still in tranquillity, before her Peace had been disturbed by the storms of persecution, this woman could not put up with the rebuke which she received from the archdeacon Caecilian. It was said that she kissed a bone of some martyr or other----if he was a martyr----before she received the spiritual Food and Drink. Having then been corrected for thus touching----before she touched the Sacred Chalice----the bone of a dead man (if he was a martyr, at least he had not yet been acknowledged as such 141), she went away in confusion, full of wrath. This was the woman upon whom, whilst she was angry and afraid that she might fall under the discipline of the Church, on a sudden, the storm of persecution broke.
XVII. Mensurius when summoned to the court entrusted the ornaments of the Church to certain seniors.
It was at this time also that a deacon called Felix who had been summoned before the tribunals on account of a much spoken-of letter which he had |32 written concerning the usurping Emperor, 142 fearing his danger, is said to have lain hidden in the house of Bishop Mensurius. When Mensurius publicly refused to give him up, an account of the matter was despatched. A rescript came back that unless Mensurius would surrender the deacon Felix, he should be himself sent to the palace.143 On receiving this summons 144 he found himself in no small difficulty, for the Church possessed very many gold and silver ornaments, which he could neither hide under ground, nor take away with him. So he confided them to the care of some of the seniors, whom he believed to be worthy of trust, not, however, before he had made an inventory, which he is said to have given to a certain old woman. He charged her, that, when peace was restored to Christians, she should hand this over, if he himself did not return home, to whomsoever she found sitting on the Bishop's Chair. He went away and pleaded his cause; he was commanded to return, but was not able to reach Carthage.145
XVIII. The Consecration of Caecilian as Bishop of Carthage. The cause and the beginning of the Schism.
The storm of persecution passed over, and subsided. By the disposition of God, Maxentius sent pardon, and liberty was restored to Christians. Botrus and Celestius----so it is said----wishing to be consecrated Bishops at Carthage, arranged that, without inviting 146 |33 the Numidians, only the neighbouring bishops should be asked to perform the ceremony at Carthage.147Then, by the vote of the whole people, Caecilian was chosen, and was consecrated Bishop, Felix of Autumna laying his hand upon him. Botrus and Celestius were disappointed of their hope. The inventory of the gold and silver, as had been ordered by Mensurius, was handed over, in the presence of witnesses, to Caecilian, who was now in possession of the See. The above-mentioned seniors were summoned; but they had swallowed up in the jaws of their avarice, as booty, that which had been entrusted to their keeping. When they were commanded to make restitution, they withdrew from communion with Caecilian. The ambitious intriguers, who had failed to obtain their consecration, did likewise. Lucilla, too, that influential, mischief-making woman,148 who had before been unwilling to brook discipline, together with all her retainers, separated herself from her Bishop. Thus wickedness produced its effect through the meeting together 149 of three different causes and sets of persons. |34
XIX. The unlawful consecration by Numidian bishops of Majorinus against Caecilian.
In this way it came to pass, that at that time the Schism was brought to birth by the anger of a disgraced woman, was fed by ambition, and received its strength from avarice.150
It was by these three that the accusations were concocted against Caecilian, so that his Consecration might be declared void. They sent to Secundus of Tigisis 151 to come to Carthage, whither the Betrayers, of whom we have already made mention, proceeded. They received hospitality----not from Catholics, at whose request Caecilian had been consecrated 152 ----but |35 from the avaricious, from the ambitious, from those who had been unable to govern their tempers. Not one of them went to the Basilica, where all the people of Carthage had assembled with Caecilian.153 Then Caecilian demanded:
'If there is anything to be proved against me, let the accuser come out and prove it.'
Nothing could at that time be got up against him by all these enemies of his; they imagined, however, that he might be blackened by his Consecrator being falsely alleged to have been a Betrayer. So Caecilian gave a second demand----that, since----so they thought ----Felix had bestowed nothing upon him, they should themselves ordain him, as if he were still a deacon.154 |36
Then Purpurius, relying upon his usual ribaldry, thus spoke, as though Caecilian had been his sister's son 155:
'Let him stand forth as if he were to be consecrated Bishop, and let his head be well smacked in Penance.' 156
When the bearing of all this was seen, the whole Church [of Carthage] retained Caecilian, in order not to hand itself over to murderers. 157
The alternatives were, either that he should be expelled from his See as guilty, or that the Faithful should communicate with him as innocent.
The church was crowded with people; Caecilian was sitting in his episcopal Chair; the altar was set up in its own place 158 ----that very altar upon which |37 Bishops acknowledged by all 159 had in past times offered sacrifice----Cyprian, Carpophorius,160 Lucian and the rest.
In this manner they went forth,161 and altar was raised against altar; and there was an unlawful consecration; and Majorinus, who had been lector when Caecilian was archdeacon 162 ----Majorinus, a member of the household of Lucilla----at her instigation, and through her bribes----was consecrated Bishop by Betrayers, who in the Numidian Council had (as we have already said) acknowledged their crimes and granted pardon to one another. It is, therefore, clear that both the Betrayers who consecrated, and Majorinus who was consecrated, went forth from the Church.163
XX. The letter of the Numidiau Bishops against Felix, the consecrator of Caecilian.
Meanwhile, out of the fountain of their own crimes, which had gushed forth amongst them in channels 164 of many kinds of wickedness, they thought that a single one----that of Betrayal----might be spared 165 with which to calumniate the consecrator of Caecilian. For, since, as they foresaw, slander would not be able to occupy herself at the same time with two charges of a similar |38 nature, they endeavoured to blacken the life of another man, that by this means they might consign their own crimes to silence. And, through fear that they should themselves be convicted by the innocent, they strove to convict the innocent instead. To this end they distributed on all sides a letter,166 inspired by their hatred.167 (This letter we have placed, together with the other Acts, in the Appendix.168)
As they were still at Carthage, they sent their letters before them,169 that by untruthful reports they might plant their falsehood in the ears of all. Rumour spread the lie broadcast amongst the people. Thus, whilst these calumnies were noised abroad about one man only, their own most certain crimes were hidden away in silence.
It often comes to pass that sin is blushed for, but at that period there was no one for whom to blush, since, with the exception of a few Catholics, all had sinned,170 so the wickedness which had been committed by many wore the cloak of innocence. The shame of Betrayal, which admittedly had been committed by Donatus of Mascula and the others whom we have mentioned, seemed but of small account. To this Betrayal they added the enormous wickedness of schism.171
XXI. How grave is the evil of Schism, of which the Donatists are guilty.
Therefore, my brother Parmenian, you see these two accusations----so evil, so terrible----of Betrayal and |39 Schism proved against your chiefs. Acknowledge, though late, that you, in attacking others, have fallen upon your own people. And whilst it is certain that those who went before you worked this second abomination, you too strive to follow them in their sin-stained footsteps, so that you also have been doing for long, and are even now doing, that of which your Fathers were guilty in the beginning of the Schism.172 They in their day broke peace; you now banish unity.173 It can be said with reason of your Fathers as well as of yourselves, that, if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch.174 A raging malice blinded your Fathers' eyes; envy has robbed yours of sight. Even you will not by any means be able to deny that schism is the supreme evil.175
Yet, without fear, you have imitated Dathan, Abiram and Koran, your shameless teachers,176 and you have been unwilling to keep before your eyes the fact that God has both forbidden this wickedness, and gravely punished it when it has been committed. Moreover, remember that the way in which sins are either forgiven or punished shows that there are degrees of guilt.
Now, by the Commandments of God, three things are, amongst others, forbidden by Him. Thou shalt |40 not kill; thou shalt not go after 177 strange gods, and summing up the commands,178 thou shalt not commit schism.
Let us see concerning these three, what should be punished, and what it may be lawful to pardon.
Murder of kith is the chief sin.179 Nevertheless, God did not strike Cain dead in his guilt, but declared that He would punish any man who might be his murderer. In the city of Nineve one hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants sacrilegiously followed after strange gods, but when, by the preaching of Jonah the prophet, God had declared His anger, a short period of fasting, together with prayer, obtained their pardon. Let us see whether any such forgiveness was granted to those who first of all ventured to divide the people of God.180
God had placed over so many thousands of children of Israel, from whose necks His Divine Providence had cast away the yoke of servitude, one Priest, holy Aaron. But his ministers, coveting and lawlessly usurping a priesthood to which they had no right, and |41 leading astray a part of the people, imitated the sacred rites, and placed more than two hundred of their followers (who were to perish with them)----censers in their hands----before the people whom they had led astray. God, to whom schism is displeasing, could not see this and let it pass; they had, after a certain fashion, declared war against God, as if there were a second God,181 who would accept a second sacrifice. Therefore God was wrathful with a mighty wrath, on account of the schism which had been made, and what He had not done in punishment of the sacrilegious and the fratricide,182 that He did do in punishment of schismatics. The army of ministers stood in array, and the sacrilegious host that (together with its forbidden sacrifices) was to perish in an instant. The opportunity for penance was denied them and withdrawn, for this was not the kind of sin that should deserve pardon. The earth was commanded to hunger after its food. Forthwith it opened its jaws for those who had divided the people, and with eager mouth swallowed them up that had despised the commandments of God. Within the space of one moment the earth opened to devour them, seized her victims, was shut once again, and, so that they might not appear to reap any benefit from the suddenness of their death, it was not allowed these men who were unworthy to live even to die. Of a sudden they were shut in the prison of Hell, and were buried there before they died.
And yet you wonder that something of similar severity has been done against you----you who either cause or approve schism, although you see here what |42 they, who compassed the first schism, deserved to suffer! Or is it because punishment of this kind has now ceased, that on this account you claim innocence for yourself and for your party? In each of these occurrences, God has set forth a model by examples 183 of the punishment that will come to their imitators. The first sins He has put an end to with punishment, as an example for all time. The sins that come after He will reserve for His Judgement. What have you to say to this, you, who having usurped the name of the Church, both secretly foster and without shame defend the schism?
XXII. The Letter of the Donatist Bishops to the Emperor Constantine, in which they ask for judges of their case.
I hear that some of your party, in their love of disputation, produce documents. But we have to ask which of these are worthy of trust, which are in accordance with reason, which agree with the truth 184? It may be that your documents----if indeed you have any----will be found to be stained with falsehoods. Our documents are proved to be true by the rival arguments and pleadings of the parties, by the final judgements, and by the letters of Constantine.
With regard to that which you ask of us:
'What have Christians to do with kings, or Bishops with the palace?'
If it be a crime 185 to be acquainted with kings, the whole of the odium falls upon you, for your |43 fathers Lucianus, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius and the rest, when the Emperor Constantine was still without any knowledge of these affairs, addressed a petition to him, of which I will transcribe a copy 186:
'O Constantine, most excellent Emperor, since thou dost come of a just stock, and thy father (unlike other Emperors) did not persecute Christians,187 and Gaul is free from this wickedness, we beseech thee that thy piety may command that we be granted judges from Gaul; for between us and other Bishops in Africa disputes have arisen; Given by Lucianus, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius and the rest of the Bishops who adhere to Donatus.' 188 |44
XXIII. The answer of Constantine. He appointed Judges to meet at Rome.
After having read this letter, Constantine replied with much anger. And in his rescript he testified to the matter of their petition in the words:
'You ask a judgement from me in this world, although I myself am waiting for the Judgement of Christ in the next.' 189 |45
Nevertheless, he granted them judges----Maternus from the city of Cologne, Reticius from the city of Autun, Marinus of Aries. These three Bishops from Gaul and fifteen others, who were Italians, arrived in Rome. They met in the House of Fausta on the Lateran, on the second of October which was a Friday, in the year when Constantine for the fourth, and Licinius for the third time, were Consuls.190
There were present Miltiades,191 Bishop of the city of Rome, and Reticius, Maternus and Marinus, Bishops from Gaul, and Merocles of Milan, Florianus of Sinna, Zoticus of Quintianum, Stennius of Ariminum, Felix from Florence of the Tuscans, Gaudentius of Pisa, Constantius of Faenza, Proterius of Capua, Theophilus of Beneventum, Sabinus of Terracina, Secundus of Preneste, Felix of the Three Taverns, Maximus of Ostium, Evandrus of Ursinum and Donatianus of Criolo.
XXIV. The acquittal of Caecilian by the Roman Council.
When these nineteen Bishops had taken their seats together, the case of Donatus and that of Caecilian were brought forward. This judgement was passed against Donatus 192 ----by each of the Bishops----that he |46 acknowledged having both rebaptised, and laid his hand in Penance upon Bishops who had fallen away---- |47 a thing foreign to the Church.193 Donatus brought forth his witnesses; they admitted that they had nothing of which they could accuse Caecilian. Caecilian was pronounced innocent by the sentence of all the above-named Bishops; also by the sentence of Miltiades, by which the matter was closed, and judgement pronounced in these words 194: |48
'Since it is certain that those who came with Donatus have failed to accuse Caecilian in accordance with their undertaking, and since it is also certain that Donatus has not proved him guilty on any count, I judge that, according to his deserts, he be maintained in the |49 communion of the Church, continuing to hold his position unimpaired.' 195
XXV. How Constantine received the appeal of Donatus from the Roman judgement.
It is, therefore, sufficient, that Donatus was condemned by the verdict of so many Bishops, and that Caecilian was cleared by the judgement of so great an authority.196 Yet Donatus thought well to appeal. To this appeal the Emperor Constantine replied in these words:
'Oh, mad daring of their fury! A Bishop has thought fit to appeal to us, as is done in the lawsuits of the Pagans.' 197
XXVI. What took place in Africa after the Roman Synod.
At the same time Donatus also asked that he might be allowed to return, and promised that he would not go to Carthage.198 Then it was suggested to the Emperor |50 by Filuminus his advocate,199 that, for peace' sake, Caecilian should be detained at Brescia----and so it was done.200 Then two Bishops were sent to Africa, Eunomius and Olimpius, to do away with the dual Bishops and establish a single one.201 They came, and remained at Carthage forty days, that they might declare where was the Catholic Church.202 The seditious party of Donatus could not endure this, and every day noisy uproars were made through party spirit.
Eventually these Bishops, Eunomius and Olimpius, delivered their final decree to the effect that the Catholic Church 203 was that which was dispersed all over |51 the world, and that the Judgement of the nineteen |52 Bishops which had already been delivered could not be upset.204 Accordingly they communicated with the |53 clergy of Caecilian, and went their way. All this we can prove from the written Acts which any who please may read in our Appendix.205 When these things had taken place, Donatus was the first to return to Carthage, unasked. Caecilian, on hearing this news, hastened back to his own people. In this way the schism was planted anew. But the fact remains that so many Bishops had by their Judgement condemned Donatus, and had also pronounced the innocence of Caecilian.
XXVII. The clearing of Felix, the Consecrator of Caecilian.
But since two persons on the Catholic side had been for some time accused in this matter----the consecrated and the Consecrator----even after the consecrated had been acquitted at Rome, it still remained for the Consecrator to be declared guiltless. Then Constantine wrote to Aelianus, the pro-consul, to lay |54 aside his public duties and make public inquiry into the life of Felix of Autumna.206
The appointed officer took his seat. The witnesses were Claudius Saturianus,207 a state commissioner, who had been in the city of Felix all through the time of the persecution, and had been a commissioner when he was impeached, Callidius Gratianus and Alfius Caecilianus the magistrate; also Superius the Warder was summoned, and Ingentius the public notary, who was in constant fear of the torture with which he was threatened. By the evidence of all it was ascertained that there was nothing that could disgrace the life of Felix the Bishop.208
The Volume of Acts is in existence in which are recorded the names of those who had been present at the trial, Claudius Saturianus the official, and Caecilianus the Magistrate, and Superius the Warder, and Ingentius the Notary, and Solon a public official of the time. After they had given their replies, the above-mentioned pro-consul gave his Judgement, of which this is a part: |55
'That Felix, the holy Bishop, is guiltless of having burned the divine Books,209 is clear from the fact that no one was able to prove anything against him----neither that he had given up nor burned the most sacred Scriptures. For all the above-mentioned witnesses proved clearly that none of the divine Writings had been either discovered, or injured or burned. It is shown by the Acts that the holy Bishop Felix was not present at that time, and that he was neither privy to any such crime, nor commanded it to be done.'
And so he left the court, cleared of every stain upon his reputation and wonderfully praised. Up to that time men did not know what to think of him, and he had walked under a dark cloud, caused by the breath of hatred and jealousy, whilst truth lay hid. And besides, every document, mentioned either in the Acts or in the letters which we have mentioned or read, was disclosed.210
XXVIII. The end of this First Book.
You see, my brother Parmenian, that you have assaulted Catholics to no purpose----falsely nicknaming them Betrayers, changing the names of those who were concerned, and transferring their deeds. You have shut your eyes, that you might not recognise the guilt of your fathers; you have opened them to cast accusations upon the innocent and blameless.211 You have stated everything according to what is opportune, |56 nothing according to what is true; so that it was of you that the most Blessed Apostle Paul said:
'Some have turned aside to vain-speaking, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor of whom they say it.' 212
We have just now proved that your fathers 213 were Betrayers and schismatics; yet you, who are their heir, have not wished to spare either schismatics or Betrayers, so that by the proofs which we have alleged, all the darts which you mistakenly wished to hurl against others have glanced back----warded off by the shield of truth----to strike your fathers. Everything, then, which you have been able to say against Betrayers and schismatics, belongs to yourselves, for we have nothing to do with any of it,----we who both remain in the Root, and are joined, with all, in the whole [Catholic] 214 world.
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 Cunctos nos Christianos, clarissimi fratres, Omnipotenti Deo fides una commendat. With these striking words St. Optatus opens his work against the Donatists. Fides una----the One Faith, untainted by any specific heresy. St. Optatus insists more than once, with emphasis, that he does not charge those against whom he writes with heresy (sin against faith), but with schism (sin against unity) (cf. i, 9; i, 12; iii, 9; v, i), and complains (i, 10) that Parmenian paid no attention to this essential distinction. St. Augustine, however, in his second Book against Cresconius explains the reasons why the Donatists of his time deserved to be called heretics, and in his Book on Heresies he hardly ever gives them any other name, explaining at length that their schism had now become a heresy. In this it did but follow a usual law. 'Haeresis scisma inveteratum.' These are the words of St. Augustine, and St. Jerome writes to the same effect: (Ep. ad Tit. iii) 'An erroneous doctrine constitutes heresy; schism is separation from, the Church, through the departure of a Bishop (or of Bishops). But there is no schism which fails to frame for itself some heresy, that it may form a pretext for having departed from the Church.' St. Augustine tells us further that Donatus the Great was heretical about the Trinity, though the fact was generally unknown to his followers. He also writes (Ep. clxiii) that he had heard that the Arians had endeavoured to make common cause with Donatists in Africa.
2. 2 fratres. St. Optatus will proceed immediately to justify himself at considerable length for terming the Donatists his brethren, notwithstanding the fact that they were schismatics, and therefore his 'separated brethren' (i, 3; cf. iv, 1; iv, 2). So also St. Augustine: 'Quotidie enim quibusdam non nobiscum in una Ecclesia, nec in iisdem Sacramentis constitutis, dicimus, Frater. Sodomitis etiam dixit Loth, Fratres (Gen. xix, 7), utique ad leniendum eorum animositatem, non ad cognitam fraternitatem, quasi unius haereditate consortium.' (Gesta Collationis Carthag. diei iii, ccxlii). Cf. Aug. cont. Parm. iii, 2.
3. 3 commendat. Ziwsa says that commendat here = tutelae Dei mandat (cf. the prayer of the Church, e.g. in Fest. S. Antonii, 'Intercessio nos, quaesumus Domine, beati Antonii Abbatis commendet'). Casaubon thinks that it means either: 'One Faith approves us all, who are Christians, to Almighty God' (i.e. makes us pleasing to Him); or 'One Faith proves that, in the sight of Almighty God, we all are Christians.' (Cf. S. August. Brev. Coll. iii, 10: 'Donatistae Scripturarum testimonio unam Ecclesiam commendaverant.' The Donatists had proved by the witness of the Scriptures that the Church is One.) It must, however, be admitted that it is not possible to produce a passage, at least from the works of St. Augustine, in which commendare is vised in this sense with the Dative, as above Omnipotenti Deo.)
4. 1 Ziwsa following G reads Filium Dei Dominum. PRBvb have Filium Dei Deum.
5. 2 G reads ex. All the other MSS. have per.
6. 1 Cf. John iii, 13.
7. 2 Itoriam P. Storiam RB. Victricem G. This last reading is evidently a desperate, though brilliant guess ('He bequeathed victorious peace'). It is, however, adopted by Du Pin, who observes that it seems impossible to translate storiam. Ziwsa reads storiam, and tells us that it here means not as usually, a carpet, but a breastplate (Schutzwehr) (' He left peace as a breastplate'). Du Pin (not knowing P) did not see Itoriam. Evidently Ziwsa put it aside as a hopeless corruption. Yet without doubt it is the true reading, for, as Dom John Chapman O.S.B. has pointed out to me, this word has been discovered with its explanation by the learned Dom Germain Morin O.S.B. in an unpublished sermon of St. Augustine (see Revue Bénéd. 1895 xii, p. 388). 'Loquebatur cum Apostolis suis ascensurus. Videamus qualia illis reliquit, sicut dici solet ITORIA. Humanae conditionis est quod dico, ut quando ab amicis amici deducuntur (are conducted a little way on their departure), quando ille qui deducitur discedere caeperit, quia necesse est ut relinquat in animo diligentium se nonnullam tristitiam, dat eis aliquid pecuniae, unde illis eadem dies, sicut dicitur, bene sit, id est, unde convivant, simrd laetentur et iucundentur. Et haec quantulacunque pecunia quae datur, hilari nomine ITORIA nuncupatur (This small sum of money is jokingly called 'Journey Money'). Quid dimisit Dominus Ihesus discipulis suis? Exultate, adtentite, quia ITORIA illa non solum illos inebriavit, sed ad nos usque manebit... (and further on) Eritis Mihi testes in Ierusalem. Primo ibi, ubi sum occisus, ibi ero gloriosus. In Ierusalem et in totam Iudaeam et Samariam. Et adhuc parum est. Et usque in totam terram. O! ITORIA! ' Thus we have two forms of Itoria (1) neuter plural with qualia and by itself, (2) feminine singular itoria illa... inebriavit. Evidently it is an adjectival form, in popular use (sicut dici solet, itoria), and doubtful number (1) as a substantive = neuter plural, (2) in feminine illa itoria, (sc. pecunia). St. Augustine makes Our Lord's itoria (parting gift) to His disciples and to His Church (ad nos usque manebit) the right of preaching throughout the world; St. Optatus (in accordance with the purpose of his treatise) makes it Peace. 'He left us Peace as His parting gift----to all of us, in the person of His Apostles.'
8. 3 St. Optatus throughout his work continually uses the word Pax, to express the visible unity and communion of the Faithful in the Catholic Church; of course it also denotes their invisible union with God through grace.
9. 1 Mark xiii, 37.
10. 2 John xiv, 27.
11. 3 Quae Pax... integra inviolataque. It is an interesting coincidence----but probably a coincidence only----that these last two words, applied by St. Optatus to God's Peace (by which he designates the Catholic Unity), are used in the Athanasian Creed of the Catholic Faith: 'Catholicam Fidem, quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit.'
12. 4 The reference is to Isaiah xxii, 4: 'Therefore have I said: Depart from Me: I will weep bitterly: labour not to comfort Me for the devastation of the daughter of My people.' Optatus uses the same strong figure twice in iii, 2: 'In dolore Dei amare plorantis,' and again: 'Indicat Deus lacrymas suas quas vos fecistis, quas testatur nulla posse consolatione siccari,' with a reference to the same passage in Isaiah.
13. 1 vatum is in all the MSS. It has been suggested that it should be fratrum (cf. 2 Cor. xi, 27). But cf. iii, 10: 'parietem fecisse dicuntur falsi vales.'
14. 2 nec ruinosum ac dealbatum extruerent parietem. For the full meaning of this reference to Ezekiel xiii, 10, see iii, 10.
15. 3 In Penance.
16. 4 Cf. Ez. xiii, 18. It was strictly forbidden to impose the Veil of Penance upon the innocent, thus withdrawing them from the Communion of the Body of Christ, or, under any circumstances, upon Bishops or clergy, even though they might have been guilty of such a serious sin as that of apostasy.
17. 5 nec maledicerent Deo, i.e. by the exorcisms used by the Donatists when they rebaptised Catholics or subjected them to Penance. These Donatists are said by St. Optatus profanely to rail at, or speak evil things to,the Spirit of God, Optatus develops this thought in iv, 6 where he accuses the Donatists of saying to God----dwelling in the soul of the Catholic: 'Maledicte, exi foras.' In both passages he refers to Ez. xiii, 19, where he reads 'maledicebant Mihi.' (The Vulgate has 'violabant Me.') Cf. also ii, 21: 'Quid iniquius quam exorcizare Spiritum Sanctum? '
18. 6 Ez. xiii, 18.
19. 1 Is. lxvi, 5.
20. 2 St. Augustine also bears witness (con. Gaudent. iii; con. Parm. iii, 2) that the Donatists repudiated the name of Brothers in their dealings with Catholics.
21. 3 et nolunt se dici fratres vestros. These words are interpolated by Optatus in the midst of his quotation, to make his sense clear.
22. 4 St. Optatus quotes here from the Septuagint Version; the same passage (also from the Septuagint) is quoted by Tertullian, con. Marc. iv, 16, and by St. Augustine Lib. post Coll. The Vulgate (from the Hebrew) conveys quite a different sense: dixerunt fratres vestri odientes vos et abiicientes propter Nomen Meum.
23. 5 They could not escape this, because by Baptism they had become Sons of God, and therefore brethren of all the brothers of Christ.
24. 6 Gen. ix, 22.
25. 1 denotant. Literally 'they brand us with infamy.' This is the reading of PG and gains added probability from the fact that St. Optatus twice (iv, 3; iv, 5) quotes Ps. xlix, 20 thus: 'Sedens adversus fratrem tuum denotabas.' Du Pin says of Denotant 'legunt sed male.' But we must never forget that Du Pin did not see P, and therefore looked upon denotant merely as an emendation of G, destitute of authority. The other MSS. have detrahunt.
26. 2 Ps. xlix, 19 et seq. (cf. iv, 5, where Optatus discusses this passage at length).
27. 3 Satan (cf. iv, 6).
28. 4 moechis. Optatus argues that moechi = haeretici in iv, 6. (Cf. i, 10.)
29. 5 peccata sua laudant.
30. 6 This sentence is not in PRBvb. It is only to be found in G.
31. 1 Collegium episcopate nolunt nobiscum habere commune. 'Collegium episcopate, 'the whole College of Bishops throughout the Catholic world.
32. 2 ventose. R has venenose.
33. 3 veritate cogente compellimur. We shall often find St. Optatus, as here, joining two synonyms together, (I suppose for strength of expression,) without a shade of difference in meaning.
34. 4 St. Augustine (Ep. clxvi) reminds the Donatists that their Bishops had always refused any conference with Catholics, (with whom as sinners they refused to speak,) and also (Ep. lxviii) not only that Paul had dealings with the Epicureans, but that Christ had conversed with Satan himself concerning the Law. Many years after the death of St. Optatus, the Donatists, though most unwillingly, were compelled by the Edict of the Emperor Honorius to have the great Conference with the Catholics at Carthage (A.D. 411).
35. 5 consessum.
36. 1 contra Catholicam. Tertullian (Praescr. 30) was the first Father to use Catholica as a substantive. This use ceases after the seventh century. We find it 240 times in St. Augustine.
37. 2 immo multa pro Catholica, cum Catholicus non sis.
38. 3 Cf. iii, 12: 'Veritas perspecta oculis dulcedinem suam in se habens a falsae opinionis limitibus separata est' etc.
39. 4 We have here probably a paraphrase of James iv, 11. St. Optatus (no doubt quoting by heart) must have written Petri instead of Jacobi by a lapse either of pen or of memory.
40. 1 Parmenian had argued that the Flood was a type, and Circumcision the forerunner, of Baptism. But this told in favour of Catholics and against the Donatists (who rebaptised) since there was only one Flood and only one Circumcision.
41. 2 Since Catholics admitted the validity of Baptism administered by Donatists.
42. 3 The Donatists, though not yet heretics, had by making or joining a schism, lost their right to the Sacraments of the Church.
43. 4 extraneos esse Catholicis Sacramentis = the Sacraments of the Catholic Church; cf. iii, 9 'de unitate Catholica' = the unity of the Catholic Church.
44. 1 quia peregrinus es (cf. iii, 3).
45. 2 Traditorum. The crime of Traditio was the betraying of the Sacred Books and Vessels under the stress of persecution. I have throughout translated Traditores 'Betrayers' and Traditio 'Betrayal.'
46. 3 de oleo et sacrificio peccatoris. Oleum is here used for the Sacraments, since Unction has from very early times been used in Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Order (cf. note 3, p. 109) and the Last Anointing. The reference is to Ps. cxl, 5: 'Oleum autem peccatoris non impinguet caput Meum.' (Cf. iv, 7, etc.)
47. 4 singularem. Cf. Singulare Baptisma (iii, 2; v, 1), Singulare Sacramentum (i, 11), Singularis Cathedra (ii, 2), and Res singularis (bis) (v, 10).
48. 5 Cf. ii, 10.
49. 1 sc. Baptismatis. (Cf. v, 4: 'Apostolorum, quibus leges baptismatis dedit,' and 'certo tempore dedit leges baptismatis Filius Dei.')
50. 2 sc. the Oneness of Baptism.
51. 3 The crafty argument of the Donatists was this: 'There is only one Baptism, it is true, but the right to baptise is lost by the crime of 'Traditio'----and the Catholics were Traditores. Therefore Baptism administered by Catholics was no Baptism. It was 'unlawful,' null and void from the beginning.
52. 4 emendamus. Literally correct, sc. by rebaptising.
53. 1 This is the enunciation of the true Catholic principle. Whether Peter baptises, or John, or James, or Judas Iscariot, it is truly Christ who baptises. (Cf. S. Aug. Tract. vi in Joannem: 'Nam si pro diversitate meritorum Baptisma sanctum est, quia diversa sunt merita, diversa erunt baptismata; et tanto quisque aliquid melius putatur accipere, quanto a meliore videtur accepisse.')
54. 2 operarii Unitatis. St. Optatus uses this phrase in very many places. Ziwsa says that it = administri Unitatis (officers or servants of Unity). I think, however, that it also carries with it the idea that these 'workmen' (Leontius, Macarius, Paulus, Taurinus and others of whom we shall hear so often in the course of this work----iii, i, 3, etc.) achieved the task at which they laboured, no doubt, in an official capacity. Operari est opus facere (cf. note 3, p. 30). So I have translated it throughout simply makers.
55. 1 The public records of each city, if searched, would show in which of these any persons had been guilty of the crime of Traditio, the names of the offenders, and whatever offices they might have held.
56. 2 St. Optatus thinks it well to deal first with the quaestio facti. Having done this (in Book I), he will come secondly (in Book II) to the quaestio iuris.
57. 3 oleum. (Cf. note 3, p. 11.)
58. 4 male.
59. 1 nec sic probabiliter dixeras.
60. 2 quae nullum videbatur admisisse peccatum = quae nullum admittebat peccatum. This pleonastic use of videor is very common in Optatus.
61. 3 addidisti et Iordanis diluvio demersam.
62. 1 St. Jerome tells us that Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau, (who was martyred under Diocletian,) published many writings. His notes on the Apocalypse and a fragment on the Creation are extant.
63. 2 urbico. Cf. 'urbica commoratio' (ii, 4), 'in Urbe' (i, 27). Zephyrinus was Pope cir. 201-218.
64. 3 et aliis adsertoribus Ecclesiae Catholicae. It may, perhaps, at first sight seem somewhat strange that St. Optatus should mention Tertullian amongst 'the champions of the Catholic Church'; yet, before his apostasy to Montanism, no one ever defended the Catholic Faith with more zeal, energy and ability than the great Tertullian.
Erratum Page 17, note 1, line 9, for v, 13 read v, 3.
65. 1 Mr. Sparrow Simpson, professing to paraphrase St. Optatus, writes as follows: 'Plainly these Donatists are schismatics. Although they are not in the Catholic Church, yet they are in possession of the same two Sacraments as the Catholics. They are not heretics. Heretics could not be in possession of true Sacraments, so Optatus teaches.' St. Optatus teaches (1) that Baptism in the Name of the Trinity is valid (v, 3); (2) that Baptism by heretics who falsified the Creed (and consequently the Baptismal Formula) is 'varium et falsum' (i, 12; cf. v, 13); (3) that certain heretics of this character, whom he specifies, 'have not the Sacraments,' also that they are 'separated from Catholic Sacraments' (i, 10); (4) that heretics in general are without 'Sacramenta legalia' (id.), and 'are strangers to the Sacraments of the Catholic Church' (i, 5). This exhausts the teaching of Optatus on this subject: Mr. Sparrow Simpson would himself call Nestorians and Eutychians heretics; he would say rightly that though they possess true Sacraments, they cannot use them lawfully; Mr. Sparrow Simpson allows himself to slip in the word two before Sacraments. St. Optatus nowhere writes of 'two' or of 'the same two Sacraments.' (St. Augustine and the African Church Divisions, by the Rev. W. S. Sparrow Simpson, B.D., p. 44.)
66. 2 If Parmenian had been in good faith, he would have confined himself to dealing with his living quarrel with Catholics. He was merely beating the air by arguing with dead heretics, none of whom were to be found at the time in Africa. All this was a virtual admission of the weakness of his cause, and a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
67. 1 dixisti.
68. 2 Dotes. Parmenian had maintained that there were six Notes or Endowments of the Church: Cathedra, Angelus, Spiritus, Fons, Sigillum and Umbilicus. St. Optatus recognises them all, except the last, and discourses on them in his second Book. (Cf. note 3, p. 64.)
69. 3 et rede dixisti.
70. 4 scimus enim haereticorum ecclesias singulorum, prostitutas, nullis legalibus Sacramentis, et sine iure honesti matrimonii esse. (Ziwsa has 'prostitutas, i.q. adulteras.') The whole analogy is from valid marriage, in contrast with, and opposed to, an irregular union. Cf. iv, 8: 'de haereticis apud quos sunt sacramentorum falsa connubia'; iv, 6: 'haereticos dicit moechos et moechas Ecclesias illorum.' The True Church is the only Bride of Christ, who is 'the Bridegroom of One Church.'
71. 5 qui est Sponsus Unius Ecclesiae.
72. 6 non necessarias. Cf. iii, 1: 'Basilicas fecerunt non necessarias' (where see note 3, p. 121).
73. 7 Canticles vi, 8.
74. 8 ceterae apud haereticos putantur esse sed non sunt.
75. 1 eandem.
76. 2 eandem (so PGb) hortum conclusum. RBv read here eundem. This reading is----as I venture to think somewhat strangely----followed by Ziwsa. Du Pin has eandem and omits any reference to the variant.
77. 3 Canticles iv, 12.
78. 4 Ut haeretici omnes neque claves habeant, quas solus Petrus accepit. These are no doubt Parmenian's own words, a quotation from his book. They depend not upon what immediately precedes them, but upon dixisti... et recte dixisti, and are in the text adopted and endorsed by St. Optatus. This is made clear in i, 12: 'Bene revocasti claves ad Petrum.' It is hardly necessary to say that Peter received the Keys in the name of the Church.
79. 5 This is exceedingly obscure, and means of illustrating it from other writings of the Fathers are so scanty as to be practically nonexistent. What is meant by the Ring? Albaspinaeus understands it of Absolution, and quotes a passage, which he claims to be relevant, from Tertullian (De Pudicitia). Casaubon will not have this at all. He understands it, though with hesitation, of the Ring with which, at certain fixed periods of the year, the baptisteries were sealed. Du Pin understands it either of baptism, for which he also quotes from Tertullian (De Poenitentia), or of the Creed. For the last interpretation Optatus himself may perhaps be quoted. He writes (ii, 8): 'Sigillum integrum (id est Symbolum Catholicum) non habentes ad fontem verum aperire non possunt,' and (i, 12): 'Bene subdixisti anulum iis, quibus aperire non licet ad fontem.' If, as is at least, highly probable, anulus = sigillum, this settles the question. (Cf. Aug. in Ioan. lxxx, 2: 'Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.' The Baptismal Formula is as it were the compendium of the Creed.)
80. 6 Du Pin understands the Fountain to be the Catholic Faith. More probabiy, however, it signifies the Baptismal Font, where that Faith was professed. (Cf. Note 3; p. 64, and Note 1, p. 84.)
81. 7 The reference is to Canticles iv, 12: 'My spouse is a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up.' We search, however, in vain for any reference to the Mystic Ring, with which it is said by Optatus that 'we read that the Fountain has been sealed.'
82. 1 arbusculas (cf. i, 12; ii, 11).
83. 2 Caecilian was the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, whose consecration----as we shall soon see----was the occasion of the beginning of the Schism.
84. 3 avo tuo. The line of the first Donatist Bishops of Carthage was Majorinus, Donatus, Parmenian.
85. 4 Cathedra Petri. The manner in which St. Optatus goes first to the See of Peter and only in the second place to the local See of Carthage, in order to prove that the Donatists were in schism, is a fact of the greatest significance. It is quite clear that, in the eyes of Optatus, any bishop out of communion with the See of Rome was ipso facto schismatic. Otherwise, the reference to the Chair of Peter in this connection is utterly meaningless and unintelligible. Moreover, it is evident that Optatus expects the Donatists immediately to recognise the force of this argument. Without hesitation he appeals to them as follows: Cum haec ita gesta esse manifestissime constet. Now the facts which are here stated to be 'most clearly certain' are that Caecilian did not desert either the Apostolic See of Peter or the local See of Cyprian, and that consequently Majorinus, his rival, though consecrated by an influential party to the See of Carthage, 'began with himself.' Parmenian would no doubt have angrily denied that Majorinus was out of communion with the See of Cyprian; he could not possibly deny that Majorinus was out of communion with the See of Peter. This, in the eyes of Optatus, was decisive.
86. 1 In Cathedra Petri vel Cypriani. Cf. ii, 4: 'In Cathedra Petri quam nescio si vel oculis novit [Macrobius].' For the distinction between the Chair of Peter and that of Cyprian, cf. Augustine (II. De Baptismo cont. Donat. i, 2): 'Et si distat Cathedrarum gratia, una est tamen Martyrum gloria [Petri et Cypriani].'
87. 2 Majorinus was the first Donatist bishop. He was, however, merely a figurehead, whose personality was lost very early in that of his successor, Donatus the Great, the immediate predecessor of Parmenian.
88. 3 originem.
89. 4 cumula illa. RBv read cum illa.
90. 5 in falso baptismate. G omits in.
91. 6 subplantator.
92. 1 Cf. i, 12; ii, 20.
93. 2 quia falsaverunt Symbolum. G reads qui for quia. Heretics who falsified the Creed would also falsify the Baptismal formula. Consequently, Baptism conferred by them would be invalid, since they did not baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. (Cf. note i, p. 17.) Mr. Sparrow Simpson writes (op. cit. p.44): 'Heresy is surrender of the Creed,' and in a footnote gives 'qui falsaverunt Symbolum.' Heresy, according to Optatus, is something worse even than 'surrender.' It is 'falsification,' the substitution of false teaching for true. And so has it ever been with heretics in every age. Luther, for example, was not content with 'surrendering' the doctrines of the supreme authority of the Church in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, and of salvation through 'Faith working by Charity.' He 'falsified' them, substituting the doctrines of 'Private Judgement,' and of 'Justification by Faith only.'
94. 3 This was said by Marcion (cf. iv, 5; v, 3)----also by Cerdon.
95. 4 With confusion of Personality (cf. iv, 5, note on Praxeas, note 2, p. 190).
96. 5 Valentinus (cf. iv, 5; 8) and the other Docetae.
97. 6 a Sacramentis Catholicis alieni esse noscuntur. Cf. note 4, p. 10, and note 1, p. 17.
98. 1 quae sit Sancta Ecclesia.
99. 2 sic omnia miscuisti.
100. 3 Catholicam facit simplex et verus intellectus in lege. Harnack quotes this passage and understands by lege the two Testaments (History of Dogma, vol. v, p. 43), but states elsewhere that the word lex is used more than 100 years before the time of Optatus, of the Apostolic tradition preserved by the Roman Church, and Lex Catholica is a common expression in the documents placed by St. Optatus in his Appendix, so that the meaning of lege in this passage is not quite certain. Also it is doubtful whether in lege is the true reading here. PG have it, but Bvb give intelligere, R has intellegere. Ziwsa deserts P and prints intellegere ( = 'a true and simple understanding points out' etc.). Casaubon is inclined to reject intelligere. He evidently had not seen in lege. Du Pin, though he had not the advantage of seeing P, has the merit (I think) of printing in lege. He boldly relied on G.
101. 4 singulare ac verissimum sacramentum. Du Pin explains 'sacramentum symboli,' and Albaspinaeus 'unum symbolum, una Fidei regula.'
102. 5 novum aliquid aut aliud, i.e. as long as they remain schismatics only----until they become heretics also.
103. 1 sani et verissimi Symboli desertores. Optatus here terms heretics symboli desertores; later on (iii, 8) he will term schismatics caritatis desertores. For sani cf. vestis sana (iii, 9); lex in Deo sana fuit (vii, 1).
104. 2 corruptela malae digestionis.
105. 3 This is a quotation from Parmenian's own words in his book. (Cf. pp. 21, 22.)
106. 4 Perhaps Parmenian held the view enunciated by Tertullian (De Pud. xxi, 9), after he had fallen into heresy, that the keys had been given to Peter only, not to the Church. Perhaps he held that they had passed from Peter to the Donatist Church. The Donatists, it will be remembered, had their Antipope.
107. 5 alienos. St. Optatus here says that heretics are alieni ab hortulo et a Paradiso Dei; later (ii, 6) he uses the same word (alienum), in the same sense, of schismatics.
108. 1 i.e. the Church. Cf. (ii, 11) ecclesiam paradisum esse dixisti, in quo horto Deus plantat arbusculas. We see that St. Optatus when writing hortulo et paradiso is joining them as synonyms (cf. note 3, p. 8).
109. 2 quamvis in Catholica non sitis.
110. 3 The Ring (= the Creed) and the Fountain ( = the Font). Cf. note 6, p. 19.
111. 4 quia nobiscum vera et communia Sacramenta traxistis.
112. 5 quantum in te est, etiam vos ipsos una sententia ferire voluisti.
113. 6 duo mala et pessima. Cf. 'Scisma summum malum' (i, 21) and 'Aestimo vos non negare unitatem summum bonum esse' (iii, 4).
114. 1 Optatus refers here to the persecution under Diocletian, which began in the month of February A.D. 303, and ended in the West in 305.
115. 2 prostravit in mortem funestam. Sc. the death of the soul through apostasy.
116. 3 ministros.
117. 4 The application of the term sacerdotium to deacons cannot, I think, be found anywhere in antiquity excepting in this passage. Not many years after the death of St. Optatus, the Fathers at the Council of Carthage made the following distinction: 'When a deacon is ordained, it is the Bishop alone (without the imposition of hands of other priests) who blesses him, placing his hand upon his head, because he is consecrated, not to the sacerdotium, but to the ministry of service (ministerium).' The word sacerdos was used of either bishops or priests, episcopus being reserved for the first degree, and presbyter for the second degree, of the sacred ministry. It is very curious to read these words in the Canon Law (Dist. 31 Can. 14) 'Aliter se Orientalium traditio habet Ecclesiarum, aliter huius Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae. Nam illarum sacerdotes diaconi et subdiaconi matrimonio copulantur. Istius autem Ecclesiae vel Occidentalium nullus sacerdotum a subdiacono usque ad episcopum licentiam habet coniugium sortiendi.' As far as I can discover, this is the only instance of the word sacerdos being applied to subdeacons.
118. 5 ipsi apices et principes omnium. (P omits omnium.) The Episcopate is the apex of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. From the point of view of the Sacrament of Order, the Bishop of Beneventum is the equal of the Bishop of Rome.
119. 1 aliqui Episcopi illius temporis. RBvb read illis temporibus.
120. 2 instrumenta. This word is used by Tertullian and others for a codex containing several books. Thus Instrumentum Ioannis ----a collection of St. John's Epistles. Novum Instrumentum = the New Testament.
121. 3 homicida.
122. 4 Mileum, also called Milevis, the town where St. Optatus was Bishop.
123. 5 ad consessum suorum procedere trepidavit. Cf. 'consessum vitant' (i, 4). Suorum may mean his Brother Bishops, in which case consessum should be here translated a Synod. RBGv read consensum, but this is manifestly a mistake; it is corrected in the margin of G.
124. 1 die iii Iduum Maiarum. St. Augustine tells us that the official Acts of the Council of Cirta had iv Nonas Martii. Du Pin proves that the true date was in Nonas Martii. The year was a.d. 305. These Bishops met to choose and consecrate a successor to Paulus, who had behaved so badly during the persecution under Diocletian two years previously (cf. Appendix, p. 353). Apparently Paulus had died in the interval (cf. S. Aug. c. Cresc. iii, 27-30).
125. 2 At this period the three chief governmental divisions of Africa were (1) 'The Proconsular' or Africa proper, with Carthage for its capital, (2) Numidia, (3) Mauritania. Cirta, soon to be refounded under the name of Constantine, which it still retains, was the capital of Numidia. The ecclesiastical division into provinces was roughly, but not exactly, coincident with the secular.
126. 3 For many references to Nundinarius, see Appendix, Gesta apud Zenophilum, pp. 347-381. Cf. Aug. con. Crescon. iii, 20; Brev. Coll. iii, 17.
127. 4 Harum plenitudinem rerum. The full evidence. Half of this appendix has unfortunately been lost. (Cf. Preface to Appendix, p. 322.) For Acts of Council of Cirta see Appendix, pp. 416-419.
128. 5 See Appendix, p. 417.
129. 6 Secundus was Primate of Numidia and President of the Council of Cirta.
130. 7 iam omnes erecti caeperant murmurare. RBvb have heretici. Casaubon, who had not seen erecti, points out that heretici is contra mentem Optati and suggests: 'haeret ei,' caeperant murmurare = 'they began to mutter "It sticks to him" '----i.e. It fits him. It belongs to him----the charge is true.' This emendation is an example of Casaubon's extraordinary ingenuity. But erecti (PG) is certainly the true reading and would no doubt have been at once accepted by Casaubon (had he known of it) on its own merits, independently of the authority given it by P. So reluctantly we have to sacrifice 'haeret ei.' Du Pin naturally takes erecti from G and observes of heretici 'criticos torsit.' But none of the critics, in his 'torture,' thought of erecti.
131. 1 ut talent caussam Deo servaret. This was the recognised expression when Bishops refused to give judgement, but remitted (or reserved) it to God.
132. 2 homicidae.
133. 1 rivulus iste maligni liquoris.
134. 2 quae convenerint caussae.
135. 3 quae fuerint operatae personae. (Cf. operarii, note 2, p. 13.)
136. 4 cuius tu haereditariam cathedram sederis.
137. 5 cum toto orbe, sc. Catholico.
138. 6 Cf. S. Cyprian. Ep. xliii.
139. 7 1 John ii, 19.
140. 1 in uno (cf. John).
141. 2 necdum vindicati. Catholics in Africa were strictly forbidden to honour with religious worship any martyrs who had not been recognised as such (id est canonised = vindicati). There were some, who in a fit of fanatical enthusiasm had surrendered voluntarily to the persecutors, thus bringing death upon themselves. Those who had been guilty of this practice, which the Church never tolerated, far from being considered martyrs, were looked upon by Catholics as disobedient and self-destroyers.
142. 1 de tyranno imperatore. These events took place in 311, when Maxentius, who had made himself Emperor in Italy in 306, had obtained possession of Africa. Under Constantine he was regularly referred to as tyrannus.
143. 2 ad palatium dirigeretur. Dirigere in late Latin = to send.
144. 3 conventus.
145. 4 He died on the way.
146. 5 operam dederunt ut absentibus Numidis. Literally 'in the absence of the Numidians.' But the point is that Botrus and Celestius chose not to invite them. This was part of what they 'arranged' (operam dederunt).
147. 1 The Bishop of Carthage was not only Metropolitan of the province of Africa Proconsularis, but also Primate of all Africa, including Numidia, Byzacium and the two Mauritanias. As the confines of Numidia came close to Carthage, it was customary for the Bishops of that province to come to Carthage for the election. The other provinces were too far off. On this occasion only the nearest Bishops of Africa Proconsularis were assembled. But the vote of the clergy and people of Carthage, approved by a number of Bishops of the province, sufficed. The absence of the Numidians did not affect the validity of the election.
148. 2 potens et factiosa femina.
149. 3 tribus convenientibus. Cf. 'quae convenerint caussae (' i, 15.)
150. 1 Scisma igitur illo tempore confusae mulieris iracundia peperit, ambitus nutrivit, avaritia roboravit. Here we find in combination the lust of the flesh----(the shameless woman)----the pride of life----(worldly ambition)----the lust of the eyes----(the love of gold)----as the three co-operating causes of the Donatist Schism. Before the mind of an English reader another sad schism will come with extraordinary vividness. History has repeated itself indeed----has shown how the anger of another shameless woman (also potens et factiosa femina, also in the end confusa), co-operating with the ambition of worldly ecclesiastics, together with the lust of the eyes and the lust of gold of a monarch, destroyed that 'parting gift of Peace' from Christ our Lord, which had reigned amongst all English Christians for more than a thousand years, and produced a Division, over which we grieve to-day. If Optatus might, without breach of charity, recall the memory of Lucilla, Majorinus, Botrus and Celestius, we too may, in like manner, without reproach, remember Anne, Cranmer, Henry and Elizabeth.
St. Augustine tells us (Ep. clxii) that a woman like Lucilla was subsequently the cause of a schism within a schism----of a later schism amongst the Donatists themselves.
151. 2 Because he was Primate of Numidia. In the African Provinces (excepting Proconsular Africa) the senior Bishop was Primate, whatever his See.
152. 3 St. Optatus does not mention the fact that Secundus had seventy Bishops in his Council. But St. Augustine (Ep. xliii, 3, 7) points out how hasty was Secundus: 'He should have had all the more fear of violating the peace of unity, on account of the greatness and fame of Carthage. If an evil started there, it would pour itself over the whole of Africa, since it was near Italy, and of great celebrity. For this very reason its Bishop had a very great position (non mediocris utique auctoritatis), nor need he pay attention to the numbers of enemies who conspired against him, when he saw himself in union, by letters of communion, both with the Roman Church, in which the princedom of the Apostolic Chair has always nourished (in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus)----and with the rest of the world----whence the Gospel came to Africa, and where he was ready to plead his cause, should his adversaries attempt to alienate those churches from him.' We may observe that here we see once again the two proofs of a position of ecclesiastical security, quite distinct, but actually inseparable, firstly to be in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, secondly to be in communion with all other Catholic Bishops throughout the world.
153. 1 ad Basilicam, ubi cum Caeciliano tota civica frequentia fuerat.
154. 2 tanquam adhuc diaconum. Caecilian here argued after this fashion: If you look upon me as still a deacon, on the ground of my ordination as priest and consecration as Bishop having been void, in consequence of Felix being a Betrayer, come and ordain me yourselves. You ought to do this, on your own principles, since you cannot deny that I was duly elected to the See. Needless to say, this was a challenge thrown out in sarcasm, which would never under any circumstances have been acted upon by Caecilian, even though it had been accepted by his adversaries. But of this he knew that there was no danger. Yet then was their opportunity, if they really had possessed any arguments against the validity of the election of Caecilian to the See of Carthage. But they could only take refuge in scurrility and insult.
155. 1 Cf. 'Qui interrogatus de filiis sororis suae, quod eos necasse diceretur' (i, 13).
156. 2 quassetur illi caput de Poenitentia. According to the ancient discipline of the Church hands were laid upon the heads of those who were admitted to Penance, but it was strictly forbidden to lay hands thus upon the clergy, who had received the imposition of hands in Ordination (cf. ii, 24 and Augustine Ep. 1). So now the ribald Bishop is represented as saying: 'Let him come, we will lay hands on him. We will box his ears for him.'
157. 3 latronibus. Latro in Optatus seems always to signify a murderer. (Cf. ii, 19; ii, 21; iii, 5; iii, 10 Latronem aut furem; v, 10, also Tertullian, De Pudicitia:'Omne latrocinium extra silvam homicidium est.')
158. 4 erat altare loco suo. (Altare, sc. Episcopi.) African altars appear to have been in the fourth century in general wooden and moveable (for patterns see Dom Cabrol's Dictionnaire Archéologique, and Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities). 'In its own place '----i.e. in the Cathedral where the Catholic people had been accustomed for generations to see their Bishop say Mass. Optatus gives three visible signs, recognised by all the Faithful, showing that Caecilian was the acknowledged Bishop of Carthage. He was in possession of (a) the Cathedral Church (Basilica), (b) the Episcopal Chair (Cathedra episcopalis), (c) the Altar of his predecessors in the See.
159. 1 pacifici. Bishops when Unity (Pax) prevailed. Cf. vii, 5: 'dum docerent pacem, adhuc pacifici vocabantur... dividendo Ecclesiam noluerunt esse pacifici.'
160. 2 Carpophorius. This name is found only in PG.
161. 3 Sic exilum est foras. In this way Majorinus and his party went forth from the Church.
162. 4 qui lector in diaconio Caeciliani fuerat.
163. 5 exisse de Ecclesia.
164. 6 multorum flagitiorum venis. Cf. 'ne male fecundae vena periret aquae.' (Ov. Trist.)
165. 7 de fonte... unum traditionis convicium derivandum esse.
166. 1 litter as.
167. 2 livore. RB have liliore, Cochlaeus conjectures suo ore.
168. 3 This letter has been lost (cf. Appendix, p. 322).
169. 4 praecesserunt se epistulis suis.
170. 5 peccaverant, sc. had been guilty of Betrayal.
171. 6 ingens flagitium scismatis.
172. 1 in titulo scismatis.
173. 2 exterminatis unitatem. This expression is repeated in vii, 5.
174. 3 Matt. xv, 4; Luke vii, 39.
175. 4 scisma summum malum esse et vos negare minime poteritis (cf. i, 13). St. Augustine writes (con. Ep. Parmen. i, 4): 'sacrilegium scismatis quod omnia scelera supergreditur '; and (id. ii, 8): 'Quod autem vos a totius orbis communione separatos videmus ----quod scelus et maximum et manifestum est.' (Cf. note 4, p. 40.)
176. 5 perditos magistros vestros. Perditos ---- abandoned, lost to all sense of shame. Cf. 'perditorum multitudinem' (vi, 1).
177. 1 non ibis post.
178. 2 in capitibus mandatorum. Cf. Romans xiii, 9, where all the sins against our neighbour are summed up as sins against the command to love one's neighbour as oneself. Schism is preeminently a sin against the neighbour from whom the schismatic separates himself.
179. 3 parricidiunt est principale delictum.
180. 4 Cf. S. Aug. (De Baptis. con. Donat. i, 8): 'Itaque illi quos baptizant sanant a vulnere idololatriae, gravius feriunt vulnere scismatis. Idololatras enim in populo Dei gladius interemit, scismaticos autem terrae hiatus absorbuit.' No one can say that the Fathers of the Church underestimated the guilt of schism! It must always be borne in mind that, according to the constant teaching of the Fathers, sin in the Christian, a member of the Body of Christ, is before God far more heinous than sin in the unbaptised. (See St. Thomas, 1, 2, qu. cvi, art. 2 ad. 2; 2, 2, qu. x, art. 3 ad. 3.)
181. 1 Cf. iii, 11; v, 3.
182. 2 in parricidam.
183. 1 exemplorum posuit formam.
184. 2 confibulent. RBG have confabulent, vb confabulentur. Casaubon conjectures confibulentur. Confibulare is a Low Latin word for to buckle to (from Fibula)----literally here, 'buckle on to the truth.'
185. 3 si nota est.
186. 1 precibus rogaverunt, quarum exemplum infrascriptum est. Cf. S. Aug. Ep. lii, 5; lxxvi, 2.
187. 2 Constantine Chlorus had the command of Gaul as Caesar, and, being almost a Christian, did not put the decrees of persecution in force.
188. 3 et ceteris Episcopis partis Donati. Mgr. Duchesne (Le Dossier du Donatisme, p. 25) (who takes for granted the existence of Donatus, Bishop of Black Huts, see note 3, p. 45) thinks that either these words did not belong to the original document and were added by Optatus as a resume of the signatures, or that Optatus deliberately ('se soit cru permis d'y substituer') changed the word Maiorini to Donati, since by the time when Optatus wrote, pars Donati had become the usual and recognised designation of the Donatist party. Du Pin had already made the same suggestion ('ipse Optatus nomen notius substituit in locum antiqui '). But neither Du Pin nor Duchesne can have adverted to the fact that Optatus later on (iii, 3) founds an argument in two separate passages upon the use which he supposed the Donatist clerics to have made of the expression partis Donati in this petition. The difficulty concerning the employment of these words at this period is twofold. (1) The party could hardly have been yet termed pars Donati. We do not hear of any Donatus as in any sense their leader until the Synod under Miltiades. (2) We read in the Gesta Coll. Carthag. (diei iii, ccxxx) that two libelli were sent to Constantine, the first of which was endorsed 'Libellus Ecclesiae Catholicae criminum Caeciliani traditus a parte Maiorini' (cf. also S. Aug. Ep. lxxxviii). For those who believe that Majorinus was dead and Donatus was Bishop of Carthage before the Synod under Miltiades commenced (see note 3, p. 45) the objection raised against the words Partis Donati would at once vanish, were it not for the second difficulty----the difficulty arising from the fact that the Gesta Collationis Carthagiensis and the testimony of St. Augustine prove beyond dispute that this document was presented ex parte Maiorini. 'Quinto loco haec acta sunt. Recitatae sunt duae relationes... una quae ostendit Maiores Donatistarum id est de parte Maiorini' (Brev. coll. diei tert. xii). Balduinus falls back on the ingenious hypothesis that the first document was endorsed de parte Maiorini, the second de parte Donati. But unfortunately for this view St. Augustine (id.) gives a brief summary of this second document, which shows that it was by no means identical with that set out by St. Optatus. After everything has been weighed, we can only suppose either that (as seems to me most probable) the copy (exemplum) seen by Optatus really contained the words partis Donati, or that he wrote from memory and through a slip (not unnatural under the circumstances of his time and place) wrote Donati when, if his memory had not played him tricks, or rather if he had scrutinised his original more carefully, he would have written Maiorini. We know that on several occasions he made similar slips when quoting from Holy Scripture.
Dom John Chapman writes as follows: (Donatus the Great and Donatus of Casae Nigrae, Rev. Bénédictine, Janvier 1909): 'The Bishops who appealed to Constantine were Lucian, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius and others. There is no Donatus and no Majorinus among the five whose names are preserved. St. Optatus calls them proleptically the Pars Donati, but the Proconsul in his letter to the Emperor called them the Pars Maiorini [see Appendix, p. 421]. As the name of Majorinus does not occur in the first place, he may have just died, and Donatus will have taken his place before the ten accusers started for Rome. The Council was in that case a trial of the two claimants Donatus and Caecilian. The one was acquitted, the other condemned, This is a natural sequence.'
189. 1 See Appendix, p. 396.
These words were written by Constantine after the Council of Arles. Optatus (who never mentions and probably knew nothing of that Council, cf. Appendix, p. 323) inserts them here in error.
190. 1 Constantino quater et Licinio ter consulibus. St. Augustine, however, writes, (post Coll. xxxiii): 'Melchiades iudicavit Constantino ter et Licinio iterum consulibus.'
191. 2 Often called Melchiades, Pope from 311 to 314.
192. 3 in Donatum. Was this Donatus the Great, or another Donatus, Bishop of Black Huts (de Casis Nigris) in Numidia? It is impossible to answer this question with absolute certainty. On the one hand it was assumed by Optatus, Augustine and Catholic Apologists generally until the Conference in 411 that the Donatus condemned by Pope Miltiades was Donatus the Great, the successor of Majorinus as schismatic bishop of Carthage. The authority of St. Optatus----so at least it seems to me----should go far to settle the controversy, since it is difficult to understand how he could well have confused two distinct Bishops of the same name one with another. Optatus lived, one would think, too near the events which he was chronicling to have made a mistake of this character. On the other hand when the Donatists protested at the Conference of Carthage that the Donatus condemned at Rome was not their protagonist, 'he who was and still is their chief' (Gesta Coll. Carthag. diei iii, xxxii), but another Donatus ('alium Casae,' Gesta Coll. Carthag. dxxxix, dxl), the Catholics at once admitted that Donatus of Casa was clearly designated in the Acts of Miltiades. St. Augustine bears witness to this fact, stating that the Catholics granted (concedebant) the Donatist contention that 'it was not Donatus the Great but Donatus of Casa who pleaded in the Court of Melchiades against Caecilian' (Brev. coll. diei iii, xx). Moreover Augustine writes as follows (Retract. xxi):'In saying that the Donatus whose letter I was answering had asked the Emperor to appoint judges from across the seas between him and Caecilian I was mistaken, for it was not he but another Donatus (who however belonged to the same schism) that will be found more probably to have done this. He was not the Donatist Bishop of Carthage, but of Black Huts, and was the first to make the wicked schism at Carthage.' Until recently this view reigned practically undisputed. Only Albaspinaeus was found to challenge the authority of St. Augustine by conjecturing that Majorinus, of whom we never hear in connection with the Lateran Synod, was dead at the time (this is held to be certain by Dom John Chapman) and that Donatus of Black Huts had been elected Bishop in his place. But the very existence of a Donatus who was ever Bishop of Black Huts has been lately called in question, in the first place by Fr. Chapman, and subsequently by others. Thus Mr. Sparrow Simpson writes (St. Augustine and African Church Divisions, p. 31), referring to Monceaux (Revue de l'Histoire de Religion): 'it has been recently pointed out that the former personage [Donatus of Black Huts] is a highly problematical figure. He appears at the Lateran Synod. While he is called Bishop of Black Huts in Numidia, he is never heard of as residing in his own diocese, but at Carthage. After the Lateran Synod he disappears and is replaced by a Donatus who holds precisely the same position over the party.' The theory of Albaspinaeus, if adopted, would remove these difficulties, but it involves the supposition that there were two Bishops of Carthage, immediately following one another and each named Donatus. For this supposition there is not a scrap of evidence. Moreover such a translation from one See to another as is here supposed would have been directly opposed to the Canons in force at the time, and if it had been effected would certainly have been one of the staple charges against the Donatists. But of this there is not a trace in history. Fr. Chapman solves the whole difficulty with the simplicity of genius by a reasoned argument (La Revue Bénédictine, Janvier 1909) directed to show that Casae Nigrae was not the See, but the birthplace, of the Great Donatus. In the same article he suggests a most interesting explanation of the surprising readiness with which the Catholics at the Conference of Carthage admitted the Donatist contention that their eponymous champion had not been condemned at Rome. However after all has been said, the whole of this matter will remain at least for some minds hidden in obscurity, and it is difficult to see from what quarter we may look for further light. Meanwhile we must all agree with Fr. Chapman that 'the importation of a Bishop of Casae Nigrae only brings confusion into [what would otherwise be] a plain tale.' I myself think that, were Professor Ziwsa still alive, he would gladly bow to Fr. Chapman's authority and arguments and remove the name of Donatus Casensis (at least as a person distinct from Donatus Carthaginis) from the index to any subsequent edition of his Optatus.
193. 1 quod ab Ecclesia alienum est.
194. 2 etiam Miltiadis sententia, qua iudicium clausum est his verbis. These words of St. Optatus remind us of St. Augustine's famous statement (Serm. cxxxi, 10): 'Already two councils have been sent to the Apostolic See concerning this matter [Pelagianism], and thence have come rescripts. The case is concluded (caussa finita est). Would that the error might soon cease also.' St. Augustine's account of the matter with which St. Optatus is concerned in the text is well worth reading, since he (like St. Optatus) had documents which have not come down to us: 'Will you urge that Melchiades, Bishop of the Roman Church, with his colleagues across the seas was not right in arrogating for his own judgement (non debuit... sibi usurpare iudicium) a case which had been concluded by seventy African Bishops under the presidency of the primate of Tigisis? But what if it was not he who arrogated it? It was, in fact, because he had been requested, that the Emperor sent Bishops to sit with him, and to decide what they considered to be just with regard to the whole case. This we prove both by the petition of the Donatists and by the Emperor's own words; for you will remember that both these documents were read to you, and you have now permission to inspect them and copy them out' (Ep. xliii, 5, 14). (See Appendix for the Emperor's letters.) St. Augustine is not, of course, suggesting that the Pope had no right to judge the affair, any more than he is implying that the Emperor had a right to appoint judges. The argument is strictly ad hominem. The Donatists could not complain that Melchiades had no right to reverse the judgement of seventy Numidian Bishops, since they had themselves appealed to the Emperor to appoint Bishops to judge the matter anew. They admitted, therefore, that the Numidian judgement was not irreformable. Further on in the same letter St. Augustine continues: 'And yet what a final sentence that was which the blessed Melchiades himself pronounced, how innocent, how honest, how far-sighted and peace-loving, in that he did not venture to remove from their position in the episcopal fellowship those colleagues against whom nothing had been proved, whilst he laid the chief blame upon Donatus alone (whom he had discovered to be the author of all the evil), but gave the free option of recovering communion to the rest, since he was ready to issue letters of communion even to those who were known to have been ordained by Majorinus, in such wise that, wherever, on account of the dissension between the two parties, there were two rival Bishops, the one who had been first ordained should be confirmed in his see, and the other should be provided with another diocese. O admirable man, O son of Christian peace, and father of the Christian people' (Ep. xiii, 5. 16). We may observe that from this time forward the Popes issued their decretal letters from a small council of Bishops.
195. 1 Ziwsa remarks that it is not known from what source St. Optatus derived this summary of the judgement of Pope Melchiades.
196. 2 Of the Pope.
197. 3 Constantine wrote these words in answer to the appeal of the Donatists after the Council of Arles. They are to be found in the same document from which Optatus has already quoted in chapter xxiii (Appendix, p. 397).
198. 4 petiit, ut ei reverti licuisset et nec ad Carthaginem accederet (PG). Ziwsa, however, prints asterisks * * * between licuisset and ad Carthaginem and suggests that Ad ea mandatum, ne should be inserted after licuisset. RBv have revertenti ad Carthaginem contingeret, which cannot be translated. The version read at the Conference at Carthage in 411 was the same as that of PG without the nec. 'Donatus asked that he might return and go to Carthage.' It was this version which afforded the Donatists their opportunity of pretending that Constantine had given Donatus leave to go to Carthage and kept Caecilian at Brescia, but we shall see immediately that when Caecilian heard that Donatus had gone to Carthage, he left Brescia and went there himself. It is this fact that makes it probable either that the nec in PG was in the original text of Optatus, or that some such emendation as that of Ziwsa must be adopted.
199. 1 suffragatore.
200. 2 Cf. S. Aug. Brev. coll. xx, 38.
201. 3 ut remotis duobus unum ordinarent RBvb. P has ut remotis binis singulos ordinarent. Du Pin has removed the sentence from his text, (as I think,) quite unwarrantably in the face of the MSS. authority.
202. 4 ubi esset Catholica.
203. 5 ut dicereni illam esse Catholicam, quae esset in toto orbe terrarum diffusa. This definition is really an etymological one; it became famous in the Donatist controversy, and is frequently cited and referred to by St. Augustine.
(a) ἡ καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία or Ecclesia Calholica almost always means, in the Fathers, the Church militant on earth at the time when they wrote. Thus even at the beginning of the second century the word Catholic is used by St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyrn. 8) for the true Church throughout the world, in contrast with heretical sects. It is also found four times in The Letter of the Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom of the holy Polycarp: Τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας (ad init.); Τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας (viii, xix); Τῆς ἐν Σμύρνῃ καθολικῆς Ἐκκλεσίας.
(b) The word 'Church' is sometimes used in another sense to denote the Church on earth in all times and places, and the epithet Catholic is still strictly in place. For example, later in the second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote as follows (Strom. VII, xvii, 106, 107):----'It needs no long discourse to prove that the merely human assemblies which they have instituted were later in time than the Catholic Church.... We say then that the ancient and Catholic Church stands alone... gathering together into the unity of the One Faith, built upon the fitting covenants or rather upon the one Covenant given at different times, all those who have been already therein enrolled' etc.
(c) The Church is also said to include not only her children on earth, but also the holy dead. Thus St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei xx, 9): 'Neither are the souls of the holy dead separated from the Church, which even now is the Kingdom of Christ.' In this most comprehensive sense the epithet Catholic is rarely (if ever) applied to the word 'Church.' Should any case perchance exist where a Father so employs the word Catholic, it would be 'less properly' (as opposed to the general patristic usage)----in the sense that the Blessed souls in Heaven and in Purgatory belonged to the Catholic Church when they were living on earth. It seems well to note this, because there has sometimes been confusion on the point amongst Non-Catholic writers. For example Dr. Darwell Stone (The Christian Church p. 214) philosophises concerning 'two ideas of the unity of the Church which St. Augustine failed to reconcile,' and boldly writes as follows: 'that notion of the nature and unity of the Church which may be illustrated from Clement of Alexandria and from Origen, but also from St. Augustine, which lays stress on the union of the church militant with the departed and with those yet unborn, and which finds points of contact amongst living Christians in the unseen realities, is not really allowed for in the Roman Catholic doctrine.' Of course it is pure imagination to fancy that there were two opposing views in the minds of the Fathers, striving for the mastery, which 'Augustine failed to reconcile,' but which eventually emerged the one in 'Ultramontanism,' the other in some such system as Anglicanism. But there are two ways of looking at the Church, as we regard it from different aspects. We find both of these, as we should naturally expect, in the Fathers. There is the ordinary patristic view, with which St. Optatus for example makes us so familiar, of one Body upon earth, not merely local, but scattered throughout the world, with its members all joined together, one with each other, in an actual, visible, external communion. (This on Anglican theories is admittedly not a necessity, but only a desirable dream-picture.) There is also, no doubt, to be found in the Fathers a conception of the Church as an ideal unity of all the redeemed on earth and in heaven, united by the mystical indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But far from these being mutually exclusive views between which the Fathers oscillate, they are two different entities, each of which represents a great reality, not merely 'allowed for,' but much more----apprehended by 'the Roman Catholic 'as keenly now as in any age of the Church's history. The latter of these, however, is not what the Fathers mean by 'the Catholic Church,' but is the whole Church of the Redeemed----whose 'names are written in heaven '----now in fieri, only to be realised at the Last Day. The former is the Church militant, the Catholic Church, diffused throughout the world (as its name implies) and nowhere else. It is of this visible Catholic Church that the Fathers predicate unity, not merely as a quality, but as an essential quality, and a visible 'note' or characteristic by which (in conjunction with her existence everywhere, or her Catholicity) she is to be instantly recognised. This is the meaning of the definition of Eunomius and Olimpius (as given by St. Optatus), which cut at the root of the Donatist question. On the one side stood a great number of African bishops. On the other side was Caecilian with (probably) but few colleagues in Africa, but in communion with all the rest of the Catholic world. So seventy African Bishops, even with the Primate Secundus, were of no importance, for over against them was 'the Catholic Church.' It is exactly the same touchstone as St. Cyril of Jerusalem had given when he told his hearers to ask in every city not for the kuriakh& (the house of God, or Church), but for 'the Catholic Church,'----the same touchstone that St. Pacian gave against the Novatians, when he said 'Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.' The visible unity of one visible Church throughout the world is the presupposition and the teaching of all the Fathers. This is seen perhaps with special clearness in this Donatist controversy. But at all times and everywhere the patristic conception of the Church and of Schism is, apart from this presupposition, wholly unintelligible.
(d) There is yet another distinction made by St. Augustine against the Donatists between the Catholic Church on earth, in which good and evil men are living together, and the Church of the Saints after the General Judgement. It is, he writes, One Holy Church, but after a different fashion (aliter). The state of the Church now was typified by the miraculous draught of fishes before the Resurrection when the nets were cast on the left hand as well as on the right----and were broken; the state of the Church hereafter by the draught after the Resurrection, when the nets were cast only on the right side----and remained unbroken. (Cf. Brev. Coll. iii, 9, 10.)
204. 1 St. Augustine (con. Epist. Parmen. iii, 3) summed up the decision of Eunomius and Olimpius in the celebrated words: 'Quapropter securus iudicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum in quacunque parte orbis terrarum.' 'Wherefore the [Catholic] world judges without anxiety that they are not good who in any part of the world separate themselves from the [Catholic] world.' (Cf. note 6, p. 63.)
205. 1 These Acts have unfortunately been lost (cf. Appendix, p. 321). St. Augustine writes (Brev. coll. xii, 24): 'Atque inde ex ordine coepit etiam episcopale iudicium Melchiadis Romani Episcopi et aliorum cum illo Gallorum et Italorum Episcoporum in eadem Urbe Roma factum, cuius iudicii prima parte, id est gestis primae diei recitatis, ubi accusatores Caeciliani, qui missi fuerant, negaverunt se habere quod in eum dicerent; ubi etiam Donatus a Casis Nigris in praesenti convictus est, adhuc diacono Caeciliano [that is in the days of Mensurius, when Donatus the Great was probably, like Caecilian, still a deacon, and far more likely to cause trouble at Carthage than any Bishop of Casae Nigrae in Numidia] scisma fecisse Carthagine: de Carthaginis enim scismate exorta est adversus Ecclesiam pars Donati.' From this we learn that the Acts of the first session of the Lateran Synod were read at the Conference of 411, but here once more we have to deplore the loss of the full minutes of the latter part of the proceedings.
206. 1 See Appendix, p. 327. We know that Aelianus conducted the inquiry; we know also from St. Augustine (Ep. lxxxviii; con. Cresc. iii, 81) that Constantine wrote a letter to Probianus, the successor of Aelianus. But Duchesne writes (p. 12) that Aelianus in the text is probably a mistake for Aelius Paulinus, the Vicar of Africa, 'qui se mit en mouvement pour exécuter l'ordre impérial.'
207. 2 Called Saturninus by St. Augustine, Ep. lxxxviii. (Cf. p. 426, note 1.)
208. 3 nihil tale inventum est, quod vitam Felicis Episcopi sordidare potuisset P. For sordidare RBGv have ordinare, which evidently must be wrong. Accordingly Cochlaeus conjectured deordinare, and Du Pin in vita Felicis Episcopi, propter quod ordinare non potuisset. If Du Pin had seen P, he would never have hazarded this guess, of which he says: 'Nos restituimus hunc locum partim ex coniectura, partim ex auctoritate MSS,' and explains that all the MSS which he had been able to consult have ordinare.
209. 1 liberum esse ab exustione strumentorum deificorum.
210. 2 revelata. B has renovata.
211. 3 innocentes et indignos criminose pulsares P (so Ziwsa). RBvb read indignos crimini copulares = 'to link with crime those who deserve it not.'
212. 1 i Tim. i, 5, 6.
213. 2 parentes.
214. 3 Cf. illam esse Catholicam, quae esset in toto orbe terrarum diffusa (i, 26).
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_02_book .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 2. pp.57-119.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 2. pp.57-119.
I. Which and where is the Catholic Church? It is spread all over the world.
II. He proves from the Cathedra Petri that the Cathedra which is the first endowment of the Church belongs to Catholics, not to Donatists.
III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome.
IV. The Donatist Bishops and their meetinghouses in Rome.
V. The Donatist Authors of Schism, Foes of Peace.
VI. The second Endowment of the Church, 'The Angelus,' or Bishop, is not with the Donatists.
VII. The third Endowment, Spiritus, the Holy Spirit, is in the Church, not with the Donatists.
VIII. Concerning the Fons, the Sigillum and the Umbilicus.
IX. The Endowments of the Church are with Catholics; not with Donatists.
X. Catholics possess the Sacraments.
XI. The Church is rightly called Paradise, but it belongs to the wide world.
XII. From the prayer of Oblation we gather that the One Church is Everywhere.
XIII. The praise bestowed upon the Church by Parmenian belongs to Catholics.
XIV. The Catholics have done nothing with cruelty.
XV. The Peace and Happiness of the Church before it was disturbed by the Donatists.
XVI. The Edict of Julian.
XVII. The madness and cruelty of the Donatists.
XVIII. The Donatists' murderous deeds.
XIX. The Eucharist was given by the Donatists to dogs. An Ampulla of Chrism was thrown away. Their other sacrileges.
XX. It is proved against the Donatists, who call themselves saints, that no man can be free from sin.
XXI. The sin of the Donatists in stripping Bishops of their dignity and submitting them to Penance.
XXII. The Impiety of the Donatists, who were accustomed to swear by their Bishops.
XXIII. The wickedness of the Donatists in scraping the heads of anointed priests.
XXIV. The wrong done by the Donatists to men of every degree and age by laying hands upon them in Penance.
[No chapter 25 is marked in the text or margin]
XXVI. Matrons, boys and virgins were compelled by the Donatists to do Penance.
BOOK THE SECOND
Which is the One True Catholic Church and Where is it to be found? The Five Endowments of the Church belong to Catholicism, not to the schism. The donatists have been guilty of shamelessly scraping the heads of Priests, and of Murders, of giving the Eucharist to Dogs, and of casting away the Holy Chrism.
I. Which and where is the Catholic Church? It is spread all over the world.
We have shown who were the Betrayers, and have pointed out the origin of the Schism in such a manner that we have almost seen it take place before our eyes.1 The difference between heresy and schism has also been explained. It is now our business to show (as we promised that we would do in the second place) which is the One Church, called by Christ His Dove and His Bride.2
The Church, then, is One, and her holiness is not measured by the pride of individuals,3 but is derived |58 from the Sacraments. It is for this reason that she alone is called by Christ His Dove and His own beloved Bride.
The Church cannot be amongst all the heretics and schismatics.4 It follows that [according to you] she must be in one place only.5
You, my brother Parmenian, have said that she is with you alone. This, I suppose, can only be because, in your pride, you strive to claim some special holiness for yourselves, so that the Church may be where it pleases you, and may not be where it pleases you not. And so, in order that she may be with you in a little piece of Africa, in a corner of one small region, is she not to be with us in another part of Africa? Is she not to be in Spain, in Gaul, in Italy, where you are not? If you maintain that she is with you only, is she not to be in Pannonia, in Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Achaia, Macedonia and in all Greece, where you are not? In order that you may be able to argue that |59 she is with you, is she not to be in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, Cilicia and in the three Syrias, and in the two Armenias, and in all Egypt and in Mesopotamia, where you are not? And is she not to be throughout innumerable islands and so many other provinces which can hardly be counted, where you are not? 6
Where in that case will be the application of the Catholic Name,7 since on this very account was the Church called Catholic, because she is in accordance with reason, and is scattered all over the world? 8 |60
For if you limit the Church just as it may please you, into a narrow corner, if you withdraw whole peoples from her communion, where will that be which the Son of God has merited, where will that be which the Father has freely granted Him, saying, in the second Psalm:
'I will give to Thee the nations for Thine inheritance; and the ends of the earth for Thy possession'? 9
To what purpose do you break so mighty a promise, so that the breadth of all the kingdoms is compressed by you into a sort of narrow prison? Why do you strive to stand in the way of so great a largesse? Why do you fight against the Saviour's Merits? Permit the Son to possess that which has been granted to Him; permit the Father to fulfil that which He has promised.
Why do you put bounds, why set limits? There is nothing in any part of the earth which has been withheld from His dominion, since the whole earth has been promised by God the Father to the Saviour. The whole earth has been granted to Him together |61 with its nations. The whole world is Christ's as His undivided possession.10 God proves this when he says:
'I will give unto Thee the nations for Thine inheritance, and for Thy possession the bounds of the earth.' 11
And in the seventy-first Psalm, it has been written of the Saviour Himself,
'He shall reign from sea to sea, and from the waters to the bounds of the world.' 12
When the Father gives, He makes no exception; you, that you may give Him one fraction, endeavour to take away the whole measure. And, still, you endeavour to persuade men that the Church is amongst you alone, taking away from Christ that which He has won----denying that God has performed His promises. What ingratitude! What folly! What presumption is yours! Christ invites you, with all others, into the company of the Heavenly Kingdom and exhorts you to be co-heirs with Him; and you strive to rob Him of the inheritance given Him by the Father, allowing Him a part of Africa and refusing Him the whole world, which the Father has bestowed upon Him.
Why do you desire to make the Holy Ghost appear a liar, who in the forty-ninth Psalm tells of the goodness of Almighty God, saying:
'The Lord, the God of Gods has spoken and has called the earth from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof'? 13 |62
Therefore the earth has been called to become flesh.14 And, as it has been written, so has it been done, and the earth owes praises to its Creator.
Once more this is mentioned, where the Holy Spirit exhorts us in the hundred and twelfth Psalm with the words:
'The Name of the Lord must be praised from the rising of the sun even to its going down.' 15
And again, in the ninety-fifth Psalm:
'Sing ye to the Lord a new song.' 16
If this were the only verse, you might say that the Holy Ghost had exhorted you alone. But that He might show that this has been said not to you alone, but to the Church which is everywhere, He continued:
'Sing to the Lord, all the earth; declare amongst the nations His glory, His wonderful works amongst all peoples.' 17
He said:
'Declare amongst the nations.' 18
He did not say, 'in a small part of Africa, where you are'; He did say 'Declare amongst all peoples.' 19
He who said 'all peoples' excepted no man. Yet |63 you are proud to be alone and separated from 'all peoples,' though to them this command was given; and you maintain that you, who are not in any part of the whole,20 are yet yourselves alone the whole.
He has said:
'The name of the Lord must be praised,' and 'by all the earth from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof.' 21
Can then the Pagans, who are outside the covenant of Christ,22 either sing to God or praise the name of the Lord? Is it not His Church alone, which is within the covenant,23 that may praise Him? 24 Therefore, if you say that the Church is with you only, you are defrauding God's ear of its due. If you alone are praising Him, 'the whole world,' 25 which is from the |64 rising of the sun to its going down, will be keeping silence. You have shut the mouths of all the Christian nations. You have imposed silence on all the peoples who desire to praise God from moment to moment. If then God waits for the praise which is His due, and if the Holy Spirit exhorts men to sound His praises,26 if 'the whole world' is prepared to render to God His due, lest God be robbed----then should you also praise Him, together with all, or, (since you have refused to be with all,) in your isolation, hold your tongues.
II. He proves from the Cathedra Petri that the Cathedra which is the first endowment of the Church belongs to Catholics, not to Donatists.
So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world.
We must now mention its Adornments,27 and see where are its five Endowments (which you have said to be six 28), amongst which the CATHEDRA is the first; |65 and, since the second Endowment, which is the 'Angelus,' cannot be added unless a Bishop has sat on |66 the Cathedra,29 we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where 30 he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you----it follows that you know.31 For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned.32
You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38 lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68
Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40
III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome.
To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus 41 Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, |69 to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius,42 who to-day is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' 43 through the intercourse of letters of peace,44 agrees with us in one bond of communion.45
Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra,46 you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!
IV. The Donatist Bishops and their meetinghouses in Rome.
But 47 you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome.48 |70
It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius 49 to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter's Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter's 'Shrine,' 50 against the precept of the Apostle who writes:
'Communicating with the "Shrines" of the Saints.' 51 |71
Behold, in Rome are the 'Shrines' of the two Apostles. Will you tell me whether he has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where----as is certain----are these 'Shrines' of the Saints.
So it follows that your colleague Macrobius must confess that he sits where once sat Encolpius; and if Encolpius himself could be questioned, he would say that he sat where before him sat Bonifacius of Balla; and if Bonifacius could be asked, he would in his turn reply that he sat where Victor of Garba sat, whom some time ago your people sent from Africa to a few wanderers.52
How do you explain that your party has not been able to possess a Roman citizen as Bishop in Rome? How is it that in that City they were all Africans 53 and strangers who are known to have succeeded one another? Is not craft here manifest? Is this not the spirit of faction----the mother of schism?
This Victor of Garba was sent first, I will not say as a stone into a fountain (for he could not ruffle the pure waters of the Catholic people), but because some Africans who belonged to your party, having gone to Rome, and wishing to live there, begged that someone should be sent from Africa to preside over their public worship. So Victor was sent to them. He was there as a son without a father, as a beginner without a master, as a disciple without a teacher, |72 as a follower without a predecessor,54 as a lodger without a home, as a guest without a guest-house, as a shepherd without a flock, as a Bishop without a people. For neither flock nor people can that handful be termed, who amongst the forty and more Basilicas in Rome, had not one place in which to assemble.
Accordingly they closed up 55 a cave outside the City with trellis-work,56 where they might have a meeting-house at once,57 and on account of this were called Mountaineers.58
Since then, Claudian has succeeded to Lucian, Lucian to Macrobius, Macrobius to Encolpius, Encolpius to Boniface, Boniface to Victor. Victor would not have been able, had he been asked where he sat,59 to show that anyone had been there 60 before him, nor could he have pointed out that he possessed any Cathedra save the Cathedra of pestilence 61; |73 for pestilence sends down its victims, destroyed by diseases, to the regions of Hell which are known to have their gates----gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys----Peter, that is to say, the first of our line,62 to whom it was said by Christ:
'To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,'
and these keys
'the gates of Hell shall not overcome.' 63
How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter? 64 |74
V. The Donatist Authors of Schism, Foes of Peace.
Thus do you repudiate the blessedness deserved by him who walked not in the counsel of the wicked, and did not stand in the way of sinners, and sat not on the Chair of Pestilence.65 Your fathers walked in the counsel of the ungodly, to divide the Church. They also walked in the way of sinners, when they strove to divide Christ, whose garments not even the Jews would rend, though the Apostle Paul cries out and says:
'Is then Christ divided?' 66
Would that your fathers, after having already walked in the evil way, had recognised their sin, and turned back upon themselves; would that they had set right their wicked deeds; would that they had recalled the Peace 67 which they had put to flight.
That would have been to turn back on their way, for on the way we have to walk, not stand still. But, since your fathers would not come back, it is certain that they stood in the way of sinners. They, whose steps had been impelled by mad wickedness, were held back, bound and benumbed by the spirit of strife; and, that they might not be able to return to better things, themselves placed the shackles of schism upon themselves, so that with obstinacy they stood in their error, and were not able to come back to the Peace which they had deserted. Nor |75 did they listen to the Holy Spirit speaking in the thirty-third Psalm:
'Turn away from evil and do good; seek Peace and pursue it' 68;
but they stood in the way of their sins.
Your fathers also sat on the Chair of Pestilence, which, as we have said above, sends down to death those whom it has beguiled. But you, whilst by your zealous defence you pay homage to your fathers' error, have made yourselves the heirs of their wickedness, when you might have been, though late, the sons of Peace. For it has been written in the Prophet Ezekiel:
'Raise thy voice over the son of the sinner, that he follow not in his father's footsteps, since the soul of the father is Mine and Mine is the soul of the son. The soul which sins, alone shall be punished.' 69
If you would disown your fathers' sin, they alone would have to give an account of their own deed.70 By acting thus, even you might be blessed and receive praise from the mouth of the Prophet, who says in the first Psalm:
'Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly nor stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the Chair of Pestilence, but has his will in the Law of the Lord.' 71
What does it mean to have the 'will in the Law,' |76 unless both to learn the divine precepts with piety, and fulfil them with fear----to have the will set on that Law in which it has been written (in the Gospel):
'Peace on earth to men of good will,' 72
and in another place (in Isaiah the Prophet 73):
'I will lay the foundations of peace in Sion,'
and in another (the eighty-fourth Psalm):
'Let us see what the Lord shall say, for He shall speak peace to His people,' 74
and in yet another (the seventy-fifth Psalm):
'The Son of God has come, and His place has been set in peace,' 75
and again (in the seventy-first Psalm):
'Let the mountains receive peace for the. people, and the hills justice,' 76
and in the Gospel:
'My peace I give to you, My peace I leave to you' 77;
and Paul says:
'He who sows peace, peace also shall he reap,' 78 |77
and in all his epistles 79:
'Let peace abound amongst you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' 80;
and in the thirty-third Psalm:
'Seek peace and thou shalt obtain it.' 81
Peace had been put to flight 82 by your fathers and departed. You ought to seek it as God has commanded, though, until now, you have neither been willing to seek it yourselves, nor to accept it, when it was freely offered to you.
For who is there in so many Provinces that has heard of whom you have been born,83 and (if there be anyone who had heard this) who is there that does not marvel at your error? Who is there that does not condemn your wickedness? Wherefore, since it is clear, yea, clearer than the light itself, that we are with so many peoples who cannot be numbered, and that so many countries are with us; whilst you see that you are to be found only in a portion of one country; and that you, by your errors, are separated from the Church; in vain do you claim for yourselves alone this name of the Church with her Endowments, which are rather with us than with you.
Now these Endowments are connected one with another, and are distinct, but in such a way, that it |78 may be understood that one cannot be separated from another. For they are numerically distinct, but with one act of the mind we see them joined in their Body,84 as are the fingers on the hand----each of which we perceive to be removed by spaces from the others. Therefore he who possesses one, must possess them all, since not one of them can be apart from its fellows.85
We may add that we possess----and that in the strictest sense----not one Endowment alone, but all.
VI. The second Endowment of the Church, 'The Angelus,' or Bishop, is not with the Donatists.
So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL 86 ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other.87 Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which 88 you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.89
On what ground, then, can you maintain that you |79 possess an Angel able to move the Fountain,90 or one who, as such, can be numbered among the other Endowments of the Church?
Whatever is without the Seven Churches is alien.91 |80 Supposing then that you really had even one Angel who belongs to the Church, through that one Angel you would be in communion with other Angels too, and through them with the above-mentioned Churches, and through these Churches 92 with us also. |81
If these things be as I have stated them, you have lost your case.93
VII. The third Endowment, Spiritus, the Holy Spirit, is in the Church, not with the Donatists.
Now perhaps you will see that the Endowments of the Church cannot be with you, for you cannot claim for yourselves alone the SPIRIT of God,94 nor can you shut up 95 (in a small corner of Africa) Him |82 whose Presence we recognise though we see it not.96 For so has it been written in the Gospel:
'God is a Spirit,' and 'breatheth where He willeth, but you hear not His voice, nor do you know whence He cometh and whither He goeth.' 97
Permit God to come whence He willeth, and allow Him freedom to go where He pleaseth. He can be heard, but He cannot be seen. And yet, through your lust for calumny, you have been pleased to blaspheme and say:
'What Spirit can there be in that Church,98 excepting one which should give birth to sons of Hell?' 99
Thou 100 hast vomited forth thine invective and hast thought that thou mightest thus be able to strengthen thyself by producing testimony from the Gospel, where we read:
'Woe to you, hypocrites, who compass seas and lands to make one proselyte, and when you have found him, make him a son of Hell twofold worse than yourselves.' 101 |83
If this accusation----unjust and groundless though it be----had to be made at all, would that it had been made by any other of your party than yourself.102 Indeed I am lost in wonder that you, of all men, should have dared falsely to bring against another a charge, the very thought of which might well make you blush, were you but to consider your own Consecration. For you have reminded us that we read in the Gospel:
'Woe to you, hypocrites, who compass seas and lands to make one proselyte '----
that is, to change his sect. As for you personally, I have no idea to what sect you previously belonged. But your quotation was unfortunate. I think that perhaps you are already sorry that you made it.103 Is it we who have travelled through any lands? Is it we who have compassed any seas? Is it we who have set sail to foreign ports? Is it we who have brought in a Spaniard or a Gaul? Have we consecrated a foreigner, not known to our people? 104 |84
VIII. Concerning the Fons, the Sigillum and the Umbilicus.
It is certain that the FOUNTAIN 105 also is one of the Endowments, from which heretics can neither drink themselves, nor give others to drink. For, as they alone 106 do not possess the SEAL, that is to say the Catholic Creed, in its integrity, they cannot open the true Fountain.
* * * * *
For 107 since it has been written in the Canticle of Canticles:
'Thy Navel is as a round goblet,' 108
you have tried to say that the Navel is the Altar. If the Navel be a member of the body, from the fact that it is a member, it cannot be amongst the Endowments. To be an Ornament, it must not be part of the body.109 |85
IX. The Endowments of the Church are with Catholics; not with Donatists.
The Endowments then are seen to be Five. Since these Endowments belong to the Catholic Church (which is in so many countries already mentioned by us), they cannot be wanting to us here in Africa.
Understand, however late, that you are disobedient sons, that you are boughs broken off from the tree, that you are branches cut off from the vine, that you are a river separated from its source. For that stream which is small and which is derived from another cannot be the source. Nor can the tree be cut off from the branch,110 since the tree, which has been planted and is alive, has its own roots; whereas the branch, which has been cut off, withers and dies.
Now do you see, my brother Parmenian, now |86 do you recognise, now do you understand, that by your arguments you have fought against yourself?
For it has been proved that we are in the Holy Catholic Church, who have too the Creed of the Trinity 111; and it has been shown that, through the Chair of Peter which is ours----through it 112 ----the other Endowments also belong to us.
Again, ours is the Sacerdotium, which you have affected to regard as in our case of no account 113----by way of some excuse for your error and hatred in re-baptising after us----though this you do not after your own people, even when they have been proved guilty of sin; for you have maintained that, if the priest be in sin,114 the Endowments are able to work alone.115
So----to answer you----we have shown what is heresy, and what is schism, and which is the Holy Church, and that of this Holy Church there has been constituted a Representative,116 and that the Catholic |87 Church is the Church which is scattered over the whole world (of which we amongst others are members), and that her Endowments are with her everywhere.117 We have also shown in our first Book that we cannot justly be reproached with the crime of Betrayal, |88 and that this crime has been condemned not only by you, but by us also.118
X. Catholics possess the Sacraments.
Now I should like you to tell me this. Why have you thought well to speak only of the Endowments of the Church, and have said nothing about her holy members and her inward organs,119 which without doubt are in the Sacraments and in the Names of the Trinity 120? These Names are met by Faith and its profession, recorded upon the Acts of the Angels 121; here are sown heavenly and spiritual seeds, so that, for those who are born again, a new nature 122 may be procreated from a holy germ, and he who had once been born to the world may, where the Trinity meets Faith, be spiritually new-born 123 to God. |89
In this way does God become the Father of men, thus does the Holy Church become their Mother.
I perceive that all these things have been left unmentioned by you, on purpose, lest in them all, the true principles of Baptism 124 might be recognised, in which there is nothing that the human minister may, after your fashion, claim for himself.
For this reason you determined to occupy yourself with the Endowments alone, which you have denied to Catholics, vainly striving to claim them for yourselves exclusively, having clutched them, as it were in your hand, or shut them up in a box.125 Although the question is about regeneration, and man's renovation, you have made no mention either of Faith or of its profession by the Faithful. You determined rather to speak of the Endowments alone, and have passed over in silence all these things without which spiritual faith and reparation cannot exist. And although the Endowments belong to the Spouse, not the Spouse to the Endowments, you dealt with the Endowments as if life were given by them, not by the inward organs, which we understand to be rather in the Sacraments than in the Ornaments.
XI. The Church is rightly called Paradise, but it belongs to the wide world.
Nor do I pass over the fact that you have said openly that the Church is (as we believe) a Paradise----a thing which without doubt is true----a garden in which God sets His little trees. And yet you have denied to God His rich possessions by compressing His garden |90 into a narrow corner,126 claiming without reason everything for yourselves alone. Surely the plantations of God, through different precepts, have different seeds. The just, the continent, the merciful, the virgins are spiritual seeds. Of these seeds God raises little plants in His Paradise. Grant to God that His garden be spread far and wide. Why do you deny to Him the Christian peoples of East and North, also those of all the provinces of the West and of innumerable islands ----with whom you share no fellowship of communion----against whom you----few in number and rebels----are ranged, in isolation?
XII. From the prayer of Oblation we gather that the One Church is Everywhere.
It is now time to condemn, as is only right, your falsehood, with which each day you season your Sacrifices.127 For who can doubt that you dare not pass over what is prescribed in the Mystery of the Sacraments? 128 You say that you offer the Sacrifice to God on behalf of the Church, which is One. This |91 in itself is part of your falsehood, to call that One, of which you have made Two. You proclaim that you sacrifice to God on behalf of the One Church, which has been spread throughout the whole world.
But what reply would you make were God to say to any one of you:
'Why dost thou offer sacrifice for the Whole----thou who art not in the Whole? '
If we are displeasing to you, what wrong has the City of Antioch done you, or the Province of Arabia 129?
Yet we are able to prove that those who come from Antioch and Arabia have been rebaptised by you.
XIII. The praise bestowed upon the Church by Parmenian belongs to Catholics.
In one thing alone we cannot be ungrateful to you, my brother Parmenian. You have praised our Church 130 (that is the Catholic, which is contained throughout the entire world)----although you do not belong to her 131 ----by enumerating her Endowments (mistaken though you are as to their number) and by teaching that she is a garden enclosed and a fountain sealed up, and the only Bride.132 |92
This we say of that which is our own; you have said, it of that which does not belong to you.133 Whatever you have been able to say in praise of the Church, we, before you, have said the same. We too, with you, condemn the Betrayers----those men whom, if you remember, we have shown up in our first Book.
And although we are in communion with the whole [Catholic] world, and all the Provinces are in communion with us, you for some time past have thought well to provide two churches,134 as if Africa alone had Christian people----that Africa in which, through your fault, two parties have been made! And you----not remembering Christ, who says that His Spouse is One----have said, not that there are two parties in Africa, but two Churches. Without doubt that Church is One, to which it has been granted to be pointed out by the Word of Christ, who says:
'One is My dove; My spouse is One.' 135
XIV. The Catholics have done nothing with cruelty.
But you, having forgotten this, have used these words in order to stir up hatred against Catholics:
'That,' you have said, 'cannot rightly be called a Church which battens on bloody morsels, and is fattened on the blood and the flesh of the Saints.'
The Church has her own determinate members----Bishops, priests, deacons, clerics,136 and the mass of |93 the faithful.137 Tell us against which class of men in our Church 138 the charge that you have thought well to bring can be proved. Name some cleric individually, point out some deacon by his name; show that this evil thing has been done by some priest; prove the guilt of Bishops. Make us see that any one of our people has plotted against any man. Who of us has persecuted any one? Who is there on your side, of whom you can either say or prove that he has been persecuted by us?
Unity displeases you.
So----if you deem it to be a crime, convict us of being in communion with Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and the Seven Churches which are in Asia.
If it seems to you wicked or a proof of guilt to communicate with the 'shrines' 139 of the Apostles and of all the Saints, far from denying this, we make it our boast.
XV. The Peace and Happiness of the Church before it was disturbed by the Donatists.
But that I may show that----to quote your words 140 ----it was your party which
'has battened on bloody morsels, and has been fattened on the blood and flesh of Christians,'
your rabid madness must now be described from its beginning; now the story of your wickedness must be related anew; now your folly must be proved.
First we have to show that the cause of your gladness ought to be your shame, and how wicked is |94 your joy at having received 141 liberty to return to your original wrongdoing.
Go over again the times that are past, enter into the sequence of events,142 consider how different were the persons concerned, and how different were their aims.143
Recall Constantine 144 the Christian Emperor to your memory. Think of the service which he rendered to God, and remember his ardent desire that schism should be removed, and all dissension die away, so that Holy Mother Church might see, rejoicing, her children throughout the world living in unity. He restored the unity of communion; he gave back wives to husbands, children to parents, brothers to brothers.
These are the things concerning which God bears witness that He is well pleased, when He says in the hundred and thirty-second Psalm:
'Behold how good and how pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.' 145
For Peace in unity 146 joined together the peoples of Africa and of the East, and the rest beyond the sea,147 and this unity itself,148 through the representation |95 of all its members, made the Body of the Church solid. And then over this the Devil, whom it always tortures to see brethren living in peace, was sorely vexed.
At that time, under a Christian Emperor, Satan, as if shut up in the idols, lay abandoned in his temples. Your leaders too and first fathers had been sent, as they deserved; into banishment. In the Church there were no schisms. Pagans were not allowed their sacrilegious rites. Peace, beloved by God, dwelt amongst all Christian peoples. The devil mourned in his temples; you mourned in foreign lands.
XVI. The Edict of Julian.
Next, as is known to all men, there followed another Emperor, who, in conjunction with you, devised evil plans, and from the servant of God became the tool of God's enemy. His edicts bore him witness that he was an apostate. Yet this was the man whom you entreated to be allowed to return.149 If you deny that you sent such entreaties, we reply that we have read them. Nor did he whom you entreated make difficulties. He commanded you to come back,150 as you asked. For he knew well that you would come, with fierceness, to break up Peace.151
If you have any shame, blush.
The same decree, which gave freedom to you, ordered the temples to be opened to their idols.152
XVII. The madness and cruelty of the Donatists.
You returned, in your madness, to Africa almost |96 at the moment when the devil was loosed from his dungeons.
Still you do not blush----you who, at the same time as the Enemy, have reasons for rejoicing, which you share with him.
You came raging; you came full of wrath, rending the members of the Church; subtle in your deceits; savage in your slaughters, provoking the children of Peace to war. A large number you banished from their homes. Approaching with a hired band, you rushed upon the Basilicas. Many of your party throughout numerous districts (which it would be too long to mention by their names) worked massacres so bloody, that the judges of the time sent a report to the Emperor 153 concerning deeds of such atrocity.
But the Judgement of God intervened and came to our aid, so that the Emperor who had already long ago ordered you to come back,154 and who, at your instigation, had arranged, or was even then arranging, for our persecution, died in the midst of his profanity and sacrileges.
XVIII. The Donatists' murderous deeds.
Catholics were slaughtered in the above-mentioned districts. You remember how your people ran to and fro from place to place. Were not Felix of Zaba and Januarius of Flumenpiscinum of your party, and the others who rushed all together as swiftly as they could, to a fortified place called Lemella 155? |97 So soon as they saw that the Basilica, notwithstanding their clamours, was closed against them, they commanded their followers to climb to the top, strip the roof, and throw down the tiles. These orders were executed without delay. In the defence of the altar, a number of Catholic deacons were wounded with tiles----of whom two were killed----Primus the son of Januarius, and Donatus the son of Ninus. Your fellow-Bishops, whose names I have just given, were present and urged them on, so that, without doubt, of your party has it been said:
'Their feet are swift to shed blood.' 156
Primosus, the Catholic Bishop of the place, complained of all this----whilst you listened disingenuously to his complaints----at your Council held in the City of Theneste.
See then how you did the things, of which you have said:
'That is not the Church which battens on bloody morsels';
and again you have said:
'Soldiers sent to war are one thing, consecrated Bishops are another.'
What in your hatred you bring as a charge against us was done by others, not by us; that which you say ought not to have been done, has been done by you. |98
You have recalled how the most blessed Apostle Paul has said that the Church ought to be 157 without wrinkle and without stain.158 In the presence, and at the order, of your Bishops, Catholic deacons were slain over the altar.159
The same things happened also at Carpi.160 Do not such deeds appear to you indelible stains? When you came into the cities of Mauritania, the people were overwhelmed with dread, so that children who were near to birth died in their mothers' wombs. Does not this seem to you to be a 'wrinkle' such as cannot be stretched or made smooth 161 by any reparation whatsoever? What have we done of such a character as this? We wait for the vengeance of God.
And yet you create a prejudice against Macarius, although anything that he may have done with harshness on behalf of unity may well be regarded as of light account, when compared with these monstrous, bitter, bloodstained acts of war done by you on behalf of dissension. Why should I mention Tipasa, a city of Mauritania Caesariensis, whither rushed from Numidia Urban of Forma and Felix of Idicra, two burning torches, set on fire by hatred 162? These men upset the minds of quiet people, who were established in unity,163 and, aided by the favour and fury of certain officials, in the very presence of Athenias |99 the magistrate, with colours flying,164 broke up the Catholic assemblies, with bloodshed. Catholics were driven out from their homes. Their men were wounded. Their women were dragged into captivity. Their infants were slain. Mothers miscarried.
Look now at your church. Under the guidance of its Bishops it
'battened on bloody morsels.'
After all this, you have gone on to say:
'Let the greed of vultures consume whatever it will; still the number of doves is greater.' 165
What, then, has happened to the common saying that a liar should have his memory in due keeping? Have you forgotten what you said a moment before, that in the Canticle of Canticles
'The Church is Christ's one Dove' 166?
If yours is the One Church, the Dove is One. What then did you mean by saying that
'the number of doves is greater'?
XIX. The Eucharist was given by the Donatists to dogs. An Ampulla of Chrism was thrown away. Their other sacrileges.
Moreover, a hideous crime (which seems to you something of little importance) 167 was committed, in such a fashion that your above-mentioned fellow-Bishops profaned everything which is most holy. They commanded the Eucharist to be cast to the dogs. This did not pass without evidence of the |100 Divine Judgement, for these same dogs were inflamed with madness, and tore their own masters in pieces as though they had been murderers,168 and attacked with avenging teeth those guilty of the Holy Body,169 as if they had been strangers and enemies.
They also threw a phial of chrism out of a window, in order to break it, and although its fall was precipitated by violence, an angel's hand was there to bring it down gently to earth, with the support that is from heaven. Though thrown away, it was not allowed to feel its fall, but, by the protection of God, found its home unbroken amongst the rocks.170 |101
You never could have done such things as these, if you had borne in mind the Commands of Christ, who has said:
'Give not that which is holy to dogs, and cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turning rend you.' 171
Could the makers of Unity have done anything of a like nature, out of which you might labour to create a baseless prejudice against us Catholics? 172
Urban of Forma and Felix of Idicra, when they came back, found that nuns whom they had seduced from their state of chastity had become mothers. Such, my brother Parmenian, is the character of the Bishops, whose deeds you cover up; and, when you ought to be blushing for your own sins, you bring charges against innocent Catholics.
At this time the above-mentioned Bishop Felix, amongst his other crimes and horrible misdeeds, seized a young maiden to whom he himself had given the veil 173 ----by whom he had a short time before been called by the name of Father----and did not hesitate in the least to be guilty of shameless incest. And, as if, through his sin, he had been made holy, he went with haste to Tysedis! There he ventured to rob of the episcopal name and office and honour Donatus, a Bishop seventy years of age, against whom no charge could be brought. The Catholic Bishop was approached by the schismatic, the innocent by the |102 guilty, the priest of God by one steeped in sacrilege, the chaste by the incestuous. The Bishop was attacked by one no longer a Bishop, who, relying upon the decrees and conspiracy of your party, and armed by your laws and your commands, cast those hands which a short time before had been made heavy by sins, upon the head of the innocent, and dared to let judgement fall from that tongue of his, which was not now worthy even to be allowed to do penance. See, my brother Parmenian, the sort of persons whom you defend; see the kind of men they are, on whose behalf you have, this long while, maintained that the Endowments of the Church are working.
XX. It is proved against the Donatists, who call themselves saints, that no man can be free from sin.
Will you then----you who wish men to think you holy and innocent----tell me this----whence comes this sanctity of yours, which you too freely claim for yourselves----a sanctity which the Apostle John does not dare to profess, when he writes:
'If we shall say that we are without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.' 174
He who spoke thus kept himself, with wisdom, prepared for the grace of God.175 For it belongs to a Christian man to will what is good, and to run the course which he has rightly willed. But it is not given to man to bring to perfection; so that after the stages, which a man can go, there remains something for God with which He may meet man's deficiency. For He alone is perfection; and perfect alone is Christ, the Son of |103 God. We, the others, are all half-perfect 176; for it is ours to will,177 it is ours to run, but it is God's to make perfect. So the most blessed Apostle Paul has written:
'It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of him that reacheth to the grace of God.' 178
For perfect sanctity has not been given, but promised, by Christ our Saviour. Thus He says:
'You shall be holy, because I am holy.' 179
So that He alone is perfect and holy. He did not say 'You are holy' but He did say
'You shall be holy.'
With what reason then do you, in your pride, claim for yourselves perfect holiness, except it be to make it clear that you deceive yourselves, and that the truth is not in you?
You have been unwilling to live in the school of John,180 for, when you lead some astray, you promise them that you will grant them forgiveness of their sins; and, when you are pleased to forgive sins, you |104 profess your own innocence and bestow forgiveness of sins, in such a manner as though you had no sin yourselves.181 This in you is not presumption [merely]; it is deception. This is not truth; it is a falsehood.182 For it is only a moment after 183 you have laid your hands upon the heads of others and pardoned their crimes, that you turn to the altar, and are unable to pass over the Lord's Prayer. Then no doubt you say:
'Our Father who art in Heaven, forgive us our debts 184 and sins.'
What ought you to be called when you confess your own sins, if you are holy when you forgive the sins of others? In this way do you deceive yourselves, and the truth is not in you.
But it is clear that this is dictated to you by your nursing mother Pride, as Christ bears witness in the Gospel. Although He did not mention your names, still He pointed out your character by a parable. For thus has it been written:
'Jesus spoke this parable on account of those who consider themselves holy and despise others.' 185
The evidence itself clearly shows that, when you puff yourselves up as holy, and plainly and openly despise us, this has been said of you. Two men, He |105 said, went up into the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a Publican. The Pharisee swollen out, proud, puffed up, such as we see you too to be, his body not humbled, his neck not bent, but with raised countenance and swelling breast----cried aloud:
'I give Thee thanks, my God, because in nothing have I sinned.'
This is to say to God:
'I have nothing for Thee to pardon.'
O wildness of a madman! O pride that must be punished and condemned! 186 God is prepared to pardon and the guilty one hastens to reject forgiveness. The Publican in his humility, recognising that he was a man, besought in this manner:
'Have mercy, O Lord, on me a sinner.'
Thus did he 187 deserve to be justified; thus did pride go down from the Temple, condemned in the Pharisee ----your teacher.
More tolerable is it to find sins where there is humility, than innocence where there is pride.
But you, though you are burdened with the heavy sins of Betrayal and Schism, take credit to yourselves that you are proud as well!
XXI. The sin of the Donatists in stripping Bishops of their dignity and submitting them to Penance.
Now that we have proved that you ought to blush with shame for those things at which you rejoice, and have shown with what mad rage you conducted yourselves in so many places, something should be said about the depth of your impiety. For who |106 ever will be able to explain the crimes that have been done, or those that are being actually done, by you? It is clear that, with a certain wicked ingenuity, you arranged all your plans in such a way as by one bad action to accomplish different results. For example, when a priest or a Bishop was removed by you from his post,188 you saw to it that you might capture all his flock. How could a mass of men stand firm when they saw you tear their ruler from them? In this manner is it always that, after the shepherd has by some misfortune been killed, wolves set upon the sheep. You exorcised the Faithful, and without reason washed the walls of the churches, that by wickedness of this kind you might undermine the minds of very simple people.189 By such evil designs as these you throttled the intelligence of not a few,190 and having disguised the light of your cunning by covering it all under a cloud 191 of feigned simplicity, you shot arrows from your quiver, to lay low the miserable by the seductions that your hearts contrived. Even as the Holy Ghost foretold of you, through David the Prophet, in the Psalm:
'For lo the wicked have bent their bow, they have prepared the arrows in their quiver to shoot the upright of heart when the moon is dark.' 192 |107
In what way have your deeds fallen short of your plans? You have shot the innocent, you have disarmed the faithful. Bishops have been stripped of the office belonging to their title. O unheard-of impiety, upon whom have you laid your cut-throat hands, to keep them amongst the torments of Penance 193?
The savagery of highway robbers is seen to be a thing of less account, when compared with the deeds that you have done. The robber gives those whom he murders a quick death; you slay your victim, yet leave him amongst the living.194 Those whom you have succeeded in deceiving have been entrapped through the weakness of their understanding,195 for they 196 who had been ordained in the Name of God had, by God's own work, been made perfect [in their office]. And you fight fiercely against the work of God, destroying His work by the engines of your wickedness.197
It is clear, therefore, that of you it has been written in the tenth Psalm:
'That which Thou hast made perfect they have destroyed.' 198
Your impiety has filled you with pride, but
'Justice looking down from heaven' 199
accuses you; whilst on earth men praise you with |108 mistaken praise for doing wickedness, so that of you the Holy Ghost has said in the ninth Psalm:
'Whilst the wicked man is proud, the poor man is set on fire; they are caught in the counsels which they devise. The sinner is praised in the desires of his soul and he who does iniquity shall be blessed.' 200
What greater iniquity than yours can there be found to be praised? What is there more iniquitous than to exorcise the Holy Ghost, to break down altars, to cast the Eucharist to animals? Yet your people praise you and----thus do they plunge you into folly----call you fortunate, and name you for good luck, 201 and swear by your name, and so are seen already to treat your persons as though you were God.
XXII. The Impiety of the Donatists, who were accustomed to swear by their Bishops.
Men are accustomed to use the Name of God when they swear, as a pledge of their truthfulness, but your party, when they swear by you, keep silence about God and Christ. If the worship due to God has passed from Heaven to you (as would seem from the fact that men swear by you), then let none of you or your party fall sick! Then refuse to die; give orders to the clouds: draw down the rain, if you can, that they may swear even more freely in your name, and may keep silence about God. For what could the Devil effect more by the hands of your people, than he did in the ages that are past, when |109 he caused his temples to be built and his idols to be fashioned----excepting this, that silence should be kept about God, whilst men in their foolishness speak of him alone.
XXIII. The wickedness of the Donatists in scraping the heads of anointed priests.
O sacrilege heaped upon impiety! You gladly listen to men swearing by you, but refuse your ears to the voice of God in the hundred and fourth Psalm, when He says:
'Touch not Mine Anointed and cast not your hands on My prophets.' 202
That both kings and priests are God's Anointed is shown by the books of Kings and also by David, saying in the hundred and thirty-second Psalm:
'As the precious ointment on the head, that ran down unto the beard of Aaron.' 203
You, on the contrary, have striven against God to despise His precepts, as earnestly as they who fear God strive to keep His Commandments. Tell us, where is your authority for scraping the heads of priests,204 when there are so many examples to the contrary, showing that this may not be done? |110 Saul, before he sinned, received the grace of being anointed.205 After his anointing, he sinned grievously. God, when He saw this, wishing to give us an example |111 not to touch the Oil, professed His repentance. For we read that the Lord spoke thus:
'It repenteth Me to have anointed Saul to be a king.' 206
Yet surely God might have taken away the Oil which He had bestowed; but, since He wished to teach that the Oil should not be touched even in a sinner, He who had given it, declared that it repented Him. If then God, in order to teach you, could not (because He would not) take away that which He had given, who are you to take away what you did not give?
And when you ought to have opened your ears to listen, you prepared your razor for sin. When you ought to have been the sons of God, you preferred to be the sons of men, and, in order to bite into other men's offices, turned your teeth into arrows and arms. You sharpened your tongues into swords; you fulfilled that which was written of you in the fifty-sixth Psalm:
'Sons of men----their teeth are arms and arrows; their tongue is a sharp sword.' 207
XXIV. The wrong done by the Donatists to men of every degree and age by laying hands upon them in Penance.
So you have sharpened your tongues into swords with which you slew not the bodies of men, but their dignities; you have destroyed not their members, but their titles. What boots it for those to live, who have been slain by you in their office? Their members are indeed whole and sound, but they carry about the corpse of the dignity which you have scratched away. For you stretched forth your hand and placed the death-bearing Veils upon every head; so that |112 whilst there are (as I have said above) four kinds of heads in the Church----Bishops, priests, deacons, and the Faithful, yon have not spared one.
You have overturned the souls of men.208 God holds these actions of yours up to detestation in Ezekiel the Prophet, when He says:
'Woe to you who make a Veil,' 209
that is, who place your hands
'upon every head 210 and upon every age, to overturn souls.'
You have found boys, you have wounded them with Penance, so that none of them might be ordained.
Recognise that you have 'overturned souls.'
You have found old men amongst the Faithful,211 you have made them do Penance.
Recognise that you have 'overturned souls.'
You have found deacons, priests, Bishops, you have made them as laymen.
Recognise that you have 'overturned souls.'
He, upon whose head thou hast now endeavoured to lay thine hands,212 had, for a long time, been thy fellow and companion.213 You were once wont to run together.214 Guilty he was not----but let us assume his guilt. |113
In that case, as thou thinkest, he has fallen. See then (if thou hast read the Apostle) to Whom thou dost stand, and let him see, to Whom he has fallen. If thou art a servant, recognise thy Lord, and understand that he who, a short time ago, ran together with thee, to thee has not fallen. Why dost thou invade Another's power, why dost thou in thy rashness ascend the tribunal of God? And though thyself art guilty, darest to pass judgement upon another? Yet thou hast read:
'He who stands, stands to his own Lord, and who falls, to his own Lord he falls. But his Lord is powerful to raise him up.' 215
Who then art thou to judge Another's servant?
That you 216 have no right to touch the Oil bestowed by God upon a Bishop, you ought to have learnt from David the servant of God, who was anointed by Samuel, with the condition that what had already been given to Saul, should by no means be taken away.217 When, through the command, or the providence, of God, they were shut up together in one cave, Saul, who had sinned, came into the power of the youth David. Saul, although he sees not, is seen, because (as usually happens to one that passes from the light of day) he was not able, in the darkness of the shut-in-air,218 to see the other who was near him. A great |114 army followed the old king. Still he had fallen into the power of another. David had the chance of victory in his hands. Without effort he might have slain his incautious adversary who was wrapt in security. Without bloodshed, and the clash of arms, he might have summarily changed war into slaughter. The opportunity was there. His soldiers were in favour of this course. The situation urged him on to snatch a victory. Already he commenced to draw his sword. His armed hand was now reaching for his enemy's throat. But the remembrance of the divine commands completely blocked the way. He fought against the persuasion of his soldiers, and resisted the fitness of the circumstances, as if he had said:
'To no purpose, O Victory, dost thou tempt me; in vain, O opportunity, dost thou lure me on to triumphs!'
He wished to conquer his foe, but desired even more to keep the commands of the Lord.
'I will not,' he said, 'lay my hands upon the Lord's anointed.' 219
He checked his hand and his sword----he feared to violate the Oil; he saved his enemy; and, that he might accomplish his duty towards his King to the end, after his death took up his defence. 220
You neither fear God, nor regard those who are your brethren. You have sharpened the razors of your tongue upon the whetstone of your malice, |115 and, trampling underfoot the precepts of Heaven, have rushed upon the heads of miserable men, that, after you had slain their leaders, you might drag them in their blindness and ignorance into bondage. You hunger after the dignities of innocent priests, with a hunger so furious that you have made open sepulchres of your throats. For each separate sepulchre one funeral is enough, and then it is closed. For your throats many funerals of many dignities have not by any means been enough. They still remain open, seeking whom they may devour. So that with reason was it said of you:
'Their throat is an open sepulchre';221
for with cursing you are beforehand, though it has been written:
'Bless ye and curse not.' 222
If any man has done anything against your will, you threaten him with horrors and foul menaces; and then, since some there are who deserve more evil than good, you attribute to your bitter curses whatever has befallen them from the Judgement of God, or is the just result of their sins. With reason was it said of you in the thirteenth Psalm:
'Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.' 223
You boast that some men have been known to die after you have cursed them.
It is certain that it is not lawful to kill. On this account do you hold yourselves innocent, merely |116 because you have not used cold steel? If there be no murder without steel, the poisoner, also, may judge himself to be innocent; and a man need not deem himself guilty who has killed another by withdrawing his food; he also, then, may claim to be guiltless who smothers his victim----still clinging to life----by stifling his breath. Of murders there are many kinds, but the name of Death is one. Thou dost declare with confidence that a man has died through thy curses. What difference does it make whether thou smitest him with the sword, or dost strike him with the tongue? Beyond doubt thou art a murderer, if a man, who was alive, has met his death through thee.
Whoever of thy party has thus acted professes in vain that he is a Christian, or a priest of God, for he takes no care to imitate the Mildness of God, though it is written in Solomon 224:
'God hath not made death, nor doth He rejoice in the destruction of the living.' 225
I do not believe that you are able to forget the crimes that you have committed throughout several districts, where you set to work to slay those who were preaching the Law of God, that is to say, His Prophets, contrary to His command, who says:
'Lay not your hands upon My Prophets.' 226
Deuterius, Partenius, Donatus and Getulicus, Bishops of God, you slew with the sword of your tongue. |117 You shed the blood, not of their body, but of their dignity. Afterwards they still lived, but were slain by you in their dignities----they who were Priests of God.
It is known to many (and has been proved) that in the time of persecution some Bishops fell away through cowardice from the confession of the Name of God, and offered incense to idols. But never did any one of those who remained faithful either place his hand [in Penance] upon the fallen, or command them to bend their knees 227 [as penitents]. Yet you to-day do to those who preserved Unity 228 that which was never done by any man to those who offered incense to idols.229 For it has been written;
'Touch not Mine Anointed, and lay not your hand upon My prophets.'
God avenges the Oil which is His own, for the sin belongs to man, but the unction to God. 'Touch not,' He says, 'Mine Anointed,' in order that when the sin of man is punished, the Oil, which is God's, be subjected to no indignity.230 God has reserved to His own Judgement that which is His own, but you everywhere rush upon that which is Another's, and destroy the happiness of all. For, what greater unhappiness, than for priests of God to live, and not be what they once had been?
XXVI. Matrons, boys and virgins were compelled by the Donatists to do Penance.
Matrons, together with boys and virgins, although they had committed no sin, were compelled by you to |118 learn to do Penance, with you for their instructors, whilst they still remained in possession of their innocence and modesty. Is this a small unhappiness? You have destroyed both sexes; you have harassed all ages. Truly of you has it been said in the thirteenth Psalm:
'Destruction and unhappiness are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known, the fear of God is not before their eyes.' 231
You have prescribed Penance for the people. It was not performed voluntarily by any man, but it was enforced by you, nor did you inflict it equally, for the same periods of time, but arranged everything with respect of persons. By your command one person did Penance for a whole year, another for a month, yet another for hardly a day.
If to consent to unity is (as you will have it) a sin, if it is the same fault in all, why is there not the same Penance for the same guilt?
There is no doubt that the people who believe have been called Israel, and that the Faithful, one by one, are the daughters of Israel, that is, those who see God with their mind,232 and have faith in God. Yet you |119 have compelled these people to bend and incline their necks, have joined their heads in a row, and made of them a crowd of penitents.
These are the Faithful over whom God grieves, saying, by the mouth of Ezekiel the Prophet: 'Woe to you, daughters of Israel who mend pillows,' 233 appurtenances of the neck, to place them under the elbow and under the hand----that is, under your elbows and under your hands, when you stretch the veils of Penance over the heads of these men and women.
The extent of your wickedness and rage I have now set forth, and I have pointed out your pride.
It remains to make clear your folly also, but this I will do in my Sixth Book.
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 ut paene oculis perspecta videatur. St. Augustine may have had these words before his mind, when he wrote of the martyrdom of St. Stephen: 'Hanc passionem modo de libro Actuum Apostolorum cum legitur, non solum audivimus sed etiam oculis spectavimus' (Sermo ii de Sancto Stephano)
2. 2 In the Canticle of Canticles.
3. 3 The Donatists, like the Cathari, the Puritans and many other sectaries, prided themselves (without the slightest justification in fact) upon their sanctity. According to their teaching, the true Church was to be exclusively the Church of 'the Saints.' There were to be no unclean beasts in the Ark of Noah. The tares were not to be allowed to grow up with the wheat unto the harvest; nor were the bad fish to remain with the good in Peter's net. Furthermore, they made the validity of the sacraments depend upon the supposed holiness of the minister, not upon the operation of the Holy Ghost.
4. 1 Evidently the idea of Comprehensiveness----that the One Church could be Catholic (Universal)----in the sense of comprehending various kinds of religious bodies, varying in belief and without any external bond of union (cf. ii, 3)----never occurred to St. Optatus even as a possibility. Any 'branch' theory in which the branches were separated from the trunk or from one another (cf. ii, 9 etc.) would have seemed to him unthinkable. He agrees with Parmenian in ruling it out ab initio.
5. 2 Because no heretics or schismatics were to be found as an organised body in more than one territory.
6. 1 In some of the countries mentioned by Optatus as belonging to the Catholic Unity, Christianity has almost disappeared as an energising force. Others of those lands, such as 'Thrace, Achaia, Macedonia, and all Greece,' are now unhappily in schism. Still, his argument has been enormously strengthened by the lapse of centuries. The Catholic of to-day is in full communion not only, as was St. Optatus, with the See of Rome where Peter sat, with the See of Lyons where Irenaeus sat, with the See of Barcelona where Pacian sat, with the See of Tours where Martin sat, with the See of Verona where Zeno sat, with the See of Milan where Ambrose was soon to sit, with the direct successors of 'Maternus from the city of Cologne, of Reticius from the city of Autun, of Marinus of Aries, of Felix from Florence of the Tuscans, of Gaudentius of Pisa, of Proterius of Capua,' and of every other of the nineteen Bishops who sat in the Synod of the Lateran with Miltiades the Pope (i, 23)----this is surely a great and striking thing----but also with Churches of which Optatus never dreamed, in islands and continents of which he had never heard.
7. 2 ubi ergo erit proprietas Catholici Nominis?
8. 3 rationabilis et ubique diffusa. Thus in all the MSS. Two emendations have been suggested, Non nationalis et &c, and Rationabiliter ubique diffusa. Probably, however, St. Optatus wrote it as we find it in the MSS., Rationabilis et ubique diffusa. If so, through his ignorance of Greek, he is linking together two different derivations of the word καθολικός. From κατὰ and ὅλον, = 'throughout the whole' (i.e. scattered throughout the world), and from κατὰ and λόγον = 'in accordance with reason.' We know that, in consequence of this last meaning of the word, Procurators fiscal in Roman law were often called Rationales or καθολικοί. St. Optatus was probably in his first derivation thinking of heretics, in his second of schismatics. The Church is Catholic or rationabilis (according to right reason) in contradistinction to heretics, who have strayed from the truth (against the due exercise of their reason); she is Catholic or ubique diffusa (spread everywhere) in contradistinction to schismatics, who are confined within clearly defined, very often within national, bounds and limits. Cf. St. Augustine, Gesta Collationis Carthagiensis diei iii, ci: 'Christiani Afri, et appellantur et merito sunt Catholici, ipsa sua communione nomen testantes. Catholon enim secundum totum dicitur. Qui autem a toto separatus est, partemque defendit ab universo praecisam, non sibi usurpet hoc nomen, sed nobiscum teneat veritatem.'
9. 1 Ps. ii, 8.
10. 1 Christo una possessio est.
11. 2 Ps. ii, 8.
12. 3 Ps. lxxi, 8.
13. 4 Ps. xlix, 1.
14. 1 Vocata est ergo terra ut caro fieret. Cf. 'I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and will give you a heart of flesh' (Ez. xxxvi, 26).
15. 2 Ps. cxii, 3.
16. 3 Ps. xcv, 1.
17. 4 Ps. xcv, 1-3: 'Cantate Domino omnis terra, pronuntiate in gentibus gloriam Ipsius, in omnibus populis mirabilia Eius.'
18. 5 'pronuntiate,' inquit, 'inter gentes.'
19. 6 'pronuntiate,' inquit, 'in omnibus populis.'
20. 1 qui in omni toto non estis. This remains to-day the great Catholic argument against the pretensions of the 'Orthodox' Easterns. It is as effectual now as when St. Optatus first wrote the words. Like the Donatists before them, the 'Orthodox' are not 'in any part of the whole' (they are not in that Church, which is visibly Catholic----spread throughout the world); yet, like the Donatists again, the 'Orthodox' claim to be the whole. But St. Optatus teaches that only those constitute 'the whole,' who are visibly united 'in the whole,' that is who are 'everywhere' (ubique).
21. 2 Ps. cxii, 3.
22. 3 Pagani extralegales.
23. 4 sola Ecclesia, quae in lege est, as opposed to the 'Pagani extralegales,' of whom he has just written. Lex, as so often elsewhere in Optatus, means 'Lex Christi,' 'Lex Catholica' (cf. v, 5 etc.).
24. 5 St. Optatus gives us no hint of the great teaching about the Soul (or Heart) of the Church, which is clearly expressed by St. Augustine.
25. 6 Totus orbis. By this phrase St. Optatus and St. Augustine always mean the whole Catholic world. Cf. the saying of St. Augustine: 'Securus iudicat orbis terrarum' (see note i, p. 52)----by which he means, of course, not the world separated from the Catholic Church ----even less the non-Christian world----but the Catholic world. The Catholic world is the Judge, and judges free from anxiety, for this very reason that it is, and knows itself to be, the Catholic world.
26. 1 ut sonent. Cf. vii, 1: 'per loca singula divinum sonat ubique praeconium.'
27. 2 St. Optatus has given us a summary proof that the Catholic Church is not merely local, but claims to be everywhere. He proceeds, in answer to Parmenian, to discuss the Adornments (Ornamenta) or Endowments (Dotes) of the Church. The figure is that of a Dowry bestowed by our Lord upon His Bride, the Church. There is no other reference to these Dotes in patristic literature.
28. 3 It is not difficult to reconstruct Parmenian's argument from the pages of Optatus. We see that Parmenian had argued that the Endowments were six in number, and had maintained that they were all distinctive of Donatism and lacking to the Catholic Church.
(1) Cathedra (the expression for See so well known in Africa from the writings of St. Cyprian).
(2) Angelus (from Apoc. ii, 3).
(3) Spiritus.
(4) Fons signatus (from Cant. iv, 1).
(5) Sigillum (quo fons signatur).
(6) Umbilicus (from Cant. vii, 2).
It was common ground between Optatus and his opponent that the hortus conclusus (enclosed garden) of Cant. iv, 12-13 (' Hortus conclusus mea sponsa, hortus conclusus, fons signatus, emissiones tuae paradisus') signified the Church (cf. ii, 11: 'Quod ore tuo et sensu nostro ecclesiam paradisum esse dixisti'). Accordingly the fons signatus (sealed fountain) is the baptismal font, which (according to Parmenian) is sealed to all outside the true Church, so that Baptism by schismatics as well as by heretics is invalid. The sigillum (seal) is the baptismal creed.
The font is only made a saving fountain, if it is blessed by the true Bishop or angelus. Only thus is the third Endowment, the Spirit, in the water of Baptism. Parmenian proves this by quoting John v, 4, whence St. Optatus' words (ii, 6): 'Unde vobis angelum, qui apud vos possit fontem movere aut inter ceteras dotes Ecclesiae numerari?' We see that Parmenian had evidently taken the 'Angel' in the Apocalypse (without identifying him with any particular Bishop) in order to prove that only a true Bishop was able so 'to move the water,' that the Spirit should be there for valid Baptism. By Umbilicus Parmenian understood the altar. We can thus follow what no doubt was his argument. 'The true Church has,' he will have said to the Catholics, 'six Endowments.' (1) Cathedra, a lawful right to the See. But Caecilian had no such right, for the Numidian Bishops were not called to his election, and a Council of seventy Bishops deposed him. (2) Angelus, or a Bishop sent by God, but Caecilian was ordained by a Traditor. (3) Spiritus, the Spirit of adoption, who makes sons of God in Baptism. (4) This Spirit will only work by means of the water in the Fons, which is moved by the Angelus. Hence all those persons who have been baptised by others than Donatists must be rebaptised. (5) For the Fountain is signatus sigillo (Symboli),and all but Donatists are heretical. (6) And the Umbilicus (altar) must also belong to the true Angelus. On this pretext they scraped, broke down and even utterly destroyed Catholic altars (cf. vi, 1). Such is the argument that St. Optatus had to meet. He denied (on what seems to us to be a technicality only) that Umbilicus was one of these Endowments, but proceeded (2-9) to argue against Parmenian that the first five belonged to Catholics, and were marks of the Catholic Church exclusively, and in no way shared by the Donatists. In the first place, he takes Cathedra and Angelus together, and shows that the Donatists could have neither the one nor the other unless they were in union with the See of Peter. For the Cathedra Petri pre-eminently is the Cathedra.
29. 1 St. Cyprian was the first Father to use the term Cathedra (Chair). He applied it (as a word in common use at the time) to the See of Rome which he termed the Cathedra Petri. Parmenian, evidently, had claimed the Cathedra, stating that it belonged to him through the Angelus or Bishop (in other words 'We have valid Orders, and therefore we are in the Church'). St. Optatus replies to this in the text by making direct appeal to Rome. No man can possess a Cathedra, argues Optatus, who is not in communion with the one Cathedra, which, in all but successive sentences, he calls 'una Cathedra,' 'singularis Cathedra' and 'Cathedra unica.' Balduinus, in the course of a long letter which he addressed to Calvin on the occasion of bringing out his first edition of Optatus, remarked as follows: 'Locutus est, ut scis, Christus de iis, qui sedent in Cathedra Mosis; veteres Christiani de iis, qui in Petri.'
30. 2 quis et ubi prior Cathedram sederit?
31. 3 Cf. vii, 5 (p. 294).
32. 4 This is what we are now accustomed to call 'Invincible Ignorance' (cf. John ix, 40).
33. 5 Evidently St. Optatus had no fear that any objection should be taken to what he was about to urge, as to something new. On the contrary, it was well known and recognised by all. 'You cannot deny that you do know.'
34. 6 Petro primo. This in answer to who it was who first sat on the Cathedra (quis?). The answer is Peter.
35. 7 in urbe Roma. This in answer to the question where was he the first to sit (ubi?). The answer is Rome.
36. 8 Cathedram episcopalem esse conlatam.
37. 9 Evidently this is an instance of paronomasia or play upon words (Cephas from κεφαλή). It is so atrocious etymologically to derive an Aramaic from a Greek word that Balduinus thinks that Unde et Cephas appellatus est was not written by St. Optatus, but was introduced by some librarian from a marginal note of an ignorant commentator. But we must remember that neither Optatus nor any of the ancients knew anything of etymology. In vii, 3, St. Optatus simply calls St. Peter Caput Apostolorum, without any further comment.
38. 1 in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur. This is the doctrine so often and so clearly expressed by St. Cyprian, cf. e.g. 'Una ecclesia a Christo Domino nostro super Petrum, origine unitatis et ratione fundata' (Ep. lxx, 3), and 'Petro primum Dominus, super quern aedificavit Ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit' (Ep. lxxiii, 3), and 'Deus unus est et Christus unus, et una Ecclesia, et Cathedra una, super Petrum Domini voce fundata' (xliii, 5). We should always bear in mind that St. Cyprian was at this time the great authority in Christian Africa, not only in the eyes of Catholics, but also in those of Donatists. Thus St. Augustine writes (Brev. Coll. iii, 10): 'Repetierunt Catholici testimonium Cypriani... Contra quod testimonium omnino nihil ausi fuerunt respondere, cum auctoritatem Cypriani tanti habeant, ut per illam conentur defendere, quod male de iterando Baptismo sentiunt et faciunt.'
39. 2 ne ceteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent, ut iam scismaticus et peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram conlocaret. This perfectly plain doctrine of St. Optatus was never once challenged amongst Christians (the Albigenses were Manichees rather than Christians) until the days of Hus and Wycliffe, some nine hundred years later. We know that the work of St. Optatus was the great authority and handbook of St. Augustine in his arguments against the Donatists. He constantly echoes the teaching of St. Optatus, concerning the Chair of Peter, and, in his controversy with the Donatists, applied the famous promise 'Upon this Rock I will build my Church' to this Holy See. 'Sedes Petri... ipsa est Petra' (Ps. con. Donat. St. xiv). Dr. Sparrow Simpson, however, writes as follows with reference to this passage of St. Optatus: 'Optatus illustrates this succession from the case of Rome, because St. Peter as the chief Apostle, represents the principle of unity. No Apostle was to arrogate to himself the Apostolic powers in separation from the other Apostles' (St. Augustine and African Church Divisions, Chapter on St. Optatus' Reply to the Donatists, p. 45). Unfortunately for Dr. Sparrow Simpson's accuracy, St. Optatus has not (either here or elsewhere) written one syllable about 'no Apostle' separating from 'the other Apostles.' He has, however, explained (vii, 3) that the Apostles were not free, on account of Peter's denial of Christ, to separate from the one Apostle 'who alone received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to be shared with the rest.' He has also written with all possible emphasis concerning the unlawfulness of separating from the Cathedra Petri, which he here calls 'the unique Cathedra.' Of all this, we regret to say that Dr. Sparrow Simpson gives not even a hint in his in some respects useful analysis of the argument of Optatus.
40. 1 Cf. St. Cyprian, Ep. ad Antonian. i, 8: 'cum Fabiani [Romani Episcopi] locus, id est cum locus Petri et gradus Cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret.'
41. 2 St. Augustine copied this list of Popes given by St. Optatus. Yet it is incomplete and in one case inaccurate. The name Alexander should come after Evaristus, Eutychian and Gaius should come after Felix, Marcellus (probably) after Marcellinus, and where Optatus places Alexander (after Soter), he should have placed Eleutherius. It may also be mentioned that in the list given by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii, 3) Pius precedes Anacetus.
42. 1 In the first edition of St. Optatus written about 370 a.d. the list of Popes ended with Damasus. The name of Siricius who became Pope in 383 was added in the second edition (cf. Preface to Book VII).
43. 2 Totus orbis (cf. note 1, p. 52).
44. 3 Commercio formatarum. As is well known, the Catholic world in the early centuries was kept in touch with its various parts through the communication of litterae formatae, or 'letters of peace,' which passed at stated times between the Bishop of Rome and all Catholic Bishops, and were also often sent from these Bishops to one another. (Cf. Aug. Ep. xliv, 3; con.Cresc. iii, 34.) Formatae ----τετυπωμέναι. τυποῦν = sigillare. (Cf. Du Cange, iii, 565.)
45. 4 in una communionis societate concordat.
46. 5 Dr. Darwell Stone (The Christian Church, p. 143) quotes this passage, but translates Cathedra 'Episcopal See.' This is to miss the point. There is no question here of the origin of the Donatist See at Carthage, or as to whether that See was rightly claimed by Caecilian and Restitutus (the Catholic Bishops) on the one hand, or by Majorinus and Parmenian (the Donatists) on the other----a matter which has already been discussed in i, 10. The present question is what have the Donatists to set against the Unica ac singularis Cathedra Petri. To this Optatus replies in the next sentence (we must remember that he knew nothing of the present division into chapters) by suggesting that they might allege their Bishops of Rome. 'But you allege, etc' St. Optatus is engaged exclusively with the See of Rome in the present chapters ii to vi, from the time, that is, when he begins, until he ceases, to deal with the Cathedra as an Endowment of the Church.
47. 6 sed et habere vos in Urbe Roma aliquam partem dicitis.
48. 7 Harnack points out that Donatists realised so clearly the necessity of communion with the See of Peter, that in the early days of their schism they established a line of Anti-Popes, consecrating a Bishop for the purpose and sending him to Rome, to preside over their handful of adherents in the City. He writes as follows: 'The connection with Peter's Chair was of decisive importance, not only for Optatus, but also for his opponent, who had appealed to the fact that the Donatists had also a Bishop in Rome' (Harnack, History of Dogma, v, 155).
49. 1 The Donatist Bishop in Rome at the time. When later on in this chapter St. Optatus comes to give the list of the Donatist Anti-Popes, he evidently added in his second edition the names of Lucian and Claudian, at the same time that he added the name of Siricius to that of the Popes. (See Preface, p. xxii.)
50. 2 ad cuius Memoriam non accedit. Albaspinaeus translates Relics. But Memoria is a chapel or church built over the body of a Saint. Here it refers to the Basilica built by Constantine and destroyed in the sixteenth century, where Macrobius could naturally not say Mass. Over the body of St. Paul a small Basilica was erected by Constantine. The great church, burnt in 1826, was built in the fifth century, later than St. Optatus (cf. Condi. Carthag. 14: 'altaria, quae... tanquam Memoriae martyrum constituuntur ').
51. 3 Memoriis Sanctorum communicantes. The reference is to Romans xii, 13. It is quite unintelligible to us until we learn that some ancient MSS. had ταῖς μνείαις instead of ταῖς χρείαις. The reading μνείαις is in the Acts of Pionius (second or third century) and in the bilingual codices D and G; it was therefore the Western and Old Latin reading. It is used, amongst others, by St. Hilary, Ambrosiaster, St. Peter Chrysologus and St. Gregory the Great, who writes (De Verbis Domini exxxvii. 3, 7, last chapter): 'Communicatio Memoriis sanctorum martyrum.' Both readings were known to Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine and Pelagius. So we see that in following this reading St. Optatus does not stand alone. There is, however, little, if any, doubt that St. Paul really wrote ταῖς χρείαις.
52. 1 ad paucos erraticos----a few Africans staying in Rome----strangers in the city----out of communion with its Church and Bishop----rebuked by its Cathedra----mere 'wanderers.'
53. 2 toti Africani. For toti = omnes cf. ii, 5: 'digiti, quos.. totos '; vii, 1: 'libri legis dominicae toti ubique recitantur.' Pope Miltiades was an African. The emphasis, therefore, is on the toti.
54. 1 sequens sine antecedente (cf. St. Cypr. Ep. ad Magnum, 3: 'Novatianus in Ecclesia non est, nec episcopus computari potest, quia evangelica et apostolica traditione contempta nemini succedens a se ipso ortus est').
55. 2 saepserunt. RB have serpserunt.
56. 3 cratibus. RBvb have gradibus. Casaubon adopts this, translates saepserunt 'they fortified,' and understands by gradibus steps going down to the cave from above. But cratibus is almost certainly the true reading.
57. 4 ipso tempore conventiculum. For ipso tempore Barthius conjectured pro tempore.
58. 5 Montenses. Mountaineers----from this 'cave,' which was made to look like a little mountain. St. Jerome writes (In Chronico ad annum Christi 336): 'Quidam sectatores Donati etiam Montenses vocant eo quod ecclesiam Romae primum in monte habere caeperunt.'
59. 6 ubi sederet, i.e. on whose Chair (Cathedra) he sat.
60. 7 illic fuisse, i.e. on his Chair.
61. 8 St. Optatus will soon make great play with this Cathedra Pestilentiae (Ps. i, 1), which he declares to belong to the Donatists.
The Chair of Pestilence is ranged by him against the Chair of Peter. For 'Cathedra Pestilentiae' we may compare St. Ambrose (comm. in cap. xxiii Matthaei): 'Quod autem ait super Cathedram Moysis... per Cathedram legis doctrinam ostendit. Ergo et illud quod dicitur in Psalmo "In Cathedra Pestilentiae non sedit,"... doctrinam debemus accipere.'
62. 1 Principem scilicet nostrum, in contrast to Victor, who was the first 'Mountaineer' Bishop of Rome, or perhaps to the originators of the Schism, with whom Optatus often taunts the Donatists as being their Principes.
63. 2 Claves regni coelorum tibi dabo, etportae inferorum non vincent eas.
64. 3 Unde est ergo, quod claves regni coelorum vobis usurpare contenditis, qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus et audaci sacrilegio militatis? (Rvb have audaciis). It may well be noted that Optatus accused the Donatists of 'audacious sacrilege' (audax sacrilegium) in 'warring against' the Chair of Peter. Their 'warring' consisted, according to Optatus, in claiming the keys argumentatively for themselves----thus justifying themselves in remaining out of communion with the Holy See----and in ignoring the Judgement of Pope Miltiades. Cf. i, 24, 25. Mr. Denny (Papalism, n. 873) quotes this passage, but translates usurpare 'obtain,' and omits altogether vestris praesumptionibus et audaci sacrilegio. (For praesumptionibus cf. i, 7: 'de inconsideratis praesumptionibus et erroribus vestris'; v, 4: 'quod praescribas praesumptionibus vestris'; vii.. 1: 'praesumptiones vestrae.')
65. 1 Ps. i, x.
66. 2 I Cor. i; 13.
67. 3 quam fugaverunt pacem (Pax here as elsewhere = the Unity of the Church. Cf. i, 1; vi, 1 etc.).
68. 1 Ps. xxxiii, 15.
69. 2 Ezek. xviii, 3-20.
70. 3 Cf. vii, 1 where the argument is elaborated, with reference to this passage in Ezekiel, contrasted with Exodus xx, 5.
71. 4 Ps. i, 1.
72. 1 Luke ii, 14.
73. 2 Isaiah lx, 17.
74. 3 Ps. lxxxiv, 9.
75. 4 Ps. lxxv, 3.
76. 5 Ps. lxxi, 3.
77. 6 John xiv, 27.
78. 7 'qui pacem seret, pacem et metet.' The reference is to 2 Cor. ix, 6, where the Vulgate reads: 'Qui parce seminat, parce et metet.' Parce is in accordance both with the Greek φειδομένως and with the context. Evidently, therefore, St. Optatus cannot be quoting from any Latin version, unknown to us, but the mistake is due simply to a slip of his memory. In the same way he will immediately supply the words 'In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,' which is probably a reminiscence of 2 Cor. iii, 14.
79. 1 St. Optatus is no doubt thinking of St. Paul's epistles in general, but he probably had especially in his mind Col. iii, 15, where the O.L. reading of D and G gives us 'Pax Christi abundet in cordibus vestris.'
80. 2 G alone amongst the MSS omits this sentence.
81. 3 Ps. xxxiii, 15.
82. 4 fugata... pax (cf. note 3, p. 74).
83. 5 Cf. note 1, p. 72.
84. 1 suo iungantur corpore (sc. the Church).
85. 2 ut in manu digiti, quos intervallis singnios videmus esse distinctos. Unde qui tenet unum, totos teneat necesse est, cum unus quisque a paribus separari non possit.
86. 3 quae ducit ad se Angelum. St. Optatus, having shown that the Donatists have not the Cathedra, goes on to deny that they have the Angelus either. For it is the Chair of Peter that 'draws to itself the Bishop.'
87. 4 habetis in loculis clausum. Cf. ii, i: 'In angustum coartatis Ecclesiam.'
88. 5 'ad quorum ecclesias... cum quibus ecclesiis.
89. 6 The Donatists knew that they neither sent to these churches, nor received from them, Litterae formatae.
90. 1 qui apud vos possit fontem movere----i.e. 'A Bishop able to give grace.' The reference is to John v, 4. It is interesting to see that this text was in the Version used by Parmenian.
91. 2 extra Septem Ecclesias quicquid foris est alienum est. (Cf. vi, 3: 'Orientalibus... ubi est septiformis Ecclesia.') Here, as elsewhere, St. Optatus supposes St. Cyprian to be familiar to his readers. St. Cyprian teaches that the Seven Macchabees are the type of the several churches, children of one Mother, and that on this account both St. Paul and St. John wrote to seven churches. (See Ad Fortunatum cap. xi. and Testimonies i, 20.) On the one hand St. Optatus never expected the Seven Churches of Asia to be overrun by the Turk, but on the other hand it is not likely that he supposed them to be infallible or indefectible, for the heresies in some had been sufficiently notorious. But he took the seven apostolic churches then existing in Asia as a real proof of Apostolicity, for one reason because Parmenian evidently had referred to them by mentioning the Angel as one of the Endowments. St. Optatus retorts, 'We are actually in communion with these Seven Churches, but you are not!' Whatever is without the Seven Churches (not, I think, necessarily these particular seven churches mentioned in the Apocalypse, for if Optatus had wished to say this, he would, as elsewhere, have written 'extra quas septem Ecclesias,' (cf. 'ad quorum Ecclesias,' 'cum quibus Ecclesiis,' etc., supra,) but whatever is without Cyprian's mystical Seven) is outside (foris), is alien (alienum). In all probability foris and alienum are used as synonyms (see i, 11,' dum foras exeunt et se separant'; so Cyprian, Ep. ad Anton. i, 8, writes of a schismatic Bishop 'profanus est, alienus est, foris est'), though Ziwsa says that alienum here = diversum. Optatus has already written (i, 12) that heretics are 'ab hortulo et a paradiso Dei alieni'; he now writes simply that' whatever is schismatic' is 'alienum'----is alien, is foreign to, is not within 'God's garden '----the Catholic Church. (We may compare St. Ambrose in Ep. I. Ad Cor. iii, 15, 'Extra Catholicam quicquid est, contrarium est.') St. Augustine takes up and several times uses this appeal to the Apostolic churches of the East. It is sometimes compared by non-Catholic controversialists to the patristic appeal to communion with Rome. But the work of St. Optatus is by itself enough to show the lack of parity. The duty of union with the Cathedra Petri is put forward as of primary and absolute necessity, because it is the Cathedra, because Peter alone received the keys, and the like. There are no parallel statements----evidently none could be made----in any of the Fathers about any other See, save the See of Rome. A Catholic in England before the Reformation might have said with perfect truth: 'Whoever is not in communion with the See of Canterbury is outside the Church '; as a Catholic to-day may say with equal truth: 'Whoever is not in communion with the See of Westminster is outside the Church.' It in no wise follows that the See of Canterbury has not fallen, nor that the See of Westminster may not (quod avertat Deus) fall into schism. Such immunity from schism and heresy can be predicated of One See alone----itself the Centre of Unity----set up for this very purpose, 'that unity might be preserved by all'----the Cathedra Singularis of St. Optatus (cf. note 2, p. 67).
92. 1 et per angelos supra memoratis ecclesiis et per ipsas Ecclesias nobis. As Optatus proceeds immediately to urge, it is an incontrovertible principle of Catholicism that he who is in communion with one member of the Body is thereby ipso facto in communion with the other members, and with the whole Body; whereas he who is out of communion with one member is out of communion with all. The test is of easy application, and is most often made (as Optatus made it) primarily in relation to the See of Peter, but we may apply it with equal certainty to any See which without controversy belongs to the Catholic Church. Thus St. Optatus applied it to the Seven Churches mentioned in the Apocalypse. We can apply it, say, to the Church of Madrid, concerning which there can be no doubt that it is Catholic. So, if any man (or any organised religious body) claims to be Catholic, we may ask at once: 'Are you in communion with the Bishop of Madrid? If so, through the Bishop of Madrid, you are in communion with the whole Catholic Church, and since we (whom perhaps you call "Roman Catholics ") are in communion with the Bishop of Madrid, you must also be in communion with us----which is manifestly untrue and----unless you too are in communion with Rome----ridiculous. But if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Madrid (who is, as you freely acknowledge, a Catholic Bishop), you are thereby convicted of being outside the Church, and are not a Catholic, whatever you may be pleased to call yourself.' This is the argument of St. Optatus, and of Catholics generally in every age. It at once makes the question of the validity of Orders irrelevant to the main issue, and raises the discussion to a higher plane----to the analogy of the mystical Body of Christ with a human body, in which, so long as the eye (or any other member) is in union with the hand (provided only that the hand is in union with the heart), both live; but the moment that separation comes, one, or both, must be out of the body.
93. 1 'If you are not in communion with any Catholic Bishops your position is hopeless; but if you are in communion with any Catholic Bishops you must through them be in communion with us, for we are in communion with them.' (This is, of course; the reductio ad absurdum of which we have spoken in the preceding note.) 'But if you are in communion with us, you cannot have any longer any case against us. You have lost your case.' It is possible that by Angelus, St. Optatus does not in this passage understand the Bishop himself, but the Guardian Angel of the Church, who attends upon the Bishop. In this case his argument will be precisely the same: 'If you have an Angel shut up in a box, send him to Asia, and tell him to treat the Apostolic Churches there as excluded from the true Church,and to cut off their Angels, to whom St. John wrote, from his communion. Your Angel, if you have one, will not do that. So if you are not in communion with those Angels, how can you have an Angel at all? Are not all the Angels in communion with one another? And the Seven Churches are a type of the whole Church. Conversely, if you have an Angel, he must be in communion with the other Angels and therefore with those Apostolic Churches, and (as we are in communion with them) then you must be in communion with us, and so your whole attack upon us breaks down.' Whether Angelus means Angel or Bishop, the argument is the same, and clear.
94. 2 St. Optatus passes to the third Endowment of the Church, the Spirit of adoption, whereby we are the sons of God. Parmenian had claimed this for the Donatists, and had said that it could not belong to the Catholic Church, whose sons he declared (as we shall see in a moment) to be the sons, not of God, but of Hell.
95. 3 includere (cf. 'inclusus in templis,' ii, 15).
96. 1 quod intelligitur et non videtur.
97. 2 This is a combination of John iv, 24 with John iii, 8.
98. 3 in illa Ecclesia, i.e. the Catholic Church. Optatus is quoting from Parmenian's treatise.
99. 4 In reading the history of the Donatists we are reminded again and again of English Puritans and Scotch Covenanters. Sir Walter Scott, in some of the Waverley Novels, puts upon the lips of the soldiers of Cromwell and the disciples of Calvin and John Knox almost the identical words that St. Optatus puts upon the lips of Parmenian and his friends.
100. 5 As in many other places, St. Optatus now passes abruptly, when addressing Parmenian, from the plural to the single number. I have endeavoured throughout to make these transitions as far as possible in the translation, though it is often the case (as here) that they possess no significance.
101. 6 Matt. xxiii, 15.
102. 1 As Parmenian was not an African, he was the one Donatist who should have been most careful not to have said 'you compass sea and land.' This charge had better have been made, if at all, by anyone else.
103. 2 tamen importune a te hoc dictum est. Aestimo quod te iam forte huius dicii poeniteat. So PG. Ziwsa with the other MSS. reads dictum esse aestimo quod, etc. But this is hard to translate, and we do well always to remember in case of any doubt that P is much the best MS.
104. 3 It was against the Canon Law of the time to bring in a foreigner to be consecrated Bishop, as it was considered of great importance that he should be already well-known to the people over whom he was to rule. For this reason Optatus reproaches Parmenian with being a peregrinus (cf. iii, 3).
105. 1 St. Optatus now comes to the consideration of Fons and Sigillum. He passes swiftly over these Endowments, since (as he has said, ii, 3) the Cathedra is the first. That Church which has the Cathedra has them all, and is proved by this very fact----through union with the Chair of Peter----to have the others also (ii, 5-6). As is obvious, Optatus was precluded by his statement that the Donatists were schismatics and not heretics from proving directly that they are without the fourth and fifth Endowments. Therefore he contents himself with having already proved it indirectly and inferentially by his statement that, since they have not the first Endowment, they cannot have the rest, and merely agrees with them that they are right in stating that heretics cannot have either the Fountain or the Seal.
106. 2 soli, in contradistinction to Catholics.
107. 3 nam. This word (for) depends upon nothing to be found in any MS.; moreover, the transition is so abrupt, that it seems almost certain that some connecting passage has been lost. Hence the asterisks. St. Optatus having discussed the nature of the Endowments, and having proved that they belong to the Catholic Church alone, proceeds to discuss their number, and to argue that they are five, not (as Parmenian had alleged) six.
108. 4 Cant. vii, 2.
109. 5 St. Optatus looked upon these Endowments as something external to the Body of Christ. He regarded what we now call the Notes, or Marks, of the Church as two. The true Church is One and Catholic (of world-wide extension). When the Church of Christ has been thus identified, as the Church which is One and is Everywhere (ubique), Optatus agrees with Parmenian as to her five Endowments, but explains them very differently. According to the mind of Optatus they are: (1) First and foremost----Union with the Chair of Peter (Cathedra); (2) Apostolic Succession (Angelus); (3) The Spirit of sonship (Spiritus); (4) The Baptismal Font, or perhaps the True Faith (Fons); (5) The Seal of the Faith----the Creed (Sigillum). These Endowments are distinctive and characteristic of Catholicism. They are gifts from God ab extra bestowed upon His Bride the Church. It can be proved to-day that the One Church, which is not merely local, but is scattered through all the nations, still possesses these 'Endowments,' e.g. is still in union with the See of Peter ('Cathedra Petri quae nostra est'; cf. note 2, p. 86). On the other hand, it will be seen immediately that any religious body out of communion with the Catholic Church is without one at least of these Endowments, e.g. has not the Cathedra Petri, from which unhappily it is severed.
110. 1 non potest arbor a ramo concidi. G has 'non potest esse arbor ramus concisus' ('nor can the branch which has been cut off be the tree'). This reading is adopted by Du Pin, as being ad mentem scriptoris. But we are not free to choose an easy reading in G against an unexpected, and therefore harder, reading in the other MSS.
111. 1 apud quos et Symbolum Trinitatis est. This means the Creed which expresses Faith in the Trinity. St. Optatus has in the preceding chapter written of the 'Sigillum: id est Symbolum Catholicum.' Cf. also St. Augustine's work De Fide et Symbolo.
112. 2 per Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est, per ipsam et ceteras dotes apud nos esse.
113. 3 The Donatists held that Catholic priests who had been guilty of the wickedness of Betrayal, thereby had lost their sacerdotal powers, and especially that their Bishops could not ordain validly. As a result they dared to deny that the Eucharist consecrated by Catholics was the Body of Christ, and were even guilty of the horrible sacrilege of casting It to dogs (cf. ii, 19).
114. 4 Other than the sin of Traditio.
115. 5 quod, si sacerdos in peccato sit, solae possint dotes operari.
116. 6 et huius Sanctae Ecclesiae constituta est Persona. Persona means first a mask, and thence a representative. There can be no doubt that St. Optatus is here referring to St. Peter, or his successor in the See of Rome, as the Representative of the Church. This is made clear by the fact that he is giving a summary of the arguments which he has already brought forward in his book. Now amongst these arguments the representative character of St. Peter and of his Cathedra has, as we have just seen, taken a leading place. Again, no alternative explanation of Persona in this passage has ever been suggested. Further, it is well known that St. Augustine adopted this traditional view, and in several passages has written of St. Peter as representing the whole Catholic Church in his own person: e.g. Gestat enim Petrus Ecclesiae plerumque personam (Sermo de Verb. Evangel. Matt. lxxiv. 10); Petrus a petra cognominatus beatus, Ecclesiae figuram portans, apostolatus principatum tenens etc. (Sermo lxxvi. ut supra); Petrus in multis locis Scripturarum apparet quod personam gestet Ecclesiae (Sermo cxlix. 7 de Verbis Act. cap. x); Nam et ipsum Petrum, cui commendavit oves suas quasi alter alteri, unum Secum facere volebat, ut sic ei oves commendaret, ut esset Ille Caput, ille figuram Corporis portaret, id est, Ecclesiae, et tanquam sponsus et sponsa essent duo in carne una (Sermo de Pastoribus in Ecclesia, xlvi. 30 etc., etc.).
117. 1 cuius dotes apud illam ubique sunt. 'The Endowments of the Church are with her everywhere.' Therefore, the Chair of Peter (according to the expressed mind of Optatus the chief of the Endowments) is with the Catholic Church (as well as the others----the local Bishop, the Holy Spirit, the Faith and the Creed) wherever she may be, in whatever part of the world. This See is the first and typical See, with which all Catholic Bishops are in communion ubique. It was idle then for Parmenian to appeal to his Cathedra. It was not the 'Cathedra unica'; it was not ubique. If in all parts of the world there are Cathedras, if Italy and Asia have succession of Bishops as well as Africa, and if in Africa there are now rival Cathedras, the question arises: 'Which is the true Cathedra? Where is the true Church?' To this Optatus gives the answer: That is the true Cathedra in every place on which is seated a Bishop in communion with the original Cathedra at Rome; there also is the true Church, for 'the Catholic Church is the Church which is scattered over the whole world and her Endowments are with her everywhere.'
118. 1 The Donatist argument may be stated as follows in syllogistic form:
Bishops and Priests guilty of the crime of Betrayal can no longer use validly the power of their Orders;
But you Catholics have been guilty of this crime of Betrayal;
Therefore...
To this Optatus here replies to the Major Premise, 'Transeat (let it pass, for the sake of argument), but to the Minor Premise, Nego Minorem. We never were Betrayers, and we always condemned the sin of Betrayal.'
119. 2 de sanctis eius membris ac visceribus tacuisti.
120. 3 Nominibus Trinitatis, id est Personis Trinitatis. (Cf. v, 3 'aqua sancta quae de Trium Nominum fontibus inundat.') St. Optatus now passes to the question of the One Baptism conferred in the Name of the Trinity. One of the chief crimes of the Donatists consisted in the repetition of Baptism administered by Catholics.
121. 4 Professio [fidei] quae apud acta conficitur Angelorum. Tertullian had stated that an Angel was present at Baptism (De Baptismo, vii, 5, 6), and St. Augustine has written (De Symbolo ad Catech.) 'Videte, dilectissimi, quia hanc professionem vestram in curiam profertis Angelorum.' These last words are an echo of those of Optatus in the text.
122. 5 nova indoles.
123. 6 The metaphor is of the Marriage of the Trinity with the Profession of Faith, producing a seed, a germ. Cf. S. Leo, Serm. 4 de Nativ. Domini: 'Aqua baptismatis instar est uteri virginalis, eodem Spiritu Sancto replente fontem, qui replevit et Virginem.'
124. 1 ratio baptismatis.
125. 2 aut area conclusas.
126. 1 cuius hortum in angustias cogitis.
127. 2 mendacium... quo cotidie a vobis sacrificia condiuntur.
128. 3 nam quis dubitet vos illud legitimum in sacramentorum mysterio praeterire non posse? The word legitimum is a reference to the prescribed words of the Liturgy. St. Optatus tells us (iv, 6) that the Donatists used the Baptismal Exorcism 'Maledicte, exi foras.' So St. Augustine (De pecc. origin. ii, 40; cf. con. Iul. Pelag. iii, 5) observes that in the Baptism of children the Pelagians replied to the question, 'abrenuntias Satanae?', though they denied that these children were subject to original sin. Similarly, St. Cyprian (Ep. ad Magnum 7) tells us that the Novatians did not venture to pass over in Baptism the solemn words, 'credis remissionem peccatorum?', and continued thus, 'et vitam aeternam per Sanctam Ecclesiam?'; yet they believed not in the Forgiveness of Sins and did not belong to the Holy Church. Throughout history we find heretics employing venerable creeds and solemn prayers, the sense of which they have, often long since, abjured. Thus St. Augustine (De dono Persev. xiii, 33) turned their use of the Preface in the Mass against the Pelagians in these words: 'Quod ergo in Sacramentis Fidelium dicitur, ut sursum habeamus corda ad Dominum, munus est Domini; de quo munere ipsi Domino Deo nostro gratias agere a sacerdote post hanc vocem, quibus hoc dicitur, admonentur, et dignum ac iustum esse respondent.'
129. 1 With whom you are out of communion, just as much as you are out of communion with us.
130. 2 Ecclesiam nostram. Cf. 'Cathedra per Petrum nostra' (ii, 6); 'Cathedra Petri, quae nostra est' (ii, 9).
131. 3 quamvis ab ea sis alienus (cf. ii, 6: 'quicquid foris est, alienum est').
132. 4 unica Sponsa.
133. 1 de alieno locutus es.
134. 2 Optatus complains that Parmenian was content with contrasting the rival churches in Africa, ignoring in his argument the rest of the Catholic world, as though the controversy could be settled solely by reference to what had happened in Africa.
135. 3 Cant. vi, 8.
136. 4 ministros. This word includes all Minor Orders.
137. 1 turbam fidelium.
138. 2 in Ecclesia nostra. Cf. note 2, p. 91.
139. 3 Cf. ii, 4 supra.
140. 4 ut dixisti. RBvbd have ut dixi. But for the words of Parmenian, cf. ii, 14; ii, 18.
141. 1 From Julian the Apostate.
142. 2 rationem rerum.
143. 3 The contrast is between the Christian and the heathen ruler.
144. 4 All the MSS. have Constantinus. But at the beginning of the next chapter we shall read that, 'as was known to all men,' this Emperor was succeeded by Julian. Therefore, either we must read Constans against the MSS., or it was a slip of the pen on the part of Optatus.
145. 5 Ps. cxxxii, 1.
146. 6 Pax una.
147. 7 Africanos populos et orientates et ceteros transmarinos (Africa, Asia, Europe).
148. 8 ipsa unitas.
149. 1 ut reverti possetis.
150. 2 ire. We should probably read redire, the word found in the next chapter.
151. 3 ad disturbandam Pacem.
152. 4 Cf. S. August. Ep. cxlviii; clxvi; and con. Petil. ii, 92.
153. 1 ut relatio mitteretur. Relatio is a technical term for an official report from the Provinces to the Emperor.
154. 2 redire.
155. 3 ad castellum Lemellefi P. Lemellensi Rd. Lemellesi G. Ziwsa writes Lemellefense, an emendation which he justifies in his Index. Lemella was in Mauritania Sitifensis. Cf. The Roman Martyrology for Feb. 9: 'In Africa in Castello Lemellensi Sanctorum Martyrum Primi et Donati diaconorum, qui cum altare in Ecclesia tuerentur, a Donatistis occisi sunt.'
156. 1 Ps, xiii, 2.
157. 1 esse debere.
158. 2 Cf. Eph. v, 27.
159. 3 supra altare (cf. S. Augus. con. Cresc. iii, 43).
160. 4 apud Carpos. A town in Proconsular Africa. Cf. 'Antonius Episcopus plebis Carpitanae' (Coll. Carthag. i, 126).
161. 5 tendi aut explanari.
162. 6 duae faculae, incensi livoribus.
163. 7 in Pace positorum.
164. 1 cum signis (sc. militaribus).
165. 2 With this reference to the boast of the Donatists that they were 'doves,' we may compare St. Augustine (con. Pet. ii, 83): 'Isto modo et milvus, cum pullos rapere territos non potuerit, columbam se nominat.'
166. 3 Cf. Cant, vi, 8.
167. 4 quod vobis leve videtur, facinus inmane.
168. 1 latrones. Cf. 'Christus percussus est in altari' (vi, 1). For latro see note 9, p. 166.
169. 2 Sancti Corporis reos (cf. 1 Cor. xi, 27). Mr. Sparrow Simpson, giving a summary account of this passage in Optatus, observes (op. cit. p. 39): 'The consecrated elements from the altars were flung to the dogs.' St. Optatus writes nothing concerning 'the consecrated elements.' The very word 'elements' would, have been incomprehensible to him in this connection. He does call the Eucharist 'the Holy Body' and 'the Body of Christ' (Corpus Christi, vi, 1). It is impossible to avoid observing the contrast between Catholic terminology of the fourth, and Anglican terminology of the twentieth, century.
170. 3 We must not forget that Optatus was an eye-witness of many of the scenes which he describes. He does not, however, wish to suggest that the angel's hand was seen, but simply to recall the fact that the vessel containing the Holy Chrism was uninjured by its fall. This he ascribes to the interposition of God, who uses His Angels to guard that which is His own, and to minister to the needs of His servants on earth. Mr. Sparrow Simpson (id.) comments on these events as follows: 'By these fanatical measures' [sic: one of which was throwing the Eucharist to dogs----the 'facinus inmane' of Optatus] 'the Separatists relieved their feelings [sic] and expressed their contempt. Various strange and legendary incidents recall the scandal to the Catholic sense of reverence.' History sometimes repeats herself with minute similarities. In Green's History of the English People (vol. ii, p. 186) we read that in the year 1539 'In one church a Protestant lawyer raised a dog in his hands when the Priest elevated the Host.'
171. 1 Matt, vii, 6.
172. 2 quid tale... fieri poluit, unde etc. Du Pin, however, prints with a note of interrogation after potuit, and begins a fresh sentence with Unde.
173. 3 cui ipse mitram imposuerat (cf. vi, 4).
174. 1 1 John i, 8.
175. 2 sapienter se ad Dei gratium reservavit.
176. 1 semi-perfecti (and this only through the grace of God).
177. 2 If St. Optatus had lived after the Semi-Pelagian heresy, he would have expressed himself in a more guarded manner (cf. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes, ii, 282). But we may be sure that he did not forget Philippians ii, 13: 'For it is God, who works in you both to will, and to make perfect.' St. John Chrysostom, who of course had never heard of Pelagianism, but was much concerned with the defence of free will against Manichaeism, uses such expressions as: 'We must first choose what is right and then God will do His part' (cf. Hom. in Matt. lxix, 2; et in Matt. xxxix, 4)----a phrase which St. Augustine would have repudiated at once.
178. 3 neque volentis, neque currentis, sed ad Dei gratiam pertinentis. The reference is of course to Rom. ix, 16. But here once again one suspects that St. Optatus is trusting to his memory, and quoting by heart. The Vulgate has not ad Dei gratiam pertinentis, but miserentis Dei. This is a literal translation of the Greek.
179. 4 Leviticus xi, 45.
180. 5 Cf. 1 John i, 8 (supra).
181. 1 It was the false boast of the Donatists that they could forgive the sins of other men, because they were themselves without sin.
182. 2 St. Optatus has already told us (cf. i, 10) that Parmenian had asserted that 'the unclean could not cleanse, nor the guilty grant pardon, nor could one who had been condemned absolve from sin.' He now retorts this argument: 'You absolve. On your own principles no sinner can absolve. Therefore you are forced to assert that you are without sin, but if you say that you are without sin, the truth is not in you.'
183. 3 etenim inter vicina momenta.
184. 4 debita. (Cf. iii, 4: 'debita etiam maxima perdere.')
185. 5 Luke xviii, 9 seq.
186. 1 O insanus furor, o punienda et damnanda superbia! For O RBvbd read hoc.
187. 2 Du Pin supplies humilitas, but it is not in the MSS.
188. 1 dum... deicitur. Ziwsa says that deicitur here = a loco removetur.
189. 2 When the Donatists seized the churches of the Catholics, they washed down their walls, with grotesque and superstitious ceremonies, thus to impress upon the minds of the ignorant people that the very material buildings had been profaned by Catholic worship (cf. vi, 6).]
190. 3 nonnullorum animi iugulati sunt.
191. 4 sub nube, with reference to 'obscura luna' (in the quotation from Psalm x, that follows immediately).
192. 5 Ps. x, 3: ad sagittandos obscura luna (Vulgate ut sagittent in obscura).
193. 1 inter Poenitentiae tormenta servare.
194. 2 You strip the Catholic Bishops of their office and make them endure a living death amongst those doing Penance.
195. 3 paupertate sensus sui, id; est 'You have made simple people believe, contrary to the truth, that their Bishops were unworthy.'
196. 4 illi = the Bishops.
197. 5 malitiae vectibus.
198. 6 Ps. x, 4.
199. 7 Cf. Ps. lxxxiv, 12.
200. 1 Ps. ix, 23, 24. Verse 23 is only found in PG (in P in a corrupt form----'dum superbium pius... conpraehenditur in consiliis quae cogitat'; it is corrected in G).
201. 2 bene nominant.
202. 1 Ps. civ, 15: Ne tetigeritis unctos Meos, neque in prophetas Meos manum miseritis. The Vulgate reads: in prophetas Meos nolite malignari.
203. 2 Ps. cxxxii, 2.
204. 3 ubi vobis mandatum est radere capita sacerdotum? This is really important. From this passage in Optatus it is plain that the Donatist sacrilege was no other than the wrongful use of the Rite of Degradation as it is now prescribed in the Roman Pontifical. 'Cum cultello aut vitro abradit leviter caput degradandi dicens: Consecrationem et benedictionem atque unctionem tibi traditam radendo delemus.' So Optatus, with special reference to an unction bestowed upon priests, here accuses the Donatists of scraping the heads of the Catholic priests whom, without any regard for the sanctity of the Holy Oil, they ventured to degrade. (Cf. ii, 25 ad fin.: 'oleum suum defendit Deus,' etc.)
But until now no one seems ever to have imagined that oil was used in any part of the Catholic world either in the ordination of priests or the consecration of Bishops until the sixth century. Thus Duchesne writes (Origines du culte, x, ad fin.): 'L'onction propre au rit Gallican aura t sugg r e par l'Ancien Testament. Elle ne para t pas tr s ancienne. Quelques indices porteraient en chercher l'origine dans les Eglises de Bretagne [in fact Gildas alludes to it] qui la pratiquaient d s le sixi me si cle.' Similarly the learned Dr. Hatch writes as follows (Article on Ordination in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities):----'This rite [anointing of the hands of priests] is mentioned by two French liturgical writers of the ninth century, Amalarius of Metz (837) and Theodulphus of Orleans (821); the earliest canonist who speaks of it is Burchard of Worms (1025), but the recognised body of canon law distinctly disallows it, quoting a response of Pope Nicholas I to the Archbishop of Bourges in 864, who says that it is not a custom of the Roman Church, and that he has never heard of its being practised in the Christian Church. This must be held conclusive, at any rate as to its not being a general practice in the ninth century; but afterwards it no doubt became general, for Innocent III insists upon it, and objects to the Greeks for their omission of it. It is important to note that even the Pseudo-Isidorian authorities for the rite refer only to Bishops; at the same time they clearly show that the origin of the rite was the growing tendency to institute an analogy of ceremonies between the Old and New Testament.' Dr. Hatch proceeds to remark:----' In addition to the anointing of the hands a group of English and Norman pontificals direct the anointing of the head; so Pontif. Ecgb., S. Dunstan, Caturic, Rotom., Becc, but not elsewhere.' In contradiction to this we see clearly from St. Optatus that the heads of Bishops and probably of priests (the word Sacerdotum here----as we may judge from the context----probably includes Presbyteri as well as Episcopi) were universally anointed in Africa in the fourth century (cf. ii, 25: 'Ne tetigeritis, inquit, unctos meos ').
205. 1 ungi meruit.
206. 1 1 Kings xv, 11.
207. 2 Ps. lvi, 5.
208. 1 hominum. Ziwsa writes 'omnium non inepte anonymus quidam apud Du Pin proposuit.' Casaubon adopts Du Pin's suggestion.
209. 2 velum facientibus, Ez. xiii, 18.
210. 3 super omne caput. These words are not to be found here in RBvbd; but they are in all the MSS. in i, 2, where St. Optatus quotes the same passage from Ezekiel.
211. 4 invenistis fideles antiquos. Ziwsa says that antiquos here = seniores.
212. 5 in Penance.
213. 6 In the Episcopate.
214. 7 pariter currebatis.
215. 1 Rom. xiv, 4.
216. 2 St. Optatus now passes abruptly back from the singular to the plural number and refers to the whole Donatist party.
217. 3 Cf. 1 Kings xxiv.
218. 4 in caligine clausi aeris. So the MSS. An ingenious suggestion is antri for aeris. Barthius suggests oris, meaning that Saul's face was in the darkness. Casaubon seems inclined to accept oris, but will not admit that oris can mean face. He understands oris speluncae (the mouth of the cave).
219. 1 1 Kings xxiv, 7. RBvd omit the non. According to this reading it becomes a question: 'Shall I lay my hands? etc'
220. 2 Cf. 2 Kings i.
221. 1 Pss. v, 11 and xiii, 3.
222. 2 Rom. xii, 14.
223. 3 Ps. xiii, 3.
224. 1 in Salomone, omitted by Pb.
225. 2 Wisdom i, 13. We may note that St. Optatus here (as in iv, 8) quotes the Book of Wisdom as canonical Scripture.
226. 3 Ps. civ, 15.
227. 1 ut genua figerent. A rite belonging to Public Penance. Cf. Tertullian de Poen. ix.
228. 2 post unitatem.
229. 3 post turificationem.
230. 4 ne... Oleum, quod Dei est, feriatur.
231. 1 Ps. xiii, 3.
232. 2 Id est qui mente Deum viderint. St. Jerome tells us that it was commonly thought in his time that Israel signifies vir videns Deum. Great names can be quoted for this opinion, and we see in the text that it was taken for granted by St. Optatus. It persisted even to the days of St. Bernard (cf. serm. 5 ad Fest. Omnium Sanctorum), notwithstanding the fact that it had been rejected by St. Jerome (Liber Hebraic. Quaestionum in Genesim, 357)----and rightly, not only on etymological grounds, but also as being opposed to the words of Scripture, which he quotes in his text as follows:---- 'Vocabitur nomen tuum Israel, quia invaluisti cum Deo, et cum hominibus valebis' (Gen. xxxiii, 28). The mistake probably arose from the next verse but one:----'Vocavitque Jacob nomen loci illius Phanuel dicens: Vidi Deum facie ad faciem.' St. Jerome understands Israel to mean 'Prince with God' (Princeps cum Deo). It seems, however, more likely that the true meaning is 'One who wrestled with God.' (From Hebrew Sarah = to fight, to strive, and El = God.) Thus the LXX ὅτι ἐνίσχυσας μετὰ Θεοῦ. And this sense is in harmony with the context. The late Professor Driver (see Article on Jacob in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii, p. 530) writes: 'The name Israel, meaning (on the analogy of other names similarly formed) God persists (or perseveres), is interpreted as suggesting the meaning Perseverer with God.' Professor Driver also tells us that Professor 'Sayce's derivation from yashar, to be upright, to direct (!), has nothing to recommend it.' (The note of exclamation is Driver's.)
233. 1 Vae filiabus Israel, quae sarciunt cervicalia. We have here another mystical reference to Ez. xiii, 18 which runs as follows in the Vulgate: 'Vae quae consuunt pulvillos sub omni cubito manus; et faciunt cervicalia sub capite universae aetatis ad capiendas animas: et cum caperent animas populi Mei, vivificabant animas eorum.'
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_03_book .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 3. pp. 120-179.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 3. pp. 120-179.
I. The severities against the Donatists were provoked by themselves, and Catholics ought not to be blamed for them.
II. These things happened to the Donatists through the just punishment of God.
III. The pride of Donatus.
IV. An account of violent deeds done by Donatists against Donatists.
V. Excuse is made for the severities exercised by the champions of unity.
VI.Against the alleged Donatist martyrs.
VII.Macarius is defended from the Donatist calumnies.
VIII. That neither can Macarius be called a persecutor, nor can those who were put to death by him be called martyrs.
IX. It was necessary to bring about unity in Africa.
X. It is shown from Ezekiel that the severity employed against the Donatists was by the will of God.
XI. It is shown that the Donatists are deceivers.
XII. A calumny that had been brought against Macarius.
APPENDIX TO BOOK III.
XIII. In what way and why Macarius was admitted to Communion.
XIV. That even if Macarius was guilty, he ought not to have been repelled from Communion.
BOOK THE THIRD
The Four Reasons on Account of which it was not possible to bring about unity without Severity.
Because the Schismatics had built Churches 'that were not wanted.'
Because Donatus of Carthage had appealed to the Emperor to bring about Unity.
Because Donatus of Bagaia collected Bands of Armed Men to stop the Work of Unity.
Because none of those Things with which the Work of Unity has been reproached came to pass in Opposition to the Will of God.
I. The severities against the Donatists were provoked by themselves, and Catholics ought not to be blamed for them.
I have written in my second Book (as I think, at sufficient length) concerning the Church, which is the Bride of Christ, and about her Endowments, and of the Saviour's inheritance. It remains for me to show, in the first place, the errors of the schismatics; secondly, to point out how it came to pass that unity was enforced; and thirdly, to prove who brought it about that an armed force was sent.
That much severity was shown by the makers of unity cannot be denied. But why impute this to |121 Leontius, Macarius or Taurinus 1? Ascribe it rather to your own ancestors, who, as the prophet has written, 'have themselves eaten sour grapes, that your teeth may be set on edge.' 2
They are primarily responsible, who divided the people of God and built basilicas which were not wanted.3
Secondly, Donatus of Carthage ought to be blamed, for it was in consequence of his appeal 4 that an attempt was made to enforce unity at the next opportunity.
Thirdly, Donatus of Bagaia, who got together a mob of madmen, so that Macarius asked for the help of an armed force, in order to protect himself and the interests which had been committed to his care.
Then came armed men 'with their quivers,' 5 and 'every town was filled with those who shout.' 6 Unity |122 was proclaimed, and you all 'took to flight.' 7 To no man was it said 'Deny God'; to none was the commandment given 'Burn the Scriptures'; to none was it said 'Place incense in the censer'; or 'Pull down the basilicas.' These are the commands which give birth to martyrs. Unity was proclaimed. There were merely exhortations that the people should assemble in one place, to pray together to God and His Christ. At first there were no threats 8; no one had seen a weapon or a prison; there were, as I have said, exhortations merely. Yet you were all filled with fear; you fled; you trembled----so that which has been written in the fifty-second Psalm was certainly said of you:
'They trembled for fear where there was no fear.' 9
Then all your Bishops, with their clergy, 'took to flight.' Some died. The 'more hardy' were 'captured and banished to a distance.' 10
II. These things happened to the Donatists through the just punishment of God.
Still, none of these things was done at our instigation, none by our advice, none with our privity, none by our aid. They were all done through the grief of God,11 (who grieved bitterly,12) to punish your sin against |123 the water of Baptism which, contrary to His command, you had moved a second time,13 drawing to yourselves,14 as it were, the water of the ancient pool.15 I know not whether it contained that Fish by which is understood Christ,16 the Fish captured, as we read in the book of the Patriarch Tobias----captured in the River Tigris, of which the gall and the liver were taken by [young] Tobias as a protection for his wife Sara, and to give sight to his father in his blindness----that Fish through the entrails of which 17 Asmodeus,18 the devil, was put to flight by Sara the maiden (by whom is understood the Church), and blindness was removed from Tobias.19 This is that Fish, which in Baptism, through the |124 Invocation of God,20 is placed in the waters of the font, so that what had been water is, from the Fish,21 also called 'piscina.'
This is that Fish, the name of which in Greek contains in its one name alone, through each of its letters, a number of holy names, ΙΧΘΥΣ, that is to say in Latin, Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Salvator----Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour.22 This 'piscina,' which in the whole Catholic Church throughout the world is joyfully filled with saving waters for the life of the human race, you have drawn away 23 according to your own wills; and have made null that one only Baptism 24 (through which walls have been built up for the protection of men 25), and have made as it were other walls,26 building |125 an unworthy building, since you have not been able to build up without throwing down.
And what kind of building can that be which is built out of a ruin? 27 This it is over which God grieves and weeps, through the prophet Isaiah,28 saying that the daughter of His people (generis) was laid low. For it is the genus of God to have no genus.29 He is of Himself,30 and He remaineth for ever. And like to Him in this is the water, of which we do not read that it was created.31 To avenge the injury done to this water,32 God points out His Tears, which you have caused Him. These He declares can be dried by no consolation, addressing you by Isaiah His prophet:
'Depart from me, I will weep bitterly. No one will be able to comfort me, for the laying low of the daughter of my people.' 33
In this passage our innocence is defended, whilst God with grief makes clear His wrath against you, giving the cause and alleging the reason.
Besides, He does not say 'in Sion,' 34 for it is not |126 in the whole of Sion,35 but only in its valley 36 that judgements were delivered. Not that Mount Sion which in Syrian Palestine is separated by only a small river from the walls of Jerusalem,37 on the summit of which there is not the great plain, on which were 38 the seven synagogues, whither the Jewish people might assemble and learn the law given to Moses----but where no lawsuits were heard and no judgements were given by any, for it was a place of teaching, not of controversial discussion. (If anything of this sort had to be done, it was done within the walls of Jerusalem.) Therefore was it written in Isaiah the prophet:
'The Law shall go forth from Sion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.' 39 |127
It was not therefore on this Mount Sion that Isaiah beheld the valley, but on the holy mountain, that is the Church, which has reared her head throughout all the Roman world, beneath the whole expanse of Heaven.
This is the mountain on which the Son of God rejoices that He is made King by God the Father, saying:
'That He hath made me King upon His holy hill of Sion' 40 ----
that is, over the Church, of which He is King and Spouse and Head----not on the hill [in Palestine],41 where there were no gates beloved by God, but on the mount, by which the Church is spiritually signified. The gates of this Church are entered by the innocent, the just and the merciful, by the pure of heart, and the virgins. These are the gates of which the Holy Ghost makes mention, through David, in the eighty-sixth Psalm, when He says:
'Her foundations are upon the holy hills; the Lord loveth the Gates of Sion' 42 ----
not the gates of that material mountain,43 where now, after the triumphs of the Emperor Vespasian, there are no gates, and scarce any traces of its ancient ruins are to be found.
Wherefore, the spiritual Sion is the Church, in which Christ was made King by God the Father----that is in the whole world, where there is One Catholic Church |128... for the most holy prophet David bears witness in another place also that Sion is the Church:
'Laud thy God, O Sion, for he hath made fast the bars of thy gates. He hath blessed thy children within thee.' 44
We understand the various provinces of the whole world to represent the various valleys of the mountain.45 And since Isaiah had not his vision of the whole mountain, but of one valley, that means in Africa alone, for in Africa alone your fathers were pleased to build fresh temples, although the first were amply sufficient. In Africa alone walls were cast down, and in order that walls might be made 46 the water of the holy font was turned to a wrong purpose, and novelty was introduced by you against antiquity, and water of human origin was provided, against that which is divine.47 |129
Chiding the valley of Sion, God challenges all this,48 demanding 49:
'What aileth you that you have gone up into superfluous temples? Every city is full of those who clamour. Their wounded were not wounded by the sword, and those who are dead in thee are not dead in battle. From the smallest to the greatest all thy princes are in error, wandering upon the hills. 50 They have been turned to flight, and those who have been taken have been grievously bound.51 And thy strong ones have been put to flight to a far distance. Let me go, for I will weep bitterly. No one will be able to |130 console me for the devastation of the daughter of my people. And the Elamites 52 shall come up with their quivers.'
Elamites in the Latin tongue 53 are called choirs of the camps.54 And he goes on to say:
'Your inmost recesses shall be made public,55 and the secrets of the House of Israel shall be laid bare.' 56
This has happened in Africa alone, and God pointed out for what reason all this was done, blaming you with these words:
'Because 57 you have diverted the water of the old pool into your city, and have cast down the walls of Jerusalem to build another wall, and have made a pool between the two walls. You have paid no heed to the old pool, nor to Him who created it in the beginning.' 58
So you see, my brother Parmenian, that you, by whose first fathers the seed of all these things was sown, find yourselves burdened with the crop. |131
III. The pride of Donatus.
Secondly, Donatus of Carthage was responsible, for through his poisonous wiles 59 the question of [effecting] unity was first mooted.
I shall be able to show that the makers of unity did nothing at our instigation, nor of their own wickedness, but that everything happened through provocatory causes, which were set in motion by Donatus of Carthage, in his lightness of heart, and were due to the actions of individuals controlled by him, whilst he was struggling to be thought great. Is there anyone that can be ignorant of all this excepting yourself; for, since you were a stranger,60 they have been able to get you to believe idle fables?
Again, who can deny a fact, to which the whole of Carthage is the leading witness, that the Emperor Constans did not originally send Paul and Macarius to bring about unity, but to be his almoner, in order that the poor people 61 in the various churches might be afforded assistance, by means of which they might breathe anew, be clothed, fed, and rejoice?
But when they came to Donatus, your father, and told him why they had come, he, as was usual with him, fell into a rage, and burst out with these words:
'What has the Emperor to do with the Church?'
And, from the fountain of his levity, he poured forth torrents of reproaches no less evil-sounding than those with which he had once upon a time not hesitated to |132 assail the prefect Gregory----calling him 'Gregory, the stain upon the Senate, the disgrace of Prefects,' and the like. Gregory replied to him with patience worthy of a Bishop.62 Copies of these letters exist and are in the mouths of many chanted everywhere.63 Then Donatus----against the commands of the Apostle Paul----planned to do a wrong to those in high places, and to kings,64 on behalf of whom, if he had listened to the Apostle, he would have prayed every day, since this is the teaching of the blessed Apostle Paul:
'Pray for kings and for powers, that with them we may lead a quiet and tranquil life.' 65
For the State is not in the Church, but the Church is in the State, that is to say, in the Roman Empire,66 |133 which Christ calls Libanus in the Canticle of Canticles, saying:
'Come, my spouse, whom I have found,67 come from Libanus,'
that is to say, from the Roman Empire, where are the holy offices of the priesthood,68 and modesty and virginity, which exist not amongst foreign peoples,69 and which, if they did exist, could not be safe from outrage. With reason does Paul teach us that we must pray for kings and powers, even though the Emperor be living a pagan life.70 How much more, then, if he be a Christian----how much more if he fears God, and is pious, and full of mercy, as facts prove this one 71 to have been?
For he had sent ornaments to the Houses of God, he had sent alms for the poor, nothing to Donatus 72! Why, then, did Donatus act like a madman? Why was he full of anger? Why did he refuse the gifts which had been sent? For when the commissioners announced that they were going through the different |134 provinces, and that they would give alms to those who were Mailing to accept them, he declared that he had sent letters everywhere in advance to forbid that anything which had been brought should be distributed anywhere amongst the poor. Oh, this is the way to console the wretched, to provide for the needs of the poor, to come to the aid of sinners! God cries out:
'It is I who have made both the rich man and the poor man.' 73
Not that He was unable to give to the poor man also. But, if He had given to the poor as well as to the rich, the sinner would not be able to discover any means of helping himself. On this account has it been written that:
'Even as water puts out a fire, so do alms-deeds wipe out sin.' 74
It is certain that both are now with God----the one who wished to give, and the other who stood in the way of his giving. Well, if God were now to say to Donatus 'O Bishop, what do you wish to make out Constants to have been? If he was innocent, why would you not receive from an innocent giver? If he was a sinner, why did you not permit aims to be given by him, for whose sake I made the poor man?' When questioned after this fashion, what sort of face will he show? Why in his levity and madness did he work so hard to keep good things from so many 75 poor people? |135
He believed that he held dominion over Carthage; and since there is no one superior to the Emperor excepting God alone (who made the Emperor), Donatus, in raising himself above the Emperor, had already, as it were, passed the boundaries apportioned to humanity, so that he almost regarded himself, not as man, but as God, when he refused to revere him, who, after God, was feared by mankind.
Finally, the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, rebukes the prince of Tyre, that is to say, the prince of Carthage, with these words:
'O Son of man, speak against the prince of Tyre, saith the Lord God, because thine heart has been puffed up, and thou hast said I am God.' 76
That Tyre is Carthage is shown, in the first place, by Isaiah, when, after describing the vision of Tyre, he goes on:
'Howl, O ye ships of Carthage.' 77
In the second place this is also proved by profane literature,78 and, if there be any other city called by this name, there is no other in which any of those things were done which are known to have been done at Carthage.
'Speak,' says the Lord, 'against the prince of Tyre.' He does not command the prophet to speak against any secular king,79 nor was he to speak to many, |136 but to one----that is to Donatus, Bishop of Carthage. For it was not fitting for Ezekiel, whose words I have just quoted,80 to compare to any man, excepting to a prince, that Bishop who claimed for himself (as we have said) princedom over Carthage, who puffed up his heart, and thought himself to be superior to men and wished to have even all his own colleagues beneath him----from whose offerings he would never deign to accept aught. Now, his conscience, and Christ his God bear witness to this----and the complaints of many.81 For in his very intercourse with others, he did them this wrong, that he acted in some secret way or other, alone by himself, and afterwards only in a perfunctory manner 82 mingled with the rest. |137
In this fashion was his heart puffed up, so that in the end he seemed to himself no longer to be man, but God.
Moreover, in the mouths of the people he was seldom called a Bishop, but was spoken of as 'Donatus of Carthage.' And deservedly was he both addressed and chided as Prince of Tyre (that is of Carthage), because he was the first of the Bishops,83 as though he were something more than the rest. And whilst he wished to have nothing common to mankind,84 he lifted up his heart, not like the heart of a man, but like the heart of a god,85 since he desired to be something more than other men.86
But God follows after Donatus with these words:
'Thou hast said, I am God.' 87
For though he did not make use of this expression, still he either himself accomplished, or suffered, that which would bring about its result.88 He puffed up his heart in such a way as to think that no other man ought to be compared with him, and, in the swelling of his own mind, he seemed to himself to be something higher than the others. Since whatever is above men, in a sort of way is God.89 |138
Besides, whereas Bishops ought to serve God, he demanded so much for himself from his Bishops, that they all had to venerate him with no less fear than they venerated God----because to himself he seemed to be God. And though men are wont to swear by God alone, he allowed men to swear by him, as if by God. If this were done by any man in mistake, it was his duty to forbid it. As, then, he did not forbid it, to himself he seemed to be God. Again, whilst all those who believed in Christ were, before the day of his insolence, called Christians, he ventured to divide the people with God, so that those who followed him were no longer called Christians, but Donatists, and when any people visited him from any province of Africa, he did not ask those questions (which the custom of men always calls for) about the weather, about peace and war, about the harvest, but to everyone who came into his presence, he spoke thus:
'How goes my party in your part of the world?' 90
As though he had now really divided the people with God, so that, without faltering, he dared to call it his 'party.' For, from his time to the present day, whenever any action is brought before the public courts on ecclesiastical affairs; all [of his sect] have, on being questioned (as we read in the records of the proceedings), spoken in such a way as to assert that they belong to the party of Donatus. Concerning Christ they kept silence. And what am I to say of their clergy, when I read the petition which (as I have stated in the first book 91) was sent to Constantine, |139 subscribed by Bishops in this manner: 'Given by Capito and by Nasutius, Dignus, and the other Bishops of the party of Donatus'? 92 They, we know, made their complaints against Bishops, who, whilst they did not belong to the party of Donatus, dwelt in the Catholic Church of Christ.93
Since, then, Donatus did not live as a Bishop amongst his fellow-Bishops, and refused to be a man amongst men, it is certain that he puffed up his heart and seemed to himself to be God. And as for the Bishops by whom you were consecrated, their names, my brother Parmenian, are well known to you, and you know also where they lived, and which of them made a petition to return home----in your company. You know, too, who it was to whom they made this petition, and you know his character.94 Now, all this we have learned through their having brought before the judges in Africa this same old petition in which they had written: 'Given by the Bishops of the party of Donatus.' 95
What reply, I ask, will they make in the approaching Judgement of God, since they in this world acknowledged equivalently 96 that they belonged, not to the Church of Christ, but freely confessed that they were |140 of the party of Donatus, though it is written in the Gospel that Christ has said:
'He that confesses Me before men, him will I confess before My Father'? 97
These men confessed, not Christ, but Donatus.
That the evidence by which clearly to identify the person of Donatus might be by no means scanty there is yet another proof, with which the above-mentioned accusation was closed. God had said that Donatus 98 would not die upon the earth.99 That this is the case is known to all. He dwelt in the house of God, but lived in the heart of the sea. We read that the sea always signifies the world. It was not enough for him to be beloved by some Christian people, but, by reason of his acquaintance with worldly letters, he was also in the heart of the sea, that is, was beloved by the world,100 and on account of his knowledge seemed to himself to be wise. But of this wisdom of his God made little,101 saying:
'Art thou more wise than Daniel?' 102
With how great reason, and how well, has been humbled that wisdom of his, which made him think himself wiser than was Daniel (when he refused the gifts of the King), and would not accept that which had been sent by a Christian Emperor. And he |141 seemed to himself to be a new Daniel, or to have been raised above Daniel in wisdom, for we read that Daniel, when he was once required to receive presents from King Balthassar----a ring; a chain and the rest----answered thus:
'Thy gifts to thyself, O King.' 103
He answered with wisdom, and did not hurl abuse at the King, and did not blame him for what he offered, but put the matter off for a while.
Quite otherwise Donatus, who both spoke to Constans as abusive words as he knew how, and refused what had been destined for the poor. We can see the wisdom of holy Daniel in not accepting that day the gifts that were offered him. For the question that they asked him was still [known only] in Heaven, and it would have been the act of a fool to receive any kind of reward for that which he had not yet in his power to reveal. Therefore he was for the time unwilling to accept these presents. Afterwards, when God showed him what he should say to the King, he told it to Balthassar, and, later on, gladly accepted that which he was known formerly to have rejected.104 Deservedly, therefore, does God rebuke the Prince of Tyre (that is Donatus), when He asks him:
'Art thou more wise than Daniel?' 105 |142
But oh! how far removed is the presumption of Donatus from the character of Daniel! For what Balthassar gave, he gave to Daniel, not to the poor; but that which Constans, the Christian Emperor, had sent, he had sent to the poor, not to Donatus.
So to Donatus God said:
'The wise men have not taught thee their wisdom' 106;
for thou hast refused to learn from the words of Solomon:
'Hide thy bread in the heart of the poor man, and he shall pray for thee.' 107
Moreover, he would not learn from Daniel himself the lesson which Daniel gave to Nebuchadnezzar, as to how one who had offended God might make satisfaction:
'And do thou, O King,' he said, 'hear my advice, and may it find favour in thy sight. Redeem thy sins by alms-deeds, and the unjust things that thou hast done by having compassion upon the poor.' 108
Daniel advised a king, who was a sinner and sacrilegious, to give alms. Donatus, who has deserved to be blamed,109 hindered Constans, a Christian Emperor, from doing deeds of mercy. Therefore is he blameworthy, because wise men have not taught him their wisdom,110 for he did not suffer the gifts sent by this King to be distributed through his hands.
From all these things it is certain that Donatus |143 was the fountain from which flowed the causes of the evils which ensued.111
IV. An account of violent deeds done by Donatists against Donatists.
So, you see, my brother Parmenian, to whose charge any severity that may have occurred in the work of bringing about unity ought to be attributed. You say that an armed force was asked for by us Catholics. If so, how is it that no one at that time ever saw an armed soldier in the proconsular Province?
Paul and Macarius came in order to console the poor everywhere,112 and exhort everyone individually 113 to unity. But when they drew near to the city of Bagaia, then it was that the second Donatus 114 (as we have already written) who was the Bishop of that city, in his desire to oppose an obstacle to unity, and to place a check in the way of the above-mentioned legates of the Emperor, sent his heralds through the neighbourhood, and especially to all the fairs, and called upon his fighting dervishes 115 to come in a body to a place which he had fixed for them. So it was |144 that at that juncture those men were called together, whose madness had been deemed by these same Bishops, only a short time previously, to have been set on fire by their wickedness.
For when men of this sort were, before the attainment of unity, wandering about in every place, and in their insanity called Axido and Fasir 'Captains of the Saints,' no man could rest secure in his possessions. Written acknowledgments of indebtedness had lost their value. At that time no creditor was free to press his claim, and all were terrified by the letters of these fellows, who boasted that they were 'Captains of the Saints.' If there was any delay in obeying their commands, of a sudden a host of madmen flew to the place. A reign of terror was established. Creditors were hemmed in with perils, so that they who had a right to be supplicated on account of that which was due to them, were driven, through fear of death, to be themselves the humble suppliants. Very soon everyone lost what was owing to him----even to very large amounts, and held himself to have gained something in escaping from the violence of these men.
Even journeys could not be made with perfect safety, for masters were often thrown out of their own chariots and forced to run, in servile fashion, in front of their own slaves, seated in their lord's place. By the judgement and command of these outlaws, the condition of masters and slaves was completely reversed.
So when the Bishops of your party were reproached [with this state of affairs], they are said to have written |145 to Taurinus, who was at the time in possession of civil authority,116 saying that as men of this class could not be corrected by the Church,117 they requested that they should be punished 118 by the above-mentioned officer.
In answer to this letter Taurinus ordered an armed force to go through the fairs, where these mad vagrants were accustomed to wander about.
In the district round Octavum 119 a large number were put to death, of whom many were beheaded. Even to the present day we may count their bodies by the whitened altars or tables.120 When the custom was introduced of burying some in the basilicas, the priest Clarus 121 in the district of Subula was required by his Bishop to undo the burial.122 Through this it came to be known that what was done had been |146 done through a command,123 when not even burial in the House of God was permitted them.
Afterwards the numbers of these fanatics had once more increased; so Donatus of Bagaia found the means of getting together from them a furious horde with which to oppose Macarius.
Of the same class were those who, out of desire for a false martyrdom, hired men to strike and kill them to their own destruction.124 From amongst these also they were drawn who cast themselves down headlong from the summits of lofty mountains, throwing away their good-for-nothing lives.125
See the character of these men, from whom a Bishop, the second Donatus, provided himself with cohorts! |147
Alarmed, then, at this state of terror, those who had brought the treasure to distribute amongst the poor, conceived the plan, in such extreme necessity, of asking for soldiers from the Prefect 126 Silvester, not to do violence to anyone, but to put an end to the violence which had been arranged by the above-mentioned Bishop Donatus.
In this way did it come to pass that soldiers were seen in arms. Now, consider to whom it is right, or possible, to attribute that which followed afterwards. The fanatics had got together an enormous horde, and it is known that they had prepared an ample commissariat.127 They had turned a basilica into a sort of public granary, where they awaited those upon whom they might expend their savagery; and they would have done whatever their madness might have urged, had not the presence of an armed force stood in their way.
For, when quartermasters 128 were, as is usual, sent ahead of the soldiers, they were not received with due respect 129----contrary to the command of the Apostle, who says
'Honour to whom honour is due, custom to whom custom, tribute to whom tribute. Owe no man anything.' 130
Those who had been sent on horseback were maltreated by the men whose names you have blown about |148 with the fan of hatred.131 They were the authors of their own wrongs, and. by their example, through the injuries which they inflicted upon others, brought upon themselves whatever sufferings they may have endured. The soldiers who had been thus molested went back to their quarters,132 and everyone resented that which two or three had endured. All were profoundly stirred up, and not even their officers could hold back these soldiers in their anger. In this way that came to pass, which you have recorded thus, to create prejudice against unity. These events, and others which you have mentioned, have their own causes, and the persons whose names I have given are responsible. We have not even seen them, though we have heard of them, just as you have done.
If to have heard of a thing makes us guilty, we hold you to be partners of our guilt, since you have heard of it likewise; if to know of a thing by hearing gives freedom from responsibility, then that which was done, in consequence of your appeal,133 by others, ought not to be ascribed to us.
You set down your complaints in due order, saying that under Leontius and under Ursacius a very large number 134 suffered wrongfully, that some were put to |149 death under Paulus and Macarius, that under their successors unnamed individuals were proscribed for a time. What has this to do with us, or with the Catholic Church? It is you who have brought about everything of which you complain, for you refused to accept gladly the peace which had been praised by God, valuing the inheritance of schism more highly than the precepts given us by the Saviour.
You have brought accusations against the makers of unity. Blame unity itself, if you can! For I imagine that you do not deny that unity is the supreme good? 135
How does the character of the workmen affect us, provided it be certain that they effected a work which is good? For the grape is trodden and pressed underfoot by sinful workmen, yet thence comes the wine with which Sacrifice is offered to God.136 Oil, too, is made by wretched people,137 some of whom are men of evil lives and unclean tongues, yet it is used without reproach 138 in condiments,139 in lamps, even in the holy Chrism.140 |150
V. Excuse is made for the severities exercised by the champions of unity.
You say that the makers of unity did evil things.141 Perhaps this was according to the Will of God, who is sometimes pleased to permit that which He might have prevented. For some evil things are done in an evil way 142; some evil things are done in a good way.143 The murderer 144 does an evil thing in an evil way, the judge does an evil thing in a good way when he punishes the murderer.145
For this is the Voice of God:
'Thou shalt not kill' 146;
and:
'If any man shall be found sleeping with a woman who has a husband, you shall kill both,' 147
is also His Voice. |151
One God, and two differing Voices. Thus when Phineas, the priest's son, found an adulterer with an adulteress, he stood with raised sword in his hand and hesitated between the two divine Voices. One sounded in his ears:
'Thou shalt not kill' 148;
the other:
You shall kill both.' 149
Were he to strike, he would act contrary to law.150 Were he not to strike, he would fail in his duty.151 He chose the offence which was better 152 ----to strike. And perhaps there were not wanting those who would have wished to brand him as a murderer for inflicting this punishment. But God, that He might show that some evil things are done in a good way, spoke thus:
'Phineas has lessened 153 My wrath.'
Thus God was pleased with the act of homicide, because thereby adultery was punished. What if God has now been pleased with those things which you |152 say that you have suffered----you who refused to have unity, well pleasing to God, with the whole [Catholic] world, and with the 'Shrines' of the Apostles? 154
VI. Against the alleged Donatist martyrs.
I am now compelled, against my will, to make mention of those men----whom I do not wish to mention----who are placed by you amongst the martyrs, by whom you swear, as the one thing which those of your communion hold sacred.155 I should indeed prefer to pass them over in silence, but this is forbidden me by considerations of truth. On account of the names of these men, a mad hatred yelps thoughtlessly 156 against unity, and on account of them there are some who reject unity with contumely, thinking that it is something to be fled from or assailed, because Marculus and Donatus are said to have been slain and to be dead. As if no one at all ought ever to be killed in punishment of offences against God. No one ought to have been injured by the makers of unity, but neither ought the divine precepts to be despised by Bishops, to whom, the command was given:
'Seek peace, and thou shalt obtain it' 157;
and once more:
'How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.' 158 |153
And again:
'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Sons of God.' 159
Whatever evils those persons who refused to hear these words willingly, or loyally to carry them out, may have endured, they have themselves----if to be killed is an evil----brought their own evil upon themselves.160
VII. Macarius is defended from the Donatist calumnies.
But you contend that Macarius is to be blamed, because you think that his actions were not in accordance with the Will of God. Yet you will find men of old who were guilty of similar conduct. You should bring your charge first against Moses himself, the Lawgiver,161 who, coming down from Mount Sinai, when the Tables of the Law on which it had been written:
'Thou shalt not kill,'
had scarce been promulgated,162 ordered three thousand men to be killed in one instant.163
Put Macarius aside for a little while. First appeal to 164 Phineas, the priest's son, whom I mentioned just |154 now,165 to judge you----if indeed you know where to find any judge excepting God. For that which you blame has been praised by God in His own person, because it was done through zeal for God.166 Meanwhile suppress for the moment 167 charges prompted by hatred against Macarius.
First give your mind 168 to the Prophet Elias, who at the brook Cison,169 in obedience to the Will of God, slew four hundred and fifty men. But perhaps you will answer that these were slain deservedly----your partisans 170 unjustly. Punishment never follows 171 without due cause. Moses inflicted punishment (as we have said), and Elias, and Phineas----but you will not have it that Macarius punished with justice.
If those who are said to have been killed had in no way offended, it may be granted that Macarius was guilty in that which was done by him alone----a business of which we know nothing, but which was provoked by you.
Why is prejudice created against us for things that were done by somebody else? Moreover, you are the cause of that which is said to have occurred, |155 for it came about on your account, who were 'outside' 172 (even as you are still outside), not on account of us, who dwell 'within,' and have never departed from the root.173
But, since we have spoken concerning the above instances in order, let us now see why Moses commanded three thousand to be slain, why Phineas two, why Elias four hundred and fifty, why Macarius those two whose names you daily (as I have already said) fan with the fan of hatred.174
It is clear that those were punished who despised a divine command; for
'Thou shalt not make a graven image' 175
is the Voice of God, and
'Thou shalt not commit adultery' 176
is the Voice of the same God. The same God has said
'Thou shalt not offer sacrifice to idols ' 177
and
'Thou shalt not make a schism.' 178
And
'Seek peace and thou shalt obtain it' 179
is the Commandment of the same God.
In the days of Moses the people of Israel worshipped the head of a calf, which they had made in a sacrilegious |156 fire 180; on this account three thousand men deserved death, because they despised the Voice of God. Phineas at one blow slew the adulterers. He deserved to be praised by God, because he put to death those who despised His Commands. And the four hundred and fifty whom we read to have been slain by Elias, were slain for this reason, that, contrary to the Command of God----false prophets that they were----they had despised the divine Precepts. So also those two whose death you lay to the charge of Macarius are not far removed from false prophets. (For that God said you would be false prophets, we shall prove very soon.) And in refusing to look at Peace, lest they should dwell in unity with their brethren, they stood out obstinately against the Commands and against the Will of God.
So you see that similar things were done by Moses and Phineas and Elias and Macarius, because the Commands of one God were vindicated by them all.
But I see you now distinguishing between times, and saying that the times before the Gospel were different from those after the Gospel,181 and you can bring forward the fact that it has been written that Peter put back into his sheath the sword with which he had cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, whom, as though out of devotion,182 he might have slain. |157
But Christ had come to suffer, not to be defended. And if Peter had carried out his intention, it would have appeared that in the Passion of Christ, a servant was punished, not a people freed.
VIII. That neither can Macarius be called a persecutor, nor can those who were put to death by him be called martyrs.
For that Macarius did not draw forth the sword which Peter sheathed, is proved by God, who, speaking to the valley of Sion, says:
'They that have been wounded in thee were not wounded by the sword.' 183
Show, if you can, that any one man in the time of Macarius was struck with the sword. He goes on to say:
'They that died in thee did not die in war.' 184
So you should consider carefully whether it be not rash to call men, who experienced no war waged against Christians, by the name of martyrs.
For nothing was at that time either done or heard, such as it has been customary to do or say in a war against Christians 185----in a war that is called persecution, like that which was carried on under two of the four beasts which Daniel saw rising from the sea.186
Of these beasts, the first was like a lion. This was the persecution under Decius and Valerian. The second was like a bear. This was the second persecution under Diocletian and Maximian, when impious magistrates waged war against the Christian Name----amongst whom, sixty years and more ago, were Anulinus in the Proconsular Province, and Florus in Numidia. |158
It is well known to all what their carefully planned cruelty 187 brought about. War, declared against the Christians, was raging furiously. In the temples of the demons the devil was triumphant. The altars were smoking with unclean odours,188 and those who could not 189 come to the sacrilegious sacrifices were everywhere driven to offer incense.190 Every spot was made into a temple of abomination.191 Old men, soon to be on their deathbeds, were defiled 192; unwitting infancy was polluted; little children were carried by their mothers to the shameful deed; parents were driven to the bloodless slaughter of their children 193; some were driven to destroy the temples of the living God, others to deny Christ, others to burn the books of God,194 others to offer incense.
Not even you will be able to pretend that any of these things was done by Macarius. Under the persecutor Florus, Christians were forced to the temples of idols; under Macarius, the slothful 195 were ordered 196 to the [Christian] basilica. Under Florus, the command was given to deny Christ and pray to idols. Under Macarius, on the contrary, all were warned that one |159 God should be prayed to by all together in the Church.197
Since then you see that no war was waged against Christians; and that God mentions that some have died without war, saying 'And they who died in thee did not die in war' 198; and that those may well be held to be but doubtful martyrs who were not urged either to sacrilegious sacrifices, or to profane offering of incense,199 or to denial of the Name of God; and that there is no path to martyrdom excepting through confession----with what reason can you call those men martyrs, who were not confessors? Or, which among them was driven 200 to deny Christ, and confessed His Name?
So, if there can be no martyrdom apart from confession of the Name of Christ----and if in this case no one confessed Christ----and if that which you assert to have been done, was done in vindication of the Commands of God----and if, whereas God had prophesied that this should come to pass, His Commands were vindicated, whilst you are unable to prove that we had any share in it----if these things be so, consider whether it be not merely idle, but also superstitious, to place those who died without persecution 201 where they are, who, having confessed Christ, were allowed to die on behalf of the Name of God.
Or, if you will have it that they are martyrs----prove |160 that they were lovers of Peace (in which are laid the first foundations of martyrdom), or that unity, beloved by God, was dear to them, or that they lived in charity with their brethren----(for that all Christians are brothers we have proved in our first Book, and shall also prove beyond doubt in our fourth).
Those men who (as you maintain) ought to be called martyrs, refused to recognise their brethren, and had no charity.
And let it not be said in their excuse that they were unwilling to hold communion with Betrayers, since it has been most clearly proved that they themselves were the sons of Betrayers. Therefore you have no way of excusing them, for it is abundantly clear that they had not charity, without which martyrdom can neither be [rightly] named nor have any existence, without which the very greatest and most commanding 202 virtue loses its effect, without which the knowledge of all tongues is worthless, without which even the fellowship of angels is of no avail----as says the Apostle Paul:
'If I have the power of commanding mountains so as to move them from place to place, and if I speak with the tongues of all nations, even of angels, and if I deliver my body to the flames, and have not charity in me, I am nothing. But I shall be as tinkling brass 203 in the desert, so that the effect of my word should die away there, where there is none to hear.' 204
If one so great,205 if the blessed Paul, if the Vessel |161 of Election, declares that (although possessing commanding virtue 206 and the company of angels) he is nothing, unless he have charity, consider whether they ought not to be called something very different from martyrs, who, having deserted charity, may, by reason of that desertion, perhaps have suffered something.
IX. It was necessary to bring about unity in Africa.
The whole world rejoices concerning Catholic unity, excepting a portion of Africa, in which a conflagration has been blown up from a spark. You complain that some evil deeds or other 207 were committed by the makers of unity. No complaint of this kind is made by Italy, or by Gaul, or by Spain, or by Pannonia, or by Galatia, or by Greece, or by any of the Provinces of Asia.
No one was sent there to put things right,208 because there was nothing there which needed setting right.209 No tailor 210 (so to speak) was sent to them, because amongst them there was no rent to repair.
Here, too, in Africa, of old----so long as the people remained in unity----the garment had been whole, but it was torn by the envious hand of an enemy. It may be said, metaphorically, that pieces, coming originally from one garment, were hanging loose,211 and that branches, coming from the same root, were divided one from another.212 |162
Why does part prefer itself before part? 213 Why does one piece of the garment raise itself above the second, though it cannot prove itself to be better? What if the despised piece were to say:
'Why dost them sound thine own praises only? Have we not grown up together? Have we not been together in the hands of those who made us up into one, and have we not together been cleansed by Him who washed us 214? An enemy has wished to cut us off 215 from one another; an adversary has wished to mar 216 our beauty.'
In part of the garment we are still one, but we hang on different sides.217 For that which has been rent 218 has been partly 219 divided, not totally,220 since it is surely certain that you and we have one ecclesiastical discipline,221 and if men's minds are at war, the Sacraments are not at war.222 Finally, we can also say:
'Together we believe the same truths,223 and have been |163 sealed with one Seal,224 nor have we been baptised otherwise than you; in like manner 225 we read the divine Testament; in like manner together we worship one God; the Prayer of the Lord 226 is one with you and with us. But since, as we have just said, part had been rent asunder, the work of mending 227 had become necessary, whilst parts [of the garment] were hanging on either side.' 228
When he who arranges or works at a matter of this sort 229 wishes to restore the garment to its former appearance, he torments 230 the threads that are next to his hand.231 The tailor, who wounds whilst he is mending the rent, displeases you. He who brought it about that the tailor has had the opportunity of offending,232 should displease you even more. And [remember] that the things which you allege to have been committed by the makers of unity either should be attributed to your fathers,233 of whose actions they |164 were the result, or came from the Will of God. But we had nothing to do with them.
X. It is shown from Ezekiel that the severity employed against the Donatists was by the will of God.
How will it be if the severities (great though they may have been) were nevertheless inflicted----as we have said----by the Will of God? For we read in the Prophet Ezekiel of a whitened wall, against which God threatened storm, rain, thunderbolts 234 and accusations:
'There shall be false prophets to build up a wall which is ready to fall, 235 crying "Peace, peace"----and where is peace?' 236
Call to mind how of old you tore away one from another the members of Mother Church.237 For you were not able to seduce any one family at once. Either the wife departed and the husband stayed behind, or the parents were seduced and the children refused to follow them, or the brother stood firm, when his sister wandered off. At your instigation divisions were made between man and wife----between parents and their children----and you could not even leave in peace that which natural law permits.238 |165
No doubt, you have said:
'Peace be with you';
but God on the other hand asks:
'Peace, and where is peace?'
that is to say:
'Why do you give a salutation concerning that which you have not? Why do you name that which you have destroyed? Peace you love not, yet do you give a salutation concerning peace.'
'They,' He says, 'built a wall which is ready to fall.' 239
The House of God is one.240
They who have gone out and wished to make a |166 party,241 have built a wall, not a house, for there is no second God, to dwell in a second house.242
On this account false prophets are said to have made a wall, and if a door be placed 243 in this wall, anyone who enters through that door is [still] outside.244 Nor can a single wall have the Corner Stone----the Stone which is Christ, who, receiving into Himself two peoples----Gentiles and Jews----joins both walls with the bond of peace.245
For a wall has as many disadvantages as a house has advantages. The house protects all that is shut within it, turns the edge 246 of the storm, throws off 247 the rain, keeps out murderer 248 and thief 249 and beast. Thus also the Catholic Church embraces all the sons of peace in her bosom and breast. On the other hand the wall, which has been built in a ruinous state,250 supports no corner stone 251; it has a purposeless door 252; it keeps nothing inside it 253; but is soaked with the |167 rain,254 is struck by the storm, and is able neither to keep off the murderer, nor to stop the thief when he approaches.
The wall belongs to the house, but is not the house.
So your party is a quasi-church, but is not the Catholic Church.255
'And,' He says, 'they whiten it.' That is to say that you judge yourselves alone to be saints. You complain that you have had some sufferings (though we had nothing to do with them). Therefore it is certain that these were sufferings which you endured alone, for the time of peace is different from the time of persecution.
If you consider that it was a persecution, tell us, what had all the Provinces, of which the Catholic Church is composed,256 to suffer together with you?
Since it was 'punishment,' not persecution, the wall suffered alone, against which God threatened storm, rain, thunderbolts and accusations, for thus did He speak:
'Why have you built up a ruin? Why have you made it white? Why have you painted 257 it? This is against My Will, saith the Lord.' 258
You are displeased with the days of a Leontius, of an Ursacius, of a Macarius and the rest. Put right 259 the Will of God, if you can, who has said: |168
'I will rise against the wall in My wrath, and will send upon it much storm and rain, floods and thunderbolts,260 and I will strike the wall that is ready to fall, and its joints shall be loosened.' 261
And do not let any of your party object with the question:
'If unity is a good thing, how is it that, after having been so often brought about, it has not been able to last?'
For this reason, that the matter has been arranged thus by God, who threatened storm, rain, stones and accusations.262 Now these four things could not happen at the same time. First there was a storm |169 under Ursacius.263 The wall 264 was then shaken, but did not fall, so that rain might have an opportunity to work.265 Rain then followed under Gregory.266 The wall was made wet, but was not swamped,267 so that the stones might have their opportunity. Under the makers of unity the stones followed after the rain. The wall was scattered about,268 but built itself up again from its foundations. Three things have already been accomplished. Accusations are still due to you, but how they are to come and when, is known to Him, who has been pleased to make these declarations concerning you.
XI. It is shown that the Donatists are deceivers.
And that no one might doubt as to the meaning of this, God has added these words:
'The things which I speak concern not the clay 269 or the side 270 [of the wall] or the wall [itself], but false prophets who deceive 271 My people.' 272
Consider whom this word 'deceive' fits. All were in communion with us. You rushed in upon us in our absence,273 but, in order to possess those whom you coveted, you had to beguile them----and all men know what are your words of beguilement. |170
You are wont to say:
'Look behind you.' 274
You are wont to say:
'Redeem your souls.' 274
You are wont to say to Christian men----even to clerics:
'Be ye Christians.' 274
But in saying 'Look behind you,' you are acting against the gospel, in which it has been written:
'No man who holds the handle of the plough and looks behind him shall enter the kingdom of heaven.' 275
And do you wish to know what was the fate of the one who looked behind, and of the one who looked before? Remember those who escaped from Sodom ----Lot and his wife. She looked behind her and was changed into a pillar of salt, whilst he who looked before him escaped free.276 Why then do you say 'Look behind you '? Moreover, when you say 'Redeem your souls,' I would ask from whom did you buy them, that you should sell them? Who is that angel who deals in souls as in the market-place? 277 When you say 'Redeem your souls' you are renouncing the Redeemer, for Christ alone is the Redeemer of souls, which before His coming were possessed by the Devil. These Christ our Saviour redeemed in His Blood, as the Apostle says:
'You have been bought at a great price.' 278 |171
For it is certain that we have been all redeemed by the Blood of Christ. Christ has not sold those whom He redeemed. Souls bought by Christ cannot be sold, to be redeemed again----as you would have it 279----by you.
Again, how can a soul have two Lords? Or, is there, perhaps, a second Redeemer? What prophets have announced that a second is to come? What Gabriel has spoken a second time to a second Mary? What Virgin has a second time given birth to a Child? Who has worked new or second deeds of power? 280
If there is none, save One, who has redeemed the souls of all believers, what means it that you say 'Redeem your souls '? What kind of thing is this that you say to Christian men----even to clerics----'Be ye Christians'? And you dare to say to each one, as though you expected a miracle 281:
'Gaius Seius, or Gaia Seia,282 art thou still a pagan man or woman?'
You call him, who has acknowledged 283 that he has been converted to God, a pagan----him you call a pagan, who has been washed by us or by you neither in our name, nor in yours, but in the Name of Christ (for some there are who have been baptised by you, and |172 have afterwards passed over to our Communion)----him you call a pagan, who before the altar 284 has prayed to God the Father through His Son. For whoever has believed, has believed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, yet him you call a pagan after his Profession of Faith!
If----which God forbid----any Christian should fall away,285 he may be called a sinner; a pagan he cannot be a second time.286
But all these things you wish to be held of no account. And if he, whom you deceive, listens to you,287 then his consent alone, and the stretching forth of your hand,288 and a few words spoken by you are enough in your sight 289 to make a Christian out of a Christian,290 and he seems to you to be a Christian who has done what you want, rather than the man whom Faith has drawn [to Baptism].
XII. A calumny that had been brought against Macarius.
And if anyone should be rather slow in giving adhesion to your deceitful words, you have no lack of arguments, with which you may with some ease 291 persuade men, even against their will, to do what you like----telling them that it has been heard from the lips of your old Bishops 292 that he who partook or |173 received 293 of the sacrifice of unity as it drew near,294 partook of a sacrilegious sacrifice.295 We do not deny that this was said by some, who, as is certain, afterwards offered, with complete security, that sacrifice from which shortly before they had held back the people.296 But one consideration made them speak in this fashion, quite another consideration determined their action.297
For with regard to those who are reported to have said these things, they were led thus to speak by a false rumour which had filled their ears, and those of all the people. For it was said that Paul and Macarius would come at that time, to be present at the sacrifice, and that, when the altars were set in festal array,298 they would bring out an image,299 which they would first place upon the altar, and that then in this way was the sacrifice to be offered.
As soon as their ears heard this, not only were their minds disquieted, but everyone's tongue was stirred up to use these words, so that all who had heard the story cried out:
'He who partakes of this, partakes of a sacrilege.' 300 |174 And rightly would this have been said, if any corresponding truth had attached to such a tale.
But when the above-mentioned officers arrived, nothing was seen of that, concerning which a little before lying reports had been spread. Christian eyes saw nothing to shock them, their sight afforded no proof of those things which had upset their hearing.
No stain was beheld, and the solemn rite was observed after the accustomed manner.301 When they saw that in the divine sacrifices 302 nothing was changed, or added or taken away, the Peace which God has praised was pleasing to men of good will.303
On this account none of those ought to be blamed who from your body has made his way to Peace.304 They who had been disturbed by an unfortunate story were strengthened by the simple and pure truth. And let it not be said that he [who came from you to Unity] of the bitter has made the sweet, or that of the sweet he has made the bitter.
The bitterness, which was proclaimed by falsehood, remained and continued in the breast of [mere] opinion; the truth which was seen with the eyes, having its own sweetness in itself,305 was separated from the boundaries of a false opinion. So neither was that which is sweet made out of bitterness, nor was that |175 which is bitter made out of sweetness. For what was seen was something else and quite different,306 and the report had been very far from 307 the actual facts.
So, you perceive that you have brought forward your abusive accusation unjustly, making up a story, at your own pleasure, of whatever you liked, to tear in pieces 308 Macarius and Taurinus. You have lost that, which you were quite clever enough to have seen, whilst hatred has led astray your senses, and closed the avenues of your understanding.
APPENDIX TO BOOK III.309
XIII. In what way and why Macarius was admitted to Communion.
Now your malice has come to such a pitch that you say that Macarius after these events ought not to have been admitted to Communion, but rather should have been repelled by Catholic Bishops. In the first place, communion has only one name, but various modes. A Bishop is in communion with a Bishop in one way and a layman is in communion with a Bishop in another way. |176
Secondly, it would be a grave matter if Macarius had done that which he is said to have done, of his own will, since those who act thus are punished by the public courts and the Roman laws. For that man is a murderer who, compelled by no necessity, by no one's commands, by no superior authority, but, driven on by rage, of his own will, does what the laws forbid. But it was in consequence of your appeal 310 that Macarius did what he is said to have done.
He was not a Bishop, and did not discharge the duties of a Bishop. Neither did he lay hands on anyone, nor did he offer sacrifice. Wherefore, as it is clear that he had nothing to do with the functions of Bishops, no Bishop was polluted by reason of one who did not offer sacrifice with Bishops. Nothing remains for you but to urge that he communicated with the people, and, indeed, it is certain that he spoke amongst the people, but only to press some point, not to preach----which belongs to Bishops.311 For he spoke, if he was able to speak at all, stripped of any authority. On the other hand, a Bishop's discourse is approved by all, being adorned with sanctity, that is to say, with a twofold salutation. For a Bishop does not commence to say anything to the people without first saluting the people in the name of God. As he begins, so does he end. Every sermon in the church is begun by the name of God and with the name of God is also ended. |177 Which of you will dare to say that Macarius saluted the people after the manner of Bishops? Therefore, since he neither saluted before he spoke, nor ventured to salute after having spoken, nor laid his hand on anyone, nor offered sacrifice to God with episcopal rite, how can you say that the College of Bishops can have been polluted, although you see that Macarius had nothing to do with any episcopal duty?
Your malice, having been in this point trodden under foot by the footprints of truth, is seen again to raise its head. For you say that he ought not even to have communicated amongst laymen. Yet it is certain that he was (as the Apostle Paul shows) a minister of the Will of God, and what wonder, if even the pagan judges should be considered ministers of the Will of God, according to the Apostle who says:
'The judge does not bear the sword without reason,312 for he is a minister of the Will of God.'
So, too, Macarius was a judge in his own person. And if he did not act judicially, he ought, by the laws of Rome, to have been punished by the judges. Or, if you say that even so Macarius should not have been admitted to communion, still we do not see that he ought to have been repelled, who acted in the same kind of manner as did Moses, whom God did not reject after twenty-three thousand men had been killed, but called him to speak with Him a second time.313 We do not see that he ought to have been repelled, who did the same thing as did Phineas (whom I have mentioned above), and then deserved to receive Divine praise.314 It does not seem to us that he ought to have been repelled, who did that which was done by Elias the prophet, when he slew so many false prophets.315 (For that they too were false teachers we have proved above.) |178
XIV. That even if Macarius was guilty, he ought not to have been repelled from Communion.
But were we to keep silence concerning these examples and admit with you that Macarius was guilty----even so, he ought not to have been repelled by us in the absence of an accuser. For it has been written that no man should be condemned before his case has been heard.
Tell us, then, who accused him and was not listened to? Tell us (if you can) that Macarius confessed his fault and that we did not pronounce sentence. For after all, we are in the Church judges of a kind,316 as you yourselves do not deny. Indeed, you maintain that we ought to judge in accordance with truth. We, then, cannot do that which God has not done. In His Judgement He has thought well to separate persons, and has not willed that one man should be at the same time accuser and judge. For no man can in one case at the same moment bear the weight of two persons,317 so as to be in the same judgement both accuser and judge. This is a thing which God has not done by His omnipotence, but, in order to set before us the form of passing judgement, has taught us that neither should a guilty man be condemned without an accuser, nor should he be the accuser, who would be the judge in the same case.
Accordingly, at the very beginning of the world, when men were commencing to be born, after his brother Abel had been killed by Cain, we read that God called Cain and asked him where was his brother.318 He doubled his sin and said that he did not know, as though he would make God ignorant, and when could there be anything not known to God, under whose eyes and countenance are all things which are done? Nevertheless, God does not judge without an accuser and asks concerning a thing which surely He knew. And yet you wish us to repel one whom we have not seen doing any evil, and who has had no one |179 to accuse him. I perceive here what your malice is about to whisper: you will say that what has been done has not escaped our knowledge. We acknowledge that we have heard about it, but to condemn one whom no man has ventured to accuse would be to sin. If you tell us that his deed has not escaped us, will you tell God, who had seen the brother's murder, why He asked about it? It would not have been right for us to do something which God refused to do, when He would not pass sentence, excepting on one who was guilty. You must find an accuser. Otherwise the condemnation could not be just----unless he who should pass sentence was himself to be the accuser! Wherefore God says:
'Behold thy brother's blood. It cries to me from the earth.' 319
Thus it is that, since by no means can you prove that Macarius was accused before us by any man, you cannot find fault with our judgement.
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 We find the names of Ursacius and Paulus joined to those of Macarius and Leontius in iii, 4. (Cf. also iii, 10, and for Taurinus iii, 4; iii, 12.)
2. 2 Jeremiah xxi, 29: 'ut vobis stupescerent dentes, ipsi uvas acidas comederunt.' The Vulgate has: 'Patres comederunt uvam acerbam et dentes filiorum obstupuerunt.'
3. 3 Basilicas non necessarias. We find this expression many times in Optatus. It is first used by him in i, 10, where the churches of heretics are said to have no relationship with Christ and are contrasted with His lawful Bride. Elsewhere it is a technical phrase and means simply that the Donatist churches are 'not wanted.' It evidently is a quotation----probably from a judgement, cither of Miltiades or of Arles----or possibly the words were those of Eunomius and Olimpius (i, 26). The Donatists erected new churches, refusing to go to the old ones. There is no doubt a μείωσις. The intention of the inventor of the expression was to avoid hurting the feelings of the Donatists by calling their new churches schismatical. They are simply non necessariae----' not wanted.'
4. 4 qui provocavit----to the Emperor----to his horror (cf. Appendix, pp. 393, 396,397).
5. 5 Cf. Is. xxii, 6: et Elam sumpsit pharetram.
6. 6 repleta est unaquaeque civitas vociferantium. St. Optatus in his next chapter thus quotes Is. xxii, 2. Du Pin must have forgotten this when, without MS. authority, he supplied clamoribus after vociferantium.
7. 1 Is. xxii, 3.
8. 2 terror (in active sense).
9. 3 Ps. lii, 6.
10. 4 qui fortiores sunt etc. Cf. Is. xxii, 3----quoted thus in the next chapter: 'Omnes principes tui in fugam conversi sunt, et qui capti sunt graviter alligati et fortiores tui longe fugati sunt.'
11. 5 in dolore Dei. Cf. iv, 9 (quod dolet Deus) and i, 2.
12. 6 Is. xxii, 4. St. Optatus has led up to this quotation by his various references to this chapter of Isaiah.
13. 1 By rebaptising Catholics.
14. 2 transducentes ad vos aquam antiquae piscinae. Cf. Is. xxii, 9, which St. Optatus will soon quote from his version: 'Quoniam convertistis aquam antiquae piscinae ad civitatem vestram.'
15. 3 The reference is to the pool of Bethsaida (cf. John v, 4), the waters of which were regarded by Tertullian as typical of Baptism (De Baptism. v and vi). The Angel was only allowed to move the pool once each time for healing. Optatus looks upon this fact as a figure of the unity of Baptism.
16. 4 The metaphor here is slightly changed. The 'piscina' is understood as a lake full of fish. St. Optatus asks sarcastically whether Christ was in that lake, meaning that the sacrilegious rebaptisms of the Donatists, in this unlike True Baptism, gave Christ to no man. It is well known, of course, that the Fish was a principal emblem of Christ among the early Christians.
17. 5 eiusdem piscis visceribus.
18. 6 Cf. Paradise Lost, iv, 168-170:
'Than Asmodeus, with the fishy fume
That drove him, though enamoured, from the spouse
Of Tobit's son.'
19. 7 'See Tobias vi, 9-10. St. Optatus mystically applies this narrative. Sara is the Church which puts the Evil One to flight through Christ. Christ is the one protection of His Church; by Christ alone, through His Church, is blindness removed from men.
20. 1 per invocationem. The Invocation of God, that is to say, the Blessing of the Font, puts Christ (the Fish) into what was mere empty water, so that it becomes a Fishpond. But in the second Baptism of the Donatists there was no Christ, therefore no symbolic Fish.
21. 2 a pisce.
22. 3 Cf. Tertullian (De Baptismo i): 'Sed nos pisciculi secundum ἴχθυν nostrum Iesum Christum in quo nascimur, nec aliter quam in aqua permanendo salvi sumus.'
23. 4 transduxistis once more. Cf. Is. xxii, 9.
24. 5 solvistis singulare Baptisma.
25. 6 ex quo Baptismate hominibus muri facti sunt ad tutelam. The reference is to Is. xxii, 11, 12: 'Et deicistis muros Hierusalem, ut faceretis alteram munitionem et constituistis aquam inter duas munitiones et ad piscinam antiquam (= the first----the Catholic Baptism) adtendere noluistis.' The thought of St. Optatus is that the Donatists by rebaptising pulled down the first wall and built up a second (alteros muros, duas munitiones). This was to build an edifice on a ruin. Hence, as he will say immediately, comes the sorrow of God filiam esse contritam. ('Recedite a Me, amare flebo. Nolite incumbere ut consolemini Me super vastitate filiae populi Mei.' Is. xxii, 4. Vulgate.)
26. 7 Cf. iii. 10: 'foras exeuntes... parietem fecerunt,' etc.
27. 1 Cf. iii, 10.
28. 2 Cf. Is. xxii, 4.
29. 3 We here have another 'paronomasia' or play upon words, of which St. Optatus, like many of the Fathers, was so fond.
30. 4 ex se est.
31. 5 The reference is to the description of the Creation of the World in Genesis, where we read: 'The Spirit of God was borne over the waters,' without any account of the creation of the waters themselves.
32. 6 in cuius aquae iniuria.
33. 7 Isaiah xxii, 4: 'Missum Me facite, amare plorabo: nemo poterit consolare Me in contritione filiae generis Mei.' The Vulgate has 'vastatione' for 'contritione.'
34. 8 St. Optatus is continuing his argument from Isaiah xxii, where, instead of The Burden of the Valley of the Vision, he evidently read The Vision of the Valley of Sion. St. Jerome tells us that the LXX had Verbum Vallis Sionis for Onus Vallis Visionis. Optatus' point here is that the subject of this prophecy is not the actual Mount Sion, but the spiritual Sion, which is the Catholic Church. (In v, 4 he writes: 'Sion Ecclesiam esse in tertio libro probavimus.')
35. 1 In tota Sion. Only G has tota, but it seems to have probably slipped out of the older MSS., as a little later Optatus has in toto monte.
36. 2 Is. xxii, 5. Vulgate In valle visionis.
37. 3 We have here a digression which shows, and probably was intended to show, St. Optatus' acquaintance with the topography of Jerusalem. Sion was outside of Jerusalem. We read as follows in the narrative of a Bordeaux pilgrim to the Holy Land, to be found in Itinera Hierosolymitana (CSEL. vol. 29, p. 22): 'Item exeuntibus Hierusalem ut ascendas Sion, in parte sinistra et deorsum in Valle iuxta murum est piscina, quae dicitur Silua [i.e. Siloe]... Intus autem intra murum Sion paret locus, ubi palatium habuit David. Et septem synagogue, quae illic fuerunt, una tantum remansit, reliquae autem arantur et seminantur, sicut Isaias propheta dixit.'
38. 4 fuerant. The Bordeaux pilgrim, whom I have just quoted, wrote in 333, about thirty years before St. Optatus. Nothing else seems to be known concerning these seven synagogues.
39. 5 Is. ii, 3. The topographical digression finishes with this quotation.
40. 1 Psalm ii, 6.
41. 2 The material hill.
42. 3 Psalm lxxxvi, 1.
43. 4 non illius corporalis montis.
44. 1 Psalm cxlvii, 1, 2.
45. 2 per singulas provincias totius orbis valles singulas intellegimus montis. Casaubon suggests that St. Optatus wrote this by a slip of the pen instead of per singulas valles montis intellegimus singulas provincias totius orbis. As an alternative he conjectures that we should read praeterea for per. But surely St. Optatus may have thought it more elegant to write it as the MSS. give it. 'By the provinces we understand the valleys.'
46. 3 in qua sola deiecti sunt muri et, ut fierent muri, aqua sanctae piscinae transversa est. Ziwsa brackets ut fierent muri, which is omitted by RBGv, evidently regarding it as incomprehensible. But it represents 'ut faceretis alteram munitionem' in Optatus' version of Is. xxii, 20. RBv have aqua sancta et piscina for aqua sanctae piscinae. The reference is still to the rebaptism by Donatists. They who were already Christians were, by an impious novelty, rebaptised, that they might become Christians. (Cf. v, 3: 'Qui rebaptizatur, iam Christianus fuerat; quomodo dici potest iterum Christianus?')
47. 4 'In una valle, hoc est sola Africa, in qua sola, cum sufficerent templa Dei, quae fuerant, alia facere voluerunt principes vestri, in qua sola deiecti sunt muri, et, ut fierent muri, aqua sanctae piscinae trans-
versa est, et novitas contra antiquitatem a vobis instituta est, et aqua humana contra divinam ordinata est' (cf. v, 3 etc.). By aqua humana is meant water used by rebaptisers. By aqua divina is meant the water used in Baptism, which, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, is one, and once for all. This is a sort of summing up in which St. Optatus endeavours, with considerable ingenuity, to show once more that Is. xxii, 1-11 has reference to the Donatists. We shall perhaps see this more clearly if we place his words in juxtaposition with his Latin version of Isaiah, which he knew to be familiar to his readers.
St. Optatus.
Isaias.
Cum sufficerent templa Dei, alia facere voluerunt = 'Ascendistis in templa supervacanea.'
Principes vestri = 'Omnes principes tui.'
In qua sola deiecti sunt muri = 'Deiicistis muros Hierusalem.'
Ut fierent muri = 'Ut faceretis alteram munitionem... inter duas munitiones.'
Aqua sanctae piscinae transversa est = 'Convertistis aquam antiquae piscinae.'
Novitas contra antiquitatem = 'Ad piscinam antiquam adtendere noluistis.'
Aqua humana contra divinam = 'Nec ad Eum... qui creavit illam.'
48. 1 hoc totum interrogat.
49. 2 Is. xxii, 1.
50. 3 errore sunt... errantes in montibus.
51. 4 graviter adligati.
52. 1 St. Jerome (in loco) writes that Elam ---- ascensus eorum. He adds that Elamites = contemptores.
53. 2 Casaubon conjectures that Optatus by a mistake of memory thought that Elamite was found for Sulamite in Cant. vii, i: 'Quid videbis in Sulamite nisi choros castrorum?'
54. 3 chori castrorum seems to refer to the military bands----the singers of the camp.
55. 4 penetralia vestra deferentur ad publicum. Cf. Is. xxii, 8, Vulgate: 'Et revelabitur operimentum ludae.' LXX 'Et revelabunt portas Iudae, et aspicient die illo in domos electas civitatis.'
56. 5 et secreta domus Israhel nudabuntur. Cf. Vulgate: 'Et scissuras civitatis David videbitis.' LXX: 'Et revelabunt abscondita domorum arcis David.'
57. 6 quoniam. 'Because.' This is emphatic. This was the cause of whatever violence may have been done by the troops of Macarius.
58. 7 Is. xxii, 11 sq: 'You refused to pay heed to the old pool'----that is to say, you would not count the first Baptism as valid, and you despised 'Him, who created it in the beginning.'
59. 1 veneficio. G has beneficio, but there can be little doubt that veneficio, which has the support of all the other MSS., is the true reading. Beneficio is obviously a guess, to escape the difficulty of veneficio.
60. 2 quia peregrimus es (cf. i, 5; ii, 4; ii, 7).
61. 3 paupertas.
62. 1 patientia episcopali.
63. 2 multorum ore ubique cantantur. Cf. St. Augustine (Retract. i, 21): 'ut ore multorum vibique cantatur.'
64. 3 potestatibus et regibus iniuriam facere.
65. 4 i Tim. ii, 1.
66. 5 now enim respublica est in Ecclesia, sed Ecclesia in republica est, id est in Imperio Romano. It had from very early times been the custom in the Christian Church to pray for the prosperity of the Emperor and the Empire. The preservation and the well-being of the Christian Church was considered to be in a certain sense dependent on the preservation and the well-being of the Roman Empire, inasmuch as the fall of the Empire was commonly expected to synchronise with the coming of Antichrist and the end of the world----a time of utmost stress and affliction for the Church of Christ on earth. It must also be remembered that St. Optatus is writing of the local conditions of his time. In no sense could the Empire, as a whole, be said to be in the Church (even theologically), for as a matter of fact a considerable part of the Empire was still pagan. On the other hand the Church was confined within the temporal jurisdiction of the Empire and overlapped by it on every side. Thus Lord Bryce writes with reference to this passage in Optatus: 'Christianity as well as civilisation became conterminous with the Roman Empire' (Bryce's The Holy Roman Empire, p. 11, eighth edition). The Church therefore had at that period no claim upon the Empire, as such, excepting to be treated with justice; whereas the Empire had this claim upon the Church, that the Church, being an external organisation within itself (though in a different order), should strive to promote peace and harmony and avoid unnecessary antagonism. Such good offices and hearty co-operation the temporal ruler has always a right to expect from the spiritual society within his borders. This the Catholic Church consistently remembered; Donatus as consistently forgot.
67. 1 veni, sponsa Mea inventa (cf. Cant. iv, 8).
68. 2 sacerdotia sancta.
69. 3 in barbaris gentibus.
70. 4 qui gentiliter viveret.
71. 5 Constans.
72. 6 nihil Donato. Perhaps this should be translated: 'This was nothing to Donatus.'
73. 1 Proverbs xxii, 2.
74. 2 Eccles. iii, 33.
75. 3 tantis (cf. Vulgate: sed haec quid sunt inter tantos? Ioan. vi, 9).
76. 1 Ez. xxviii, 2.
77. 2 Is. xxiii, 1. The Vulgate has naves maris; the Hebrew 'Ships of Tarshish '; the Old Latin (as we see from St. Optatus and St. Ambrose) naves Carthaginis; the LXX πλοῖα Καρχηδόνος.
78. 3 mundanae litterae.
79. 4 non adversus saecularem aliquem regem.
80. 1 It may be well to give here in English those sentences in Ez. xxviii, 2-9, which, as Optatus thinks, may be applied to Donatus the Great. (We possess an African text of the passage in Tyconius Donatista, but I translate from the Vulgate.)
2. 'O Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: Thus saith the Lord God: Because thine heart has been puffed up, and thou hast said "I am God, and I have sat on the Chair of God [Tyconius has habitationem Dei habitavi) in the heart of the sea," although thou art a man and not God,
3. Behold thou art wiser than Daniel. [St. Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and Tyconius read with the LXX Numquid tu sapientior quant Daniel?]
5. And thine heart has been lifted up in thy strength;
6. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God: Because thine heart has been lifted up as though it were the heart of God,
8. Thou shalt die the death of them that are slain [Tyconius has morte vulneratorum] in the heart of the sea.
9. Wilt thou still say before them that slay thee "I am God," whereas thou art a man and not God, and art in the hand of them that slay thee?'
81. 2 in qua re media est fides, etc. Du Pin explains thus: 'Testis est conscientia eius.' Albaspinaeus understands Fides to mean Lex Christiana.
82. 3 ut solus secreto nescio quid ageret et postea ceteris perfunctorie misceretur. Du Pin thinks that by the first phrase of this sentence it is to be inferred that Donatus offered the Divine Mysteries by himself, and held aloof from the public meetings of the other Bishops, clergy or faithful, with whom he would only mix from time to time (perfunctorie) as a great act of condescension.
83. 1 sc. of the Bishops of Africa, where Carthage was the chief See.
84. 2 nihil humanum voluit habere.
85. 3 Ez. xxviii, 6.
86. 4 a ceteris hominibus aliquid plus esse.
87. 5 Ez. xxviii, 2.
88. 6 quod effectum huius vocis impleret.
89. 7 quia quicquid est supra homines, iam quasi Deus est.
90. 1 quid apud vos agitur de parte mea?
91. 2 i, 22.
92. 1 Cf. note 3, p. 43.
93. 2 in Christi Catholica habitabant.
94. 3 quorum nomina bene nosti, et ubi fuerint non ignoras, et qui vel a quo petierint et qualem rogaverint, ut redirent et tecum redirc potuissent, et nos didicimus, etc. St. Optatus quite lost his thread in this long sentence, where we find one of his numerous anacolutha. In my English rendering I have endeavoured to make it grammatical----involved it must always remain.
95. 4 Cf. once more note 3, p. 43.
96. 5 alio modo ---- aliquo modo.
97. 1 Matt, x, 32. Luke xii, 8.
98. 2 illum.
99. 3 The reference is to Ez.xxviii, 8: 'Morieris in interitu occisorum in corde marts'----in the heart of the sea.
100. 4 id est in amore saeculi. That is, he was beloved by worldly people.
101. 5 hanc sapientiam eius evacuavit Deus.
102. 6 Ez. xxviii, 3.
103. 1 Dan. v, 17.
104. 2 St. Optatus evidently thinks that Daniel could not answer Belshazzar on the same day, but gave his interpretation the next day and then accepted the King's gifts with joy! This seems to us an exceedingly odd notion, and curiously enough there is no suggestion of it in the Book of Daniel, so one wonders from what source Optatus derived it.
105. 3 Ez. xxviii, 3.
106. 1 Dan. ii, 27.
107. 2 Eccles. xxix, 15.
108. 3 Dan. iv, 24.
109. 4 i.e. in Ezekiel.
110. 5 C.f. Dan. ii, 27.
111. 1 unde constat Donatum malarum fontem caussarum. (Cf. for caussa in this sense i, 27; iii. 3: 'seminata est caussa'; iii, 14.)
112. 2 qui pauperes ubique dispungerent.
113. 3 singulos.
114. 4 alter Donatus. This word alter used here of Donatus of Bagaia makes it absolutely certain that Optatus knew nothing of the distinction between Donatus of Black Huts and Donatus the Great (cf. note 3, p. 45).
115. 5 circumcelliones agonisticos. St. Augustine (con. Cresconium, i, 28) describes the conduct of these men, and gives the etymology of the word circumcelliones: 'Quis enim nescit hoc genus hominum in horrendis facinoribus inquietum, ab utilibus operibus otiosum, crudelissimum in mortibus alienis, vilissimum in suis, maxime in agris territans et victus sui caussa cellas circumiens rusticanas, unde et circumcellionum nomen accepit, universo mundo pene famosissimum Africani erroris opprobrium?'
116. 1 tunc Comiti.
117. 2 in Ecclesia corrigi non posse.
118. 3 acciperent disciplinam.
119. 4 A town in Numidia. Amongst the Bishops who were assembled at the Carthaginian Council under St. Cyprian we read of Victor ab Octavo.
120. 5 per dealbatas aras aut mensas potuerunt numerari. That is to say, whitened tombs made in the shape of an altar. As the Donatists pretended to look upon these fanatics, who had been justly put to death for murder and other crimes, as martyrs, they raised altars over their graves. (It is well known that the first Christians used to say Mass on altars erected over the bodies of martyrs, e.g. in the Catacombs.) These altars were sometimes called Tables, as in the Catholic Church of the present day. Thus St. Augustine writes (Sermo de div. 113): 'Denique, sicut nostis, quicunque Carthaginem nostis, in eodem loco Mensa Dei constructa est, et tamen mensa dicitur Cypriani: non quia ibi est umquam Cyprianus epulatus, sed quia ibi est immolatus, et quia ipsa immolatione sua paravit hanc mensam: non in qua pascat sive pascatur; sed in qua sacrificium Deo, cui et ipse obtains est, offeratur.'
121. 6 A Donatist priest.
122. 7 ut insepultam faceret sepulturam. This phrase shows that St. Optatus was acquainted with Cicero (Phil. i, 1).
123. 1 unde proditum est mandatum fuisse fieri quod factum est. The command (mandatum) was, I think, that of the Donatist Bishops. At first the circumcellions erected altars over their dead, but in the open air and not in the churches. The later Donatists, when they honoured these slain circumcellions as martyrs, forgot not only that it was their own Bishops who (after the custom had been introduced of burying them in the churches) had ordered their bodies to be exhumed,but also that these same Bishops had begged Taurinus to repress them, since ecclesiastical discipline had no effect. Therefore they, not the Catholics, were responsible for the massacres ('quod factum est'). Both Casaubon and Du Pin, however, understand mandatum to refer to a command not of Donatist, but of Catholic, Bishops, and think that St. Optatus means to say that prejudice was created against Catholics by the exhumation of the dead circumcellions, and that on this account Catholics were reproached for the alleged massacres. But they seem to forget that Optatus has just stated that this was done by the order of a Donatist Bishop. It is difficult to see how his command carried out by the Donatist priest Clarus could create prejudice against Catholics.
124. 2 sibi percussores in suam perniciem conducebant. (Cf. i, 16.)
125. 3 qui ex altorum montium cacuminibus viles animas proicientes se praecipites dabant. Cf. S. Augustine, Tract. ii. in Ioannem: 'Flammis se donant, aquis se praefocant, praecipitio se collidunt, et pereunt.'
126. 1 Comite.
127. 2 habebant vocatorum infinitam turbam et annonam conpetentem constat fuisse praeparatam.
128. 3 metatores (seu mensores castrorum).
129. 4 conpetenter (ἁρμοδίως).
130. 5 Rom. xiii, 7.
131. 1 contusi sunt ab iis, quorum nomina flabello invidiae ventilasti. This phrase is repeated a little further on (iii, 7): quorum nomina cotidie, ut supra dixi, flabello invidiae ventilatis. Parmenian had evidently made much use of the names of two Donatists (whom Macarius had put to death), in order to stir up ill feeling against Catholics (flabello invidiae). St. Optatus here says that these men had brought their death upon themselves by the injuries that they had inflicted on the soldiers of Macarius.
132. 2 numeros suos (literally the rank and file).
133. 3 vobis provocantibus (to the Emperor).
134. 4 quam plurimos.
135. 1 nam aestimo vos non negare Unitatem summum bonum esse. Cf. 'Scisma summum malum esse et vos negare minime poteritis ' (i,21).
136. 2 inde Deo sacrificium offertur.
137. 3 a sordidis.
138. 4 simpliciter erogatur. Du Pin writes 'id est eo innocue utuntur.'
139. 5 in sapore. Apparently this refers to the use of oil in ordinary life----as we should say, in salads. If this is so, in lumine, which follows, probably does not refer to lamps in churches.
140. 6 These principles may perhaps seem to contradict that which St. Optatus urged, in his first Book, against the Donatist schism, on account of the character of its originators. But even though it must be granted that, under ordinary circumstances, a man's sin does not vitiate the character of his work, yet evil conduct and bad lives clearly discredit the founders of a new religion or sect, who, as is manifest, stand in an altogether exceptional position. Further, in the first book Optatus had argued against the Donatists from Donatist principles. They said that the Catholic Church had apostatised by communicating with Betrayers. Optatus of course denies that this was a fact, and proves not only that the Donatists themselves had communicated with Betrayers, but also that the very founders of their sect were Betrayers. It was an argumentum ad hominem, but in the passage before us, as elsewhere, he argues from the true principle that the character of a workman does no detriment to his work.
141. 1 malos fuisse.
142. 2 male.
143. 3 bene.
144. 4 latro (cf. i, 19, note 9, p. 166).
145. 5 St. Optatus evidently had not heard of the distinction drawn by moralists (which, as soon as one has heard it, clears up the whole difficulty) between that which is intrinsically evil or evil in itself, and can therefore never be done lawfully, and that which is in itself 'indifferent,' and therefore derives its moral character from circumstances and from the intention of the agent.
146. 6 Exod. xx, 13; Deut. v, 17; Matt, v, 21.
147. 7 Deut. xxii, 22; Levit. xx, 10.
148. 1 non occides.
149. 2 occidetis utrosque.
150. 3 peccaret.
151. 4 delinqueret.
152. 5 elegit melius peccatum. The word peccatum like peccaret [supra) is not used here in the real sense of sin----a fault against conscience----but of a fault against an apparently unrestricted Law of God, which was seen to be abrogated by another commandment, and is therefore called loosely peccatum. 'Melius peccatum' is an oratorical trick----an oxymoron. Cf. 'tacitus loquitur' (v, 3 ); 'stulta sapientia' (vi, 1); and (iii, 9): 'ut sartor peccare potuisset.' For this use of peccare cf. Cicero (Or. 21): 'non modo in vita, sed saepissime et in poematis et in oratione, peccatur'; and again: 'Peccare est tanquam transilire lineas' (Parad. 3, 1).
153. 6 mitigavit. Numbers xxv, 11.
154. 1 qui unitatem cum toto orbe terrarum et cum Memoriis Apostolorum, quae Deo placita est, habere noluistis. Optatus once more urges union with (1) the rest of Catholic Christendom, and (2) with the Apostolic See of Rome, where rest the bodies of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (cf. ii, 4).
155. 2 tanquam per unicam religionem vestrae communionis. Religio is here the sacredness of an oath.
156. 3 inconsiderate rabida latrat invidia.
157. 4 Ps. xxxiii, 15.
158. 5 Ps. cxxxii, 1.
159. 1 Matt, v, 9.
160. 2 mali sui ipsi sunt caussa. Cf. S. August. (c. Hit. Petil. ii. 20): 'Illi, de quibus maximam invidiam facere soletis, Marculus et Donatus, ut moderatius dixerim, incertum est, utrum se praecipitaverint,... quapropter de omnibus talibus invidiosis criminibus hoc vobis... libera et secura voce respondet [Ecclesia Catholica]: Si non probatis quod dicitis, ad neminem pertinet; si autem probatis, ad me non pertinet.' This is precisely the statement and argument of St. Optatus in this Book.
161. 3 Legislatorem.
162. 4 prope-necdum propositis tabulis legis.
163. 5 Cf. Ex. xxxii, 13; Ex. xxi, 23; Deut. v, 17; Matt. v, 21.
164. 6 in iudicium provocate.
165. 1 Cf. Num. xxv, 20.
166. 2 nam quod accusatis, in persona ipsius a Deo laudatum est, quod in zelo Dei factum est. Both Ziwsa and Du Pin print a comma after ipsius, but I venture to think that it should be rather after accusatis, and have translated accordingly.
167. 3 subprimite interim.
168. 4 recurrite primo.
169. 5 Cf. 3 Kings xviii, 40.
170. 6 illos... istos.
171. 7 nunquam sequitur vindicta. Killing is not to be called 'punishment' unless when due cause has been given. 'Therefore,' says St. Optatus to the Donatists, 'you object that in the case of Macarius it should not be called "punishment," but murder.'
172. 1 foris. Outside the Church.
173. 2 qui intus habitamus, et nunquam de radice recessimus.
174. 3 flabello invidiae ventilatis (cf. iii, 4).
175. 4 Ex. xx, 4.
176. 5 Deut. v, 8.
177. 6 Cf. Ex. xx, 5.
178. 7 Cf. 1 Cor. i, 10; xii, 25.
179. 8 Ps. xxxiii, 15.
180. 1 quod illis sacrilega flamma conflavit.
181. 2 This is probably what all modern readers of St. Optatus will have been thinking. Nor can we honestly say that St. Optatus is very happy in the reply which he hazards.
182. 3 quasi devotus.
183. 1 Is. xxii, 2.
184. 2 Ibid.
185. 3 in bello Christianorum.
186. 4 Cf. Dan. vii, 3 sq.
187. 1 artificiosa crudelitas.
188. 2 immundis fumabant arae nidoribus.
189. 3 Through illness or old age.
190. 4 Hence those guilty of this sin were called Turificati.
191. 5 omnis locus templum erat ad scel us.
192. 6 inquinabantur.
193. 7 Incruenta parricidia facere cogebantur. The murders by parents of their children's souls were incruenta parricidia. For parricidium cf. note 3, p. 40.
194. 8 Leges divinas (the Holy Scriptures).
195. 9 pigri----literally slothful. This, however, seems to have been a word of general reproach, applied indifferently by Donatists to Catholics, and by Catholics to Donatists (cf. vi, 8).
196. 10 conpellebantur.
197. 1 ut Deus unus pariter in Ecclesia ab omnibus rogavetur.
198. 2 Is. xxii, 2. The repetition of this text shows the importance attached to it by Optatus. This cannot seem to us moderns anything but extraordinary.
199. 3 inmunda incensa.
200. 4 coactus est.
201. 5 sine bello.
202. 1 imperiosa.
203. 2 aeramentum (anything made of brass or copper, see Pliny xxxv, 15) tinniens.
204. 3 Partly a quotation and partly a paraphrase of 1 Cor. xiii, 19.
205. 4 si tanta res.
206. 1 quamvis in imperiosa virtute.
207. 2 nescio quae esse commissa.
208. 3 emendator.
209. 4 emendandum.
210. 5 sartor.
211. 6 pendebant quodam modo panni de una vestis origine.
212. 7 St. Optatus here abruptly changes the metaphor. But he at once leaves the thought of the tree and its branches, which he has already developed (ii, 9), and returns to the garment and its rents.
213. 1 ut quid se pars parti anteponit? The Donatists had preferred themselves before Catholics, saying in justification of their schism that the Catholic Church had become corrupt.
214. 2 lotorem.
215. 3 excidere.
216. 4 deformare.
217. 5 in parte vestis adhuc unum sumus, sed in diversa pendemus.
218. 6 scissum est. St. Optatus here tries to establish a distinction between scindere, to tear away without dividing from the garment, and abscindere or excidere (the word he had just used), to tear away, or cut off, altogether----totally.
219. 7 ex parte.
220. 8 ex toto.
221. 9 ecclesiastica conversatio.
222. 10 si hominum litigant mentes, non litigant sacramenta. So Catholics now remind the 'Orthodox' Greeks that they use the same Sacraments, and by this remembrance exhort them to unity.
223. 11 pares credimus.
224. 1 uno sigillo signati sumus, sc. in Confirmation. St. Optatus goes on to speak of Baptism; elsewhere (v, 1) he writes of the seal of Circumcision: 'Iudaei hoc sigillo se insigniri gloriantur.'
225. 2 pariter.
226. 3 Oratio dominica. Some have seen here a reference to the holy Sacrifice of the Altar----the Lord's Prayer per eminentiam.
227. 4 sartura.
228. 5 partibus hinc atque inde pendentibus. It is most true that the One Catholic Church can never be divided. Yet, when large numbers of men, still keeping the Faith, fall into schism, they may be said to hang loosely to her in the manner described by Optatus in the text: thus ever since the great Division between East and West, the separated Eastern Bishops have been summoned to the Oecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, as well as the Uniats who are in her full communion.
229. 6 huius rei artifex aut operarius.
230. 7 conpungit.
231. 8 vicina fila.
232. 9 ut sartor peccare potuisset. (For peccare cf. note 5, p. 151.)
233. 10 ad parentes vestros pertinent.
234. 1 lapides petrobolos.
235. 2 ruinosam (cf. iii, 2).
236. 3 Cf. Ez. xiii, 10. There is, however, nothing to be found here, in any extant version, of 'accusations,' unless they be found in the words 'Ubi est litura quam linistis?' (Ez. xiii, 12). (Cf. note 3, p. 168.)
237. 4 Matris Ecclesiae.
238. 5 persuasionibus vestris divisa sunt corpora et nomina pietatis, et non potuistis praetcr miller e quod legitimum est. In this very obscure passage, at first reading, it will probably seem that pietatis refers to corpora as well as to nomina. But this can hardly be the case. I think that it is clear that corpora refers to the relationship between husband and wife, nomina pietatis to that between parents and their children. The chief difficulty is as to the meaning of quod legitimum est. The context shows that St. Optatus is referring to the division between brother and sister. He has to bring in an idea to correspond to corpora and nomina pietatis. An unmarried man and woman under ordinary circumstances ought not to live alone in the same house, but natural law makes an exception for brother and sister. 'You,' he says, 'do not spare that affectionate union which natural law approves' (quod legitimum est). Albaspinaeus, however, refers quod legitimum est not to the institution of the family, to which Optatus has just been alluding, but to that which is coming, and understands it thus: 'And yet you have not been able to omit the customary salutations.' But this involves a full stop after pietatis, which is awkward; besides it is exceedingly doubtful whether quod legitimum est can bear this meaning. Still it may be noted that in ii, 12, St. Optatus uses the phrase praeterire illud legitimum for passing over that 'which is prescribed' at Mass. In his references to the sad divisions in families caused by Donatism, St. Optatus shows a strange forgetfulness of the fact that such divisions were foretold by its divine Founder as an inevitable consequence of the spread of Christianity itself (Matt, x, 34; Luke xii, 51). Moreover, they must necessarily have followed upon that conversion of individual Donatists to the Catholic Church which throughout his work Optatus so urgently advocates.
239. 1 Cf. Ez. xiii, 10.
240. 2 Domus Dei una est. (Cf. iii, 2: Fecistis quasi alteros muros.)
241. 1 partem.
242. 2 quia non est alter Deus, qui alter am domum inhabitet.
243. 3 conlocata. (Cf. ii, 2, Cathedram conlocaret.)
244. 4 foris (sc. outside the One Church, which is the One House of God, of which St. Optatus has just written: 'The House of God is one').
245. 5 nodo pacis. The metaphor seems to require cement rather than knot. The two walls abut upon the Corner Stone, which makes them into one wall (cf. Eph. ii, 20-21).
246. 6 retundit.
247. 7 diffundit.
248. 8 latronem.
249. 9 furem. The difference between latro and fur is that the former word carries with it the idea of violence----in Optatus even of murder (cf. i, 19 etc.).
250. 10 aedificatus ruinosus.
251. 11 nec lapidem angularem sustinet (for one wall has no corner).
252. 12 ianuam sine caussa habet (cf. supra: 'quicunque intraverit foris est'----for when you enter the door you are still out of doors).
253. 13 nec inclusa custodit (for it is a straight line, and one straight line cannot enclose a space).
254. 1 pluvia udatur (for it has no roof).
255. 2 pars vestra quasi ecclesia est, sed Catholica non est. (Cf. 'quasi necessaria,' v, 4.)
256. 3 est constituta.
257. 4 linistis.
258. 5 Cf. Ez. xiii, 12-14.
259. 6 emendate.
260. 1 lapides petrobolos.
261. 2 Ez. xiii, 13, 14.
262. 3 Cf. Ez. xiii, 13, 14. In the Vulgate we read 'Et erumpere faciam (a) spiritum tempestatum in indignatione Mea et (b) imber inundans in furore Meo erit, et (c) lapides grandes in ira in consumptionem. Et destruam parietem, quem linistis, et cadet.' From St. Jerome's commentary we find that the LXX had 'Et disrumpam spiritum auferentem in furore Meo, et pluvia inundans in ira Mea erit; et lapides magnos (περιβόλους) in furore inducam in consummationem. Et suffodiam parietem, quem linistis, et cadet, et ponam earn super terrain et revelabuntur fundamenta eius, et cadet et consummemini cum increpationibus; et cognoscetis quia ego Dominus.' St. Optatus' African version gives us (a) tempestatem nimiam (b) et pluviam, diluvia (c) et lapides petrobolos, et (d) accusationes. Where are these last accusaiiones? Probably they are the equivalent of the increpationes of St. Jerome. The Greek of the LXX has καὶ συντελεσθήσεσθε μετ̕ ἐλέγχων (μετ̕ ἐλέγχων = cum accusationibus.) The accusationes were to be the last calamity that should beset the Donatists. Then they were to fall. One wonders whether perhaps St. Optatus thought, though he did not like to say so expressly, that his book contained these destined 'accusations '!
263. 1 Cf. iii, 4.
264. 2 The Donatist schism.
265. 3 That something might be left for the rain to do.
266. 4 Cf. iii, 3.
267. 5 udatus est, sed non maduit.
268. 6 dispersus.
269. 7 luto.
270. 8 latere.
271. 9 seducunt.
272. 10 Cf. Ez. xiii, 2.
273. 11 nobis absentibus inruistis.
274. 1 Adlendite post vos. Redimite animas vestras. Estote Christiani. These were evidently catchwords in common use among the Donatists.
275. 2 nemo tenens manicam aratri post se adtendens (cf. Luke ix, 62).
276. 3 Cf. Gen. xix, 26.
277. 4 quis est ille nescio quis angelus, qui nundinas facit animarum?
278. 5 1 Cor. vi, 20; vii, 28.
279. 1 sicut vultis.
280. 2 quis virtutes novas aut alter as fecit? (Cf. 'Suam virtutem mittere'; 'a Filio Dei tantas celebrari virtutes,' v, 8.)
281. 3 cum miraculo quodam.
282. 4 Common names, as if we should say 'Mary, or Nicholas' (cf. vi, 8). So St. Augustine (De Bapt. ii, 7) tells us that the Donatists used to say to Catholics 'Bonus homo esses, si non esses Traditor, consule animae tuae, esto Christianus.'
283. 5 professus est. Sc. by Baptism.
284. 1 ante aram. Catechumens were not allowed to pray before the altar and were not taught the Our Father until just before Baptism.
285. 2 deliquerit.
286. 3 For a baptised man to become a pagan would be a miracle (miraculum quoddam), for' quod factum est (sc. Baptisma) infectum non potest fieri.'
287. 4 si tibi consenserit.
288. 5 In Penance.
289. 6 tam tibi.
290. 7 christianum faciunt de christiano.
291. 8 quasi facile.
292. 9 qui iamdudum in vestro collegio fuerant.
293. 1 qui gustaret aut acciperet.
294. 2 de sacrificio adventantis unitatis, = 'of the Sacrifice of [the newly recovered] Unity,' i.e. who communicated at the general Communion of union.
295. 3 de sacro----sc. sacrilege St. Optatus will explain immediately that the Donatists put about the calumny that Paulus and Macarius would cause the images of the Emperors to be exposed on the altar during the offering of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in their camp. Hence they concluded that the Catholic Sacrifice was not dissimilar to the sacrifice of the Pagans----a sacrilege (sacro).
296. 4 quos constat postea tota securitate fecisse, unde paulo ante populos deterrebant.
297. 5 alia ratio exegit has voces, alia invitavit in factum.
298. 6 cum alt aria solemniter aptarentur.
299. 7 sc. of the Emperor.
300. 8 qui inde gustat de sacro gustat.
301. 1 visa est puritas, et ritu solito solemnis consuetudo perspecta est.
302. 2 divinis sacrificiis.
303. 3 volentibus:----the reference is to 'Pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.'
304. 4 i.e. to the Unity of the Church (cf. i, 1 etc.). qui de collegio vestro ad Pacem transitum fecit.
305. 5 in se.
306. 1 et aliud et extra est. Casaubon remarks here that he does not think that St. Optatus meant to say anything more than what no doubt he might have said much more simply; 'That which is seen is very different from that which is heard.' But he adds that, by the word extra, bitter gossip, which is outside of us, and is only heard, may perhaps be here subtly contrasted with the inherent sweetness which truth has in itself, and which we can, if we will, see for ourselves.
307. 2 longe fuerat. Had been a complete misrepresentation.
308. 3 ut lacerares.
309. 4 These two chapters are given both by Ziwsa and Du Pin as the last two chapters (vi and vii) of Book VII, but are evidently an appendix (written later) to Book III. (cf. p. 271).
310. 1 vobis provocantibus, sc. to the Emperor (see iii, 1).
311. 2 non tandem tractandi, quod est Episcoporum. We learn from St. Jerome and from St. Possidius in his life of St. Augustine that in the churches of Africa priests were not permitted to preach in the presence of a Bishop. But Casaubon has no difficulty in showing that Baronius was mistaken in thinking that this custom ----which St. Augustine tells us (Ep. lxxvii) was abolished in his lifetime----was ever universal, or that priests were anywhere forbidden to preach excepting when a Bishop was present. Still preaching the Word of God has always been regarded in the Catholic Church as per se the duty of a Bishop, only per accidens that of a priest.
312. 1 Rom. xiii, 4.
313. 2 Cf. Ex. xxxii, 28.
314. 3 Cf. Num. xxv, 11.
315. 4 Cf. 3 Kings xviii, 40.
316. 1 sumus enim qualescumque iudices in Ecclesia. Qualescumque is written modestly, in comparison with secular judges.
317. 2 duas portare personas.
318. 3 Gen. iv, 9.
319. 1 Gen. iv, 10.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_04_book .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 4. pp.180-202.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 4. pp.180-202.
BOOK THE FOURTH
An Answer is made to certain Arguments of Parmenian, drawn from various Passages in the Old Testament.
I. The Argument of this Book.
We have now, my brother Parmenian, shown openly and clearly that in charging us with asking for the help of the soldiers, you have calumniated us to no purpose.1 Now learn this also, that what you have said about the Sacraments and sacrifice of a sinner 2 refers to you rather than to us.
Since a man is not necessarily a sinner 3 because you have so chosen to term him, it would be equally easy for us, copying your gratuitous assumption,4 to say that you are the sinners. But assumptions of this kind on both, sides should be sent packing.5 Let neither of us judge the other with man's judgement.
It belongs to God to know who is guilty; His it is to pass judgement. Let then all of us, who are |181 but men, keep silence. Let God alone point out the sinner, whose sacrifice is unclean,6 and from whose hands one who wishes to be anointed should fear to receive unction.
How most clearly true this is, acknowledge, my brother Parmenian!
II. That the Donatists are the Brethren of Catholics.7
If, that is, you are freely content to hear this ascription of brotherhood which I have so often used. And I would beg of you to recognise that, however distasteful the word brother may be to you, still it has of necessity to be employed by us, lest perchance (considering the proof that it ought to be used) we should, by refraining from it, be blameworthy. For, if you are not willing to be my brother, I should begin to be unbrotherly,8 were I to keep silence concerning this name. For you are our brethren, and we are yours, as the Prophet says:
'Has not one God made you, and one Father begotten you?' 9
Nor can you avoid being our brethren, since to all has it been said:
'You are all gods and sons of the Most High.' 10
And both you and we have received the one command in the words: |182
'Call no man your father on earth, because One is your Father in the Heavens.' 11
Our Saviour Christ alone is the Son of God by Birth,12 but both you and we have been made sons of God in the same manner, as it has been written in the Gospel:
'The Son of God has come. As many as received Him, to them has He given the power to become sons of God, to those who believe in His Name.' 13
We have both been made and are called His sons; you have been made His sons, but are not so called,14 because you are not willing to be in peace, or to listen to the Son of God Himself, when He says:
'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.' 15
Christ by His coming recalled God and man to Peace,16 and
'taking away the wall of partition, made both One.' 17
But you will not have peace with us, that is, with your brothers. For you cannot escape being our brothers----you whom together with us one Mother Church has borne from the same bowels of her Mysteries,18 and whom God the Father has received in the same manner as sons of adoption.
Wherefore Christ, foreseeing this time----how it |183 would come to pass that you should to-day be at variance with us, gave such commands with regard to prayer, that, at least in prayer,19 unity might remain, and that supplications might join those who should be torn asunder by faction. We pray for you, for we wish to do so, and you pray for us, even though you do not wish it. Otherwise let any one of you say:
'My Father, who art in Heaven,' and 'Give me my daily bread,' and 'Forgive me my trespasses, as I forgive him who trespasses against me.'
Accordingly, if things which have been prescribed may not be changed, you see that we have not been absolutely 20 divided from one another, whilst we willingly pray for you, and you (though unwillingly) pray for us. You perceive, my brother Parmenian, that the bonds of holy brotherhood between you and us do not admit of being absolutely 21 broken.
III. That the Donatists are sinners.
We have now to search for the sinner, at whose hands we should fear to receive unction, or whose sacrifice ought to be disowned.21
Let human mistrust give way, and the arguments of both sides keep silence. God alone shall point out who is a sinner. We read in the forty-eighth Psalm in the second division 22 that the Holy Ghost has said:
'But to the sinner God said.'
Here we have to give the whole attention of our mind, and see who is the sinner. |184
For, if after we have read:
"'But to the sinner God said,'
some such words as these were to follow:
'Thou hast snatched up arms, thou hast marched out of the camp,23 thou hast stood against the foe in battle array,'
then the soldier would have reason to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner. Or, if He said:
'Thou hast got together merchandise, thou hast gone on journeys, thou hast held fairs, thou hast bought and sold for the sake of profit,'
then the man of business would have to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner. Or, if He said:
'Thou hast built a ship, thou hast fitted it out with rigging and sails, thou hast seized 24 the winds favourable for a voyage,'
then the sailor would have to fear, because he might seem to be the sinner.
Or, if after we have read:
'But to the sinner God said,'
these words were to follow:
'Dissension and schism have been displeasing to thee, |185 thou hast agreed with thy brother and with the One Church, which is in all the world, thou hast communicated with the Seven Churches and with the Shrines of the Apostles.25 Thou hast embraced Unity'----
if these things were to be read immediately afterwards, then we should have to fear that we were the sinners.
But when God says:
'Why dost thou declare My commandments and take My covenant in thy mouth? For discipline thou hast despised, and thou hast cast My words behind thee. Sitting thou didst speak against thy brother, and didst lay a scandal against thy mother's son. Thou didst see a thief and didst run with him, and with adulterers thou hast been a partaker' 26;
then all these things have been said to you. Clear yourselves from all of them, if you can!
IV. That the Donatists are despisers of discipline.
So discipline has been held in contempt by you. To what end then dost thou. who dost not obey the covenant, recite the covenant, in which has been set forth the discipline which you 27 will not observe? For you cannot say that you observe something, against which you bear arms!
God says:
'Seek peace, and thou shalt obtain it.' 28
Thou hast rejected peace. Is not this to despise discipline? |186
In the Gospel we read:
'On earth peace to men of good will.' 29
Thou wilt have neither peace nor good will. Is not this to despise discipline?
Moreover, we read in the hundred and thirty-second Psalm:
'Behold how good and pleasant it is to dwell together in unity.' 30
Thou 31 wilt not dwell in unity with thy brethren. Is not this to despise discipline?
Christ says in the Gospel:
'He who has once been cleansed, has no need to be cleansed anew.' 32
Thou by rebaptising dost cleanse anew. Is not this to despise discipline? God says:
'Touch not Mine anointed, and lay not thy hand upon My Prophets.' 33
You 34 have stripped so many priests of God of their dignities. Is not this to despise discipline?
Christ says:
'From this I know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.' 35
You hold in hatred us, who are surely your brethren; |187 nor have you been willing to imitate the Apostles, by whom Peter was beloved, though he denied his Lord.36 Is not this to despise discipline?
Thou 37 declarest the commandments 38 of God, and takest His covenant in thy mouth. How dost thou exhort: 'Seek peace,' though thou dost not possess peace? Thou recitest the covenant,39 and dost not obey the covenant, in which has been set forth discipline.
V. That the Donatists are slanderers and have propagated scandals.
You have been chosen to sit and teach the people,40 and you slander us who are your brethren. As I have said above, one Mother Church has given us birth, one God the Father has received us, and yet you 'lay scandals against' 41 us by forbidding each of your followers to salute us, or receive from us the customary signs of courtesy.42 |188
Consider your haughty words, consider your discourses,43 consider the commands that you have given, turn over your actions in your minds, and you will then find out why the man who formerly asked you for the Sacraments, has feared to receive them at your hands.44
There is not one of you who does not mingle abuse of us with his discourses;43 not one of you who does not begin in one manner and continue in another.45 You begin the sacred readings on the Lord's Day,46 and unfold your comments in such a way as to do us wrong; you bring forth the Gospel, and heap abuse upon your brother in his absence; you pour hatred into the minds of those who listen to you, and by your teaching persuade men to live at enmity with one another. By all your discourses you 'lay scandals against' us. Therefore, to each one of you has it been said:
'Sitting thou didst speak against thy brother, and didst lay a scandal against thy mother's son.' 47
When God reproves the sinner and chides him that sits, it is clear that His words are addressed specially |189 to you, not to the people who have no permission to sit in the church.48 You see therefore that without a doubt to you should be referred the Divine Words:
'Sitting thou didst lay a scandal against thy mother's son.'
I have so many times proved that we have one mother, nor can you deny this----you who 'lay scandals against' us----though some of your party allege texts which they have not understood, in order to take away from us even what is usually shared by all men----the courtesy of salutation. For some of you refuse us the embraces that are customary in everyday life,49 and many are taught not to say 'God speed you' 50 to any one of us, and think that this is commanded by what they have read without understanding it, through not knowing of whom it was that an Apostle 51 has said:
'With such as these not even to take food,' nor 'say "God speed you"' to him, 'for their speech creepeth on like a spreading sore.' 52
This was said of heretics, whose teaching at that time began to be full of errors, for through the subtle seductiveness of their speech, they introduced diseases, |190 creeping along in the darkness, to corrupt the soundness of the Faith.53 Such a one was Marcion, who from a Bishop became an Apostate, and. brought in two Gods and two Christs; such was Ebion,54 who argued that not the Son but the Father had suffered; such Valentinus, who strove to take away from Christ His Flesh.
This is that speech which had a cancer 55 to torment the members of the Faith. This has been said also of the heretic Scorpian,56 who maintained that there ought to be no martyrdom. |191
But let them keep their poisons for themselves, and let no discourse 57 with them be allowed, lest by listening to them simple minds be troubled, however slightly.
Wherefore these are they whose speech has to be avoided, lest it creep in, like a spreading sore.
This was said too of Arius, who endeavoured to teach that the Son of God was made out of non-existing substances,58 and not born of God----whose teaching, had it not been driven away by three hundred and eighteen Bishops in the Nicene Council, would, like a cancer, have entered the breasts of many.
This was said also of Photinus, a heretic of the present time, who has dared to say that the Son of God was merely a man, not God.
It may have been said of you as well, since your word has introduced no small cancer into the ears and minds of some. This is your word, which you address to the sons of Peace, when you say:
'You have perished. Look behind you. Your soul will be lost. How long do you hang back? 59 '
In this way have you made Penitents of the Faithful; thus have you destroyed the honours due to Priests.60 Behold! It is your word also, which to-day creeps on as a spreading sore, so that you forbid us the greetings and ordinary intercourse of life. |192
But how could our teaching have produced any such result? We guard the sons of Peace with pure 61 teaching; we lead no strangers astray; we ruin no man. It is therefore clear that you daily 'lay scandals against' us, and it would be a long matter to go through all the ways in which you slander us, and all the kinds of scandal which you 'lay against' us.
VI. That the Donatists are thieves and on what ground.
For also when God says:
'Thou didst see a thief and didst run with him,' 62
concerning what kind of thievery think you that this has been said? Was it perhaps on account of some stolen article of clothing, or some pocket that had been picked,63 or about goods the stealing of which brings loss and gain to men?
Yes, without doubt such thefts as these are forbidden; but in this passage God rebukes those which are made from Himself. Do you ask what thefts are made from God? They are to be found amongst you! God's possession is the mass of the Faithful,64 from which that thief the Devil tries every day to steal something, striving to corrupt in some way or other the morals of a Christian man or woman, and thus to snatch away, if not the whole man----at any rate something or other from the man. |193
Since you saw this Thief bringing force to bear against us, you have helped him by your deeds. For none are unaware, that everyone who is born (even though he may be born of Christian parents) cannot be without the unclean spirit, who must of necessity be driven out and separated from a man before the saving layer. This is effected by the exorcism,65 through which the unclean spirit is cast forth and driven, in flight, to desert places.
The house in the heart of the Believer is made empty, the house is made clean. God enters and dwells therein, even as says the Apostle:
'You are the Temple of God, and God dwells in you.' 66
Whereas then each [baptised] man is full of God, and that Thief the Devil is endeavouring to steal something away from him, you exorcise that faithful man by rebaptising him, and say to God, who dwells within him:
'Go forth, O cursed one,'
that there may be fulfilled what was spoken by Ezekiel the Prophet:
'And they spoke evil things to Me amongst My people for the sake of a handful of barley and a morsel of bread, that they might kill souls which ought not to die, whilst they announce to My people empty deceits.' 67 |194
So God hears wrongful insults, which are not His due, and departs from such a dwelling as this; and the man who, when he entered the church, was full of God, goes out an empty vessel.
The Devil, who wished, like a thief, to steal something, sees that the whole, from which he was striving to snatch some little thing, has become his by your assistance. Wherefore, of you God said:
'Thou didst see a thief and didst run together with him.' 68
Again it has been written in the Gospel:
'But when God shall have left a man, he remains an empty vessel, but the unclean spirit wandering through desert places, says, in his hunger 69: " My house is empty," 70 that is to say, He who had shut me out has been Himself shut out. " I will go back and dwell therein." And he brings with him seven others more wicked, and he shall dwell there, and that man's last state shall be worse than his first.'
That is:
'Thou didst see a thief and didst run together with him, and with adulterers didst cast thy lot.'
He terms heretics adulterers, and their churches adulterous,71 which Christ contemns and disowns 72 in the Canticle of Canticles, as though He should say:
'Why do you make churches that "are not wanted 73"?' |195
'One is My beloved, one is My Spouse, one is My dove' 74
that is, the Catholic Church, in which you too might be.75 And yet by rebaptising you have chosen to cast your lot amongst adulterers.
It has been most clearly proved by divine witness that you are sinners. It has also been shown that thine auxiliaries have warred against thee,76 for thou hast brought up to thy relief 77 the saying of the Prophet:
'The sacrifice of the sinner, is as of one who would offer in sacrifice a dog.' 78
Now, if you have any shame, recognise with grief that you are the sinners.
VII. In what sense it has been said: Let not the oil of the sinner anoint My Head.
Also learn this, whose Word it is:
'Let not the oil of the sinner anoint My Head.' 79
For whose voice is this thou hast not understood? It is surely the voice of Christ, who had not yet been anointed, when He prayed that the oil of the sinner should not soil His Head. Thou hast said, without |196 understanding, that David the Prophet feared the oil of the sinner.
The Psalmist had already been anointed by Samuel. There was then no reason why he should be anointed a second time. Consequently it is the voice of Christ, which says:
'Let not the oil of the sinner anoint My Head.'
It is a prayer, not a command; the expression of a desire, not a precept. For, were it a command, He would have said:
'The oil of the sinner shall not anoint My Head.'
It is therefore the Voice of the Son of God, even then fearing to meet the oil of the sinner, that is of any man whomsoever, for no man is without sin, but God alone. Accordingly His Son feared the oil of man, for it would have been shameful that God should be anointed by man. Accordingly He prays the Father that He should not be anointed by man, but by God the Father Himself. It is then the Son who asks; let us see whether the Father has granted the request.
This the Holy Spirit points out and makes clear in the forty-fourth Psalm, wherein He says to the Son Himself:
'The Lord thy God shall anoint Thee with the oil of gladness differently 80 from Thy fellows.'
His fellows had been the priests and kings of the Jews, each of whom was known to have been anointed |197 by men. But, since it was right that the Son should be anointed by the Father----God by God----as the Son asked and the Spirit announced that it had been promised----this the Father fulfilled in the Jordan. For when the Son of God, our Saviour, came there, He was pointed out to John with these words 81:
'Behold the Lamb of God; He it is who taketh away the sins of the world.' 82
He went down into the water, not that there was anything in God that could be cleansed, but the water had to come before the oil that was to come after, thus to commence and ordain and fulfil the Mysteries of Baptism.83
For when the waters went over Him, and He was held in the hands of John, the Mystery followed in due order, and the Father fulfilled that for which the Son had prayed, and the Holy Ghost had announced was to come. The Heaven was opened, as the Father anointed. Forthwith the spiritual oil descended in the likeness of a Dove, and sat upon His Head and flowed over Him. On this account He was first called Christ, when He was anointed by God the Father. And lest it might seem that the laying on of hands was lacking to Him, the Voice of God was heard, saying from the cloud:
'This is My well-beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.84 Hear ye Him.' 85 |198
Here, therefore, we find the meaning of that which was written:
'Let not the oil of the sinner anoint My Head.'
Learn, then, though late, my brother Parmenian, the nature of the truth, for now is the time for learning how to find it.86
VIII. That heretics are children of adulterers.
And with regard to that which you have quoted from the Prophet Solomon 87:
'The children of adulterers shall not come to perfection, and bastard slips cannot take deep roots,'
this may well be understood to have been said in a literal sense. For, if you take it figuratively, you have excused those who are actually guilty of adultery. But grant that it was said in figure. In that case it has been spoken of heretics, whose sacraments are like invalid wedlock, in whose beds is to be found iniquity, where the very seeds [of life] have been corrupted to the destruction of the Faith.88 |199
When Valentinus maintains that the Son of God was on earth in a phantasm, not in Flesh, he corrupted his own faith and that of his followers. The seed of [spiritual] birth has been rooted out in those who have not believed that the Son of God was born in the Flesh of Mary the Virgin, and that in the Flesh He suffered.
IX. That a certain passage in Jeremiah is to be understood of the idolatrous Jews.
Now with regard to what you mention that you have read in the Prophet Jeremiah that the people of God have done two evil things in that
'they forsook the Fountain of living water, and digged to themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water' 89;
you have indeed read this, but have been unwilling to understand the real state of the case.
In your love for bringing charges, you have twisted round everything so as to abuse Catholics, and, to suit your own purposes, you have attempted to digress a great deal according to your own whims.90 For if you imagine that everything which has been written by the Prophets belongs to our own times, you are making excuses for the Jews, concerning whom it is certain that it was written, that they forsook the Living God, the True God, the God who had bestowed His Blessings upon them, and made for themselves idols----that is to say, broken cisterns, which can hold no water.
In God the Everlasting Majesty flows over,91 even |200 as, in a fountain, water freely gushes forth from its channels. But idols, unless they be made, have no being, and wells, unless they be dug, hold no water in their depth.92 Cisterns cannot be hollowed out without skill and tools, nor can idols be made without a craftsman. In idols there is no virtue that belongs to them,93 but it is given and applied to them through the mistake of man. Virtue is believed to be in an idol, which is not there of its own nature. A cistern, the making of which is a weary work,94 is broken with deliberation, so that neither has it water of itself, nor of itself can it hold the water that it has received. Similarly an idol is not anything of itself, and, whilst it is being worshipped, is nothing.
This is the meaning of the Word of God, that His people did two evil things, in that they abandoned the fountain of living water and made for themselves broken cisterns which they had themselves dug out. For the people of Israel had forsaken the true water, had not recognised the Divine Majesty, and had followed the evil worship of idols.
This it is over which God grieves, this it is at which He says that the Heaven has shuddered. |201
For God grieves over the same thing through the Prophet Isaiah, when in this matter He calls to witness two elements with these words:
'Hear, O Heaven, and perceive with thine ears, O Earth. I have brought up and have exalted children. But they have forsaken Me.' 95
How is it, my brother Parmenian, that you have had nothing to say concerning this passage? Or why is it that there is here no mention of water? It will be seen that, through your love of fault-finding, you have done such violence to the Law, that, whenever you read anything of water, you have, by some conjuring tricks, twisted it round for your purposes of hatred, and have made a sort of drag-net out of malicious arguments, and have thus drawn to yourself all things which in themselves are good.
For what intelligence have you shown 96 with regard to this passage in Jeremy, since God cries out that He has been forsaken, and that cisterns have thus been made? His wrath is concerning Himself, not concerning something which is His, for the Baptismal Water belongs to God, but is not God Himself.97 And if you think that you [and your baptism] have been deserted, pray when were any of you baptised 98 among us, so that it |202 should be true that they who deserted your [baptism] came to us? 99
So we have shown that what you have said about the Sacraments and sacrifice of a sinner tells not against us, but against yourselves.
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 Cf. iii, 4.
2. 2 de oleo et sacrificio peccatoris. For this phrase cf. i, 5, 6, 7; iv, 7, 9. For oleum cf. note 3, p. 11.
3. 3 non ille debet esse peccator.
4. 4 vestram praesumptionem. The Donatists boastfully claimed that the validity of the Sacraments depended upon their personal holiness. This was the 'presumption' with which they started.
5. 5 facessat ex utraque parte praesumptio. Cf. 'facesse Tarquinios' (Liv. i, 47).
6. 1 cuius sacrificium est canina victima. Canina = Like that of a dog. Cf. infra iv, 6: quasi qui victimet canem. The reference is to Deut. xxiii, 18: 'Non offeres pretium canis in domo Domini Dei tui'; cf. also Is. lxvi, 3: 'Facinorosus qui sacrificat Mihi vitulum, quasi qui canem occidat' (the reading of St. Aug. c. ep. Par men. ii, 5).
7. 2 The whole of this chapter is a digression (cf. i, 3).
8. 3 impius.
9. 4 Malach. ii, 10.
10. 5 Ps. lxxxi, 6.
11. 1 Matt. xxiii, 9.
12. 2 solus natus est Filius Dei.
13. 3 John i, 11.
14. 4 They had been made the sons of God by Baptism, but had, by reason of their schism, lost their right to the title.
15. 5 Matt. v, 9.
16. 6 Deum et hominem revocavit in Pacem. A very strong phrase.
17. 7 Eph. ii, 13.
18. 8 quos iisdem Sacramentorum visceribus (cf. ii, 10).
19. 1 The Lord's Prayer.
20. 2 in totum.
21. 3 cuius potuit vel oleum timeri, vel sacrificium repudiavi.
22. 4 sub secundo diapsalmate. Ps. xlix, 16. For Diapsalma cf. S. August. Enarr. in Ps. iv, 4; Quaest. ex utroque mixtim (Migne, P.L. p. 2334); S. Hieron. Ep. xxviii, De Voce Diapsalma.
23. 1 processisti de castris. This is the reading of G. It is probably a conjecture but seems to give the right sense. RBv read proiecisti castris, which it is not possible to translate. Ziwsa conjectures proiecisti te castris (thou hast flung itself upon fortresses), but this is hardly Latin. Besides Optatus is not likely to have represented an army as first attacking, and afterwards as standing in array against the enemy in the field.
24. 2 captasti.
25. 1 Cf. ii, 14.
26. 2 Ps. xlix, 16, 17, 18, 20.
27. 3 St. Optatus here passes abruptly from the singular to the plural number, from Parmenian individually to the Donatists collectively.
28. 4 Ps. xxxiii, 15.
29. 1 Luke ii, 14.
30. 2 Ps. cxxxii, 1.
31. 3 Here St. Optatus returns to the singular.
32. 4 John xiii, 10.
33. 5 Ps, civ, 15.
34. 6 We have the plural once more.
35. 7 John xiii, 34.
36. 1 Cf. vii, 3.
37. 2 We have the singular again.
38. 3 iustificationes.
39. 4 Ziwsa has added at the beginning of this last sentence a second quomodo and places a note of interrogation at the end (Quomodo testamentum vecitas?). This addition (for which no reason is given) seems unnecessary. The vecitas testamentum corresponds well with the exponis iustificationes Dei etc. of the beginning of the paragraph.
40. 5 electi estis, qui sedentes populum doceatis. To sit, i.e. when teaching the people. We learn from St. Augustine (Hom. xxvi; Tract. xix and cxii in S. Ioan.; in Expos. Ps. cxlvii etc.) that in the Churches of Africa the Bishops only were allowed to sit (though an exception was made in favour of those who were ill or tired, at least when the reading was long). He tells us, however, that a far better custom prevailed in some European Churches: 'longe consultius in quibusdam ecclesiis transmarinis, non solum antistites sedentes loquuntur ad populum, sed ipsi etiam populo sedilia subiacent' (de Catech. rudibus, c. xiii).
41. 6 Ps. xlix, 20.
42. 7 ne nos salutent, ne a nobis dignationem accipiant. In the early days of Christianity, Christians were accustomed to salute one
another with the kiss of peace, not only at a stated time in the church during divine service, but also when meeting in the street. Casaubon points out that in Low Latin dignatio was used for facilitas or humanitas and quotes from Sidonius Apollinaris the phrase 'dignitate clarus, dignatione communis.' (For legitimum, cf. note 5, p. 164.)
43. 1 tractatus----i.e. ad populum = sermons. Ziwsa, however, gives libellus as its equivalent.
44. 2 et invenietis oleum vestrum timuisse, qui rogabat. Du Pin rejects this sentence, as not being consistent with the context; but it is found in all the MSS.
45. 3 qui non aut aliud initiet aut aliud explicet.
46. 4 lectiones dominicas.
47. 5 Ps. xlix, 20.
48. 1 non ad populum qui in Ecclesia non habent sedendi licentiam. Cf. supra: 'Electi estis, qui sedentes populum doceatis,' where see note.
49. 2 in perfunctoria salutatione oscula denegatis solita.
50. 3 Ave.
51. 4 Apostolus.
52. 5 We have here three passages joined together in one sentence----1 Cor. v, 11; 2 John 10; 2 Tim. ii, 17. Parmenian (or possibly some other Donatist) had quoted all the three texts. St. Optatus supposes the context known, and cites a portion of each, without continuing them.
53. 1 quorum caeperat illis temporibus vitiosa esse doctrina, qui subtili seductione verborum morbis obscure serpentibus corrumperent fidei sanitatem.
54. 2 The MSS. have Ebion. Du Pin substituted Praxeas who was accused by Tertullian. 'Patrem cruci fixit.' St. Optatus probably wrote Ebion by a slip of the pen.
55. 3 qui habuit cancer. St. Augustine (De Bapt. con. Donat. iv, 12) writes that he would have understood the words in 2 Tim. ii, 17 (quoted above by St. Optatus), 'serpit eorum sermo velut cancer,' of wicked men within the Church, but that the authority of St. Cyprian will not admit of this interpretation. He proceeds, however, to argue against St. Cyprian, who had written (Ep. ad Iubaianum): 'Nam cum dicant [Apostoli] sermonem eorum [haereticorum] ut cancer serpere, quomodo is sermo dare remissam peccatorum qui ut cancer serpit ad aures audientium?' To this Augustine makes answer: 'Nec foris, sicut nec intus, quisquam qui ex parte diaboli est, potest vel in se vel in quoquam maculare Sacramentum quod Christi est... cum Baptisma verbis evangelicis datur... si quis per hominem perversum id accipiens... remissionem accipit peccatorum non per verba sicut cancer serpentia, sed per Evangelica Sacramenta de caelesti fonte manantia.'
56. 4 St. Optatus seems to have been led astray here by the fact that Tertullian gave the inscription of Scorpiace to the book which he wrote against the heretics, who had attacked the martyrs. Hence apparently he thought that there had been a heretic called Scorpian. But at the commencement of this book Tertullian attacks no individual, but terms Gnostics, Valentinians and other heretics in general Scorpios.
57. 1 relatio. Relatio = recounting, i.e. narrative or teaching (from referre, to relate). Ziwsa says = sermo.
58. 2 ex nullis substantiis ( = ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων) factum esse.
59. 3 quamdiu vos tenetis? = quamdiu apud Catholicos manetis? Ziwsa says that se tenere here = zögern, sich aufrecht erhalten.
60. 4 Cf. i, 2; ii, 24 supra etc.
61. 1 simplici. Simplex = unadulterated, unmixed by any new teaching or heresy.
62. 2 Ps. xlix, 18.
63. 3 aut de involato gremio. Gremium----the fold of the garment-----pocket. Involato not from in-volare = to swoop upon, but from the unusual verb in-vola-re from vola, the palm of the hand, = to place in the palm of the hand----to steal (cf. French voler).
64. 4 possessio Dei est turba Fidelium.
65. 1 nam neminem fugit quod omnis homo qui nascitur, quamvis de parentibus Christianis nascatur, sine spiritu immundo esse non possit, quem necesse sit ante salutare lavacrum ab homine excludi et separari. Hoc exorcismus operatur etc. We see the importance which Optatus attached to the very ancient pre-baptismal exorcism.
66. 2 1 Cor. iii, 16.
67. 3 Ez. xiii, 19: maledicebant... vanas seductiones (Vulgate 'violabant,.. mentientes populo Meo credenti mendaciis').
68. 1 Ps. xlix, 18.
69. 2 ieiunus.
70. 3 We have here a paraphrase of Matt. xii, 43-45.
71. 4 Cf. note 4, p. 18.
72. 5 aspernatur et repudiat.
73. 6 non necessarias. Cf. note 3, p. 121.
74. 1 Cant. vi, 8.
75. 2 Catholica, in qua... esse, Cf. iii, 3: 'in Christi Catholica habitabant,' etc.
76. 3 tua auxilia contra te militasse. We have this abrupt transition to the singular in order to emphasise the fact that Parmenian had quoted this text, which is now turned against him.
77. 4 in auxilium addideras.
78. 5 Is. lxvi, 3: quasi qui victimet canem. We read in the Vulgate 'quasi qui excerebret canem.' The word victimo is used in the sense of sacrifice by Apuleius. Excerebrare (literally to beat out the brains) is found only in the Vulgate. It is translated in the Douay Version: 'He that killeth in sacrifice.' (Cf. note 1, p. 181.)
79. 6 Ps. cxl, 6.
80. 1 aliter a consortibus tuis. (The Vulgate has 'prae consortibus tuis,') Ps. xliv, 8.
81. 1 Ad Ioannem ostensus est his verbis.
82. 2 John i, 29.
83. 3 In Confirmation: Cf. Tixeront (op. cit. ii, 314).
84. 4 de quo bene sensi.
85. 5 Matt. iii, 17; Mark i, 11; Luke ix, 35; 2 Pet. i, 17.
86. 1 ration em veritatis, f rater Parmeniane, vel sero, addisce, quoniam nunc tempus est invenire discendi. G reads tempus discendi invenisti ----evidently an emendation, but the rhythm is wrong, and the reading of the other MSS. gives good sense. Casaubon suggests the very violent and unnecessary change Nunc non tempus est iuvenile discendi.
87. 2 Sap. iii, 16; iv, 3: filios adulterorum inconsummatos et spuria vitulamina altas radices dare non posse. (Vulgate: 'Filii adulterorum in inconsummatione erunt, et spuria vitulamina non dabunt radices altas.' )
88. 3 apud quos sunt sacramentorum falsa connubia, et in quorum toris iniquitas invenitur, ubi in exterminium Fidei corrupta sunt semina. For toris Du Pin reads choris with v. But the MSS, have toris, and the reference to Sap. iii, 16 makes this reading certain (cf. also note 4, p. 18).
89. 1 Jer. ii, 13.
90. 2 multum ad arbitrium tuum declinare conatus es. RBv have destinare.
91. 3 in Deo perennis Maiestas exundat. This passage is absolutely corrupt in RBv. Ideo perennis male destans exultant, sicut in fonte aqua largiter defluentibus venis exuberant. From G it is clear that Ideo should be in Deo and that male destans should be Maiestas. Casaubon conjectured exundat for exultant and exuberat for exuberant. Ziwsa accepts this emendation. It is the text which I have translated.
92. 1 sinus capaces habere non possunt.
93. 2 in idolis virtus naturalis nulla est.
94. 3 cuius fabrica vexatio est Gb, vexationes RB. Casaubon conjectured 'cuius si fabrica vitiata est aquam nec habeat etc'
95. 1 Is. i, 2 (cf. Jer. ii, 13).
96. 2 qualis est tuus intellectus----of what kind is your understanding?
97. 3 pro Se irascitur, non pro re sua. Aqua enim baptismatis res Dei est, non Deus. Parmenian had taken fons aquas vivae to be true baptism, which Catholics had forsaken, whereas St. Optatus points out that it refers to God Himself.
98. 4 baptizati, i.e. rebaptised.
99. 1 et si [vos G] putatis desertos esse, quando apud vos fuerunt, qui apud nos baptizati sunt, ut merito vestri desertores ad nos venire viderentur? (For, apud vos fuerunt BG read apud nos fuerunt; for qui apud nos etc. RB read quia etc.) The Latin of this passage is obscure and the text not certain, but the argument of Optatus is clear. 'You say that we have deserted the font of true baptism, but, granted that you have true baptism, has your baptism ever been "deserted" by those that came over from you to us? We have never rebaptised any who had received baptism at your hands.' Viderentur is (as so often in Optatus) used pleonastically.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_05_book .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 5. pp.203-245.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 5. pp.203-245.
I. From Parmenian's own principles it follows that Baptism is One.
II. That in Baptism the work is done by the Trinity, not by the person of the Minister.
III. That Baptism is not to be repeated.
IV. That it is God, not the Minister, who cleanses in the Sacrament of Baptism.
V. Why and when the Baptism of Christ was conferred.
VI. An answer to the argument, that a man cannot give that which he has not.
VII. That the Grace of Baptism is the gift of God, not of man, who is shown to be only the Minister.
VIII. Concerning the faith of him who receives Baptism.
IX. That the example of Naaman the Syrian was brought by Parmenian without relevance.
X. The Parable of the Marriage Feast was wrongly brought forward by Parmenian.
XI. As the Donatists could not rebaptise children who were dead, why should they rebaptise the living?
BOOK THE FIFTH
In this Fifth Book it is shown that though Men are the Ministers of Baptism, it is God Who cleanses, and that it is his Christ who gives what is received in baptism, and that the rebaptised cannot possess the kingdom of God, and that they have lost the Wedding Garment.
I. From Parmenian's own principles it follows that Baptism is One.
In our First Book we have shown by the clearest proofs who were the Betrayers of the Law 1 and the originators of the schism; in the Second we have pointed out that with us is the One True Catholic Church, whilst in the Third we have proved that whatever is said to have been done with severity cannot rightfully be in any way ascribed to us. We have also maintained 2 that there is divine warrant for saying that it is you,3 rather than we, who are 'sinners.' 4
We must now 5 in this place speak of Baptism. In the matter at present to be considered the whole |204 question consists in this, that you have dared to do violence 6 to Baptism----that you have repeated what Christ has commanded to be done but once.
And this, my brother Parmenian, you do not deny, since at the beginning of your treatise you have said many things which are on our side, and tell for us, but against you.7 Thus with reference to Baptism, you have mentioned that there was only one Flood, and only one Circumcision for the people of the Jews. But although you dealt with these subjects at the beginning of your oration,8 as the sermon was developed 9 you soon forgot all about them, and introduced two waters; so you made a silly commencement to your argument, for you knew that you were going on to discuss the true water and the false.10
You strengthen the oneness of Holy Baptism, when trying to weaken it 11; for you have wished to lay as it were a foundation, with regard to the Jewish Circumcision, that the Baptism of Christians had been foreshadowed in the Circumcision of the Hebrews. In this way you have defended, whilst attacking, the Catholic Church. As your treatise progressed, you claimed to empty of value one kind of Baptism,12 that you might fill the other to the full.13 By saying |205 that (apart from the Baptism of heretics14), there is one Baptism and yet a second,15 you could not deny----although you have tried to show that they are different 16 ----that they are two; when you endeavoured to remove one of these,17 you laboured to treat the second 18 as though it were the first.19 But before the coming of Baptism, Circumcision was sent forward in advance in a figure. Yet you have maintained that there are amongst Christians two waters. Show then that there are also two Circumcisions amongst the Jews----of which one was the better, the other the worse. If you search for this, you will not be able to find it. The family 20 of Abraham----by descent from whom men are judged to be Jews----glory in being marked with this seal. Therefore the truth ought afterwards to follow, like in character to its figure,21 which was sent on before. For God too, who wished to show that the reality to come (when the truth should follow the type) must be something unique,22 |206 willed not that anything should be removed from the ear, nor from the finger; but that part of the body was chosen where what had been once cut away 23should leave them with a sign that is to our point, because it cannot be removed a second time. For when this is done once it preserves health; if done again it may do harm. Similarly, Christian Baptism, effected by the Trinity,24 confers grace; if it be repeated it causes loss of life.
What then has come over you,25 my brother Parmenian, to bring forward a thing which is one,26 and over against it 27 to compare two Baptisms (even though you allege that they are different)----the one true, the other false? For in this way you have proceeded to argue that there are two waters, and claiming one as true for yourselves, wished to ascribe the other to us as false.28
After this you have made mention also of the Flood.29 This was indeed a figure of Baptism, inasmuch as the whole sin-stained world, after the sinners had been drowned, was, through the intervention of washing,30 restored----cleansed----to its former appearance.31 But since you were going to say that (besides 32 the muddy 33 fountains of the heretics) there was another water----that is a lying 34 water in opposition to the |207 true----to what purpose have you thought well to refer to the Flood, which happened but once? But as you will have it so,35 show first two Arks unlike one another, and two dissimilar doves, bearing different branches in their mouth----that is, if you are to prove that there is a true water and another which is false.
That water alone is true which has been sanctified 36 not from any place, nor by any [human] person,37 but by the Trinity. And, as you have said that there is a water which is lying,38 learn where you may find such----with Praxeas, the Patripassian, who totally 39 denies the Son, and maintains that the Father has suffered.
Since the Son of God is Truth----as He Himself bears witness, saying:
'I am the Door, and the Way and the Truth' 40 -----
therefore----if the Son of God is Truth----where He is not, there is a lie. And as the Son is not with the Patripassian, there the Truth is not, and where the Truth is not, there the water is lying. So, though late, cease now to concoct accusations,41 and do not transfer to Catholics that which was said against Patripassians.
It has, then, been clearly demonstrated that what you have said of the Flood and of Circumcision might |208 have been said just as well by us as in support of your side.42
It remains to show that you have praised Baptism in such a way as to bring forward many things which tell both for you and for us, but something that tells against you. Whatever we share with you is in favour of both. For this reason does it favour you, because from us you went out. Thus, for example, you and we have one ecclesiastical discipline,43 we read from the same Scriptures,44 we possess the same Faith, the same Sacraments of Faith, the same Mysteries. With reason, therefore, have you praised Baptism, for who amongst the Faithful is unaware that the one Baptism 45 is life for virtues, death to evil deeds,46 birth to immortality, the attainment of the heavenly kingdom, the harbour of innocence, and (as you too have said) the shipwreck of sins 47? These are the blessings conferred upon every believer, not by the minister of this Sacrament, but by the Faith of him who believes and by the Trinity.
II. That in Baptism the work is done by the Trinity, not by the person of the Minister.
Then you will ask what you have, when praising Baptism, said against yourselves. Listen! But first you must acknowledge something which not one of |209 you will be able to deny.48 You say that the Trinity counts for nothing,49 unless you be present.50
If you think little of us,51 at least reverence the Lord, who is First in the Trinity,52 who with His Son and the Holy Ghost effects and completes all things,53 even when no human person is present.
But, my brother Parmenian, you have said in praise of the water, of which we read in the Book of Genesis, that the waters first gave forth living beings'.54 Could they have given them birth of their own instance 55? Was not the whole Trinity there as well? Surely God the Father was there----He who had deigned to command:
'Let the waters bring forth swimming things, birds and the rest.' 56
But if that which was then done were to be done without any to effect it,57 God would have said:
'O waters, bring forth.' |210
So the Son of God----who effected it 58 ----was there. The Holy Ghost was there, as it has been written:
'And the Spirit of God was borne over the waters.' 59
I see nothing there which is a fourth----nothing less than the Three.60 Yet that which the Trinity effected came to birth, although you were not there. If then it be not allowed to the Trinity to do anything without you, call back the fishes to their first beginning 61; if in your absence the Trinity may not effect anything, drown in the waters the birds as they fly.
III. That Baptism is not to be repeated.
Since then you have said that there was only one Deluge and that Circumcision could not be repeated, whilst we have taught that the heavenly gift is bestowed upon every believer by the Trinity, not by man----why have you thought it right to repeat 62 Baptism not after us, bat after the Trinity?
Concerning this Sacrament, no small contention has been engendered, and the question is discussed 63 whether it be lawful to do this a second time after the Trinity, in the Name of the same Trinity. You say:
'It is lawful,'
whilst we say:
'It is not lawful.'
Between your
'It is lawful,' |211
and our
'It is not lawful,'
the souls of the multitude hesitate and sway backwards and forwards.64 Let no one believe either you or us. We are all like litigants in a suit.65 Judges must be sought for. If they are to be Christians, they cannot be provided by either side, because truth is impeded by party spirit.66 A judge must be sought for from outside. If he is to be a Pagan, he cannot know the Christian secrets.67 If he is to be a Jew, he is an enemy of Christian Baptism. Therefore, concerning this matter no judgement can be found on earth; we have to seek a Judge from heaven. But why need we knock at heaven's gate, when we have at hand in the Gospel a testament?
Here earthly things may with reason be compared with heavenly.68 For example, in the case of any man who has many 69 sons, so long as the father is present, he himself gives his orders to each, nor is any testament necessary. Thus Christ, so long as He was present |212 on earth (although even now He is not absent), gave His orders to the Apostles with regard to whatever was necessary for the time. But just as an earthly father, who feels himself to be on the borderland of death, and fears lest his sons may break peace after his death, and go to law, calls in witnesses and transfers his will from his breast, so soon to pass away, to a record which will last for a long time 70 ----and should any dispute arise amongst the brothers, they do not go to the grave, but the testament is looked for, and he who rests in the grave silently speaks from the record; in the same manner He, to whom the testament belongs, is in heaven----therefore let His Will be sought in the Gospel as in His testament. 71
For through His foreknowledge Christ had foreseen the things which you do now, but which were |213 then yet to come. Accordingly, when the Son of God washed the feet of His disciples, He spoke thus to Peter:
'That which I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know afterwards.' 72
By saying 'thou shalt know afterwards' He pointed out these present times. In this way amongst other prescriptions of His testament, 73 He gave this prescription 74 concerning the Water. If, when He washed the feet of His disciples, and the others were silent, Peter had also been silent, He would have set the example of humility only,75 and would have made no declaration respecting the Sacrament of Baptism. But when Peter refuses, and does not allow his feet to be washed, Christ refuses him the Kingdom, unless he should accept this service.76 But so soon as there is mention of the heavenly Kingdom----whereas part of his body was demanded to have service rendered unto it----he offered his whole body to be cleansed.77
Now come, be present, ye crowds and all Christian peoples,78 and learn what is lawful. When Peter makes his appeal,79 Christ teaches. Let him who doubts learn. For it is the Voice of Christ:
'He, who has once been washed, has no need of being washed again, for he is altogether clean.' 80 |214
And thus did He make His declaration concerning that washing 81 which he had commanded to be done through the Trinity 82----not concerning that of Jews or heretics, who, whilst they wash, defile,83 but concerning the holy water which flows from the fountains of the Three Names.84
For thus the Lord Himself commanded, when He said:
'Go, baptise all nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' 85
This was the washing 86 of which He said:
'He that has been washed once has no need of being washed a second time.'
In saying once He forbade it to be done again, and spoke of the thing, not of the person.87 For if there had been a difference 88 [to be considered between persons], He would have said:
'He that has been rightly 89 washed once,'
but by not adding the word rightly, He points out that whatever has been done in the [Name of the] Trinity is done rightly. This is the reason why we receive without rebaptising 90 those who come [to us] from you. When Christ says: |215
'He has no need of being washed a second time,'
this is a general, not a particular declaration,91 for if these things had been said to Peter [only], Christ would have said:
'Because thou hast been once washed, thou hast no need of being washed a second time.'
Wherefore, whenever anyone who has been baptised by you wishes to pass over to us, we, taught by this command and example, receive him with all simplicity.92 For far be it from us 93 ever to exorcise one of the Faithful who has been made whole 94; far be it from us to bring back to the font one who has been already washed,95 far from us to sin against the Holy Ghost----an offence for which forgiveness is denied in this world and in the world to come 96; far from us to repeat 97 that which is [to be done] only once,98 or to make twofold 99 that which is one. For thus has it been written by the Apostle:
'One God, one Christ, one Faith, one Baptism.100'
Do you then, who seem to take delight101 in striving |216 to make Baptism twofold, if you give a second Baptism, give a second Faith; if you give a second Faith, give also a second Christ; if you give a second Christ, give a second God?
You cannot deny that God is one----unless indeed you would fall into the traps of Marcion.102 God then is one. Of one God there is one Christ.103 He who is rebaptised had before been made a Christian. How can he be said to become a Christian a second time? 104
The one Faith is thus separated from the errors of the heretics, and the one only Faith from their varying faith.105 It has also a prescriptive right over against you,106 who reject that which is for once only, attributing everything to the [external] Endowments, nothing to the [hidden] Sacraments 107; though this quality of Faith 108 belongs to the. believer, not to the 'Minister.' 109 For he who has believed in God at the interrogation |217 of any person whomsoever,110 has believed. Yet after his one Credo thou dost exact a second Credo.111
It follows then that Baptism is one, and, as, through the very fact that it is one, it is holy, so also, through the very fact that it is one, not only that it should be separated from the profane and sacrilegious baptisms of heretics, but also that what is one should not be made twofold, and that what is for once only should not be repeated.
IV. That it is God, not the Minister, who cleanses in the Sacrament of Baptism.
It is clear that in the celebration of this Sacrament of Baptism there are three elements,112 which you will not be able either to decrease or diminish, or put on one side. The first is in the Trinity, the second in the believer,113 the third in him who operates.114 But they must not all be weighed by the same measure.115 For I perceive that two are necessary, and that one is quasi-necessary.116 The Trinity holds the chief place, without whom the work itself cannot be done. The faith of the believer follows next. Then comes the office of the 'Minister,' 117 which cannot be of equal |218 authority. The first two remain always unchangeable and unmoved. For the Trinity is always Itself; and the Faith is the same in everyone.118 Both [the Trinity and Faith] always preserve their own efficacy. It will be seen, therefore, that the office of the minister 119 cannot be equal to the other two elements 120 [in the Sacrament of Baptism], because it alone is liable to change.
You will have it that between you and us there is a distinction, though the office is the same,121 and, judging yourselves to be more holy than we, you do not hesitate to place your pride higher than the Trinity,122 although the person of the 'Minister' can be changed, but the Trinity cannot be changed. And, whereas it is Baptism which should be longed for by those who receive it, you put yourselves forward as the persons to be eagerly sought after.
Since you are----amongst others----' Ministers' of the Sacrament, show what is the nature of the place that you occupy in this Mystery, and whether you can belong to its 'body'!
The Name of Baptism is but one.123 It possesses |219 its own body 124----a body which has its own well-defined members,125 to which nothing can be added, in which nothing can be taken away. If the 'Minister' who has to be chosen is counted as one of these members,126 then the whole body belongs to the 'Minister.' All these members are both at all times and once for all with this 'body,' and cannot be changed, whereas the 'Ministers' are changed every day, both as to place and time, and in their own persons.127 For it is not one man only, who baptises always or everywhere. This work is now done by different men from those who did it of old. In the time to come it will be done by yet others. The 'Ministers' can be changed; the Sacraments cannot be changed. Since therefore you see that all who baptise are labourers, not lords,128 |220 and that the Sacraments are holy through themselves, not through men,129 why do you claim so much for yourselves? Why is it that you try to shut God out from His own gifts? Allow Him to bestow those things, which are His own. For that gift, which belongs to God, cannot be given by man. If you think otherwise, you are endeavouring to make of no effect the words of the Prophets and the promises of God, by which it is proved that it is God, not man, who cleanses. Here David the Prophet is against you, for he says in the fiftieth Psalm:
'Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be cleansed beyond the snow' 130;
and again in the same Psalm:
'O God, wash me from my wickedness and cleanse me from my sin.' 131 |221
He said: 'Wash me.' He did not say:
'Choose for me one by whom I may be washed.'
And the Prophet Isaiah also has written that
'the Lord shall wash away the defilement of the sons and daughters of Sion.' 132
We have proved in our Third Book that Sion is the Church 133; it follows that God washes the sons and daughters of the Church. He did not say:
'They shall wash who judge themselves to be holy.'
Admit then that the Prophets overcome you, or, with them, recognise that it is not man who washes, but God.
As long as you ask:
'How can he give, who has not anything to give?' 134
understand that it is the Lord who is the giver,135 understand that it is God who cleanses each man, whoever he may be; for no one can wash away the defilement and stains of the mind, but God alone, who is also the Maker of the mind.136 Or, if you think that |222 it is your washing 137 [that cleanses], tell us what is the nature of this mind, 138 which is washed through the body, or what 'form' 139 it has, or in what part of a man it dwells. To know this has not been granted to any. How, then, do you think that it is you who cleanse, when you do not know the nature of that which you cleanse? It belongs not to man, but to God to cleanse, for He has Himself promised that He will cleanse, through the Prophet Isaiah, when He said:
'Even though your sins are like scarlet, I will make you white as snow.' 140
He said:
'I will make you white,'
and not:
'I will cause you to be made white.'
If this has been promised by God, why do you wish to give that which it is not permitted to you either to promise, or to give, or to have? Behold by Isaiah God has promised Himself to wash those stained by sin, not through a man. 141
Go back to the Gospel, and see what Christ has promised for the salvation of the human race. When |223 the Samaritan woman refused water to the Son of God, then He said that which gives His answer to your contentions 142:
'He who shall drink the water which I give shall not thirst for ever.' 143
He said:
'the water which I give.'
He did not say:
'which they shall give, who deem themselves holy,'
as you think yourselves to be; but He did say that He would give. He Himself, therefore, it is who gives, and that which is given is His own. What, therefore, is it which you strive, with absolute unreasonableness,144 to vindicate for yourselves?
V. Why and when the Baptism of Christ was conferred.
To give the final proof concerning this matter, John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Saviour, when he was baptising many to repentance and the remission of their sins,145 declared that the Son of God was about to come. These are his words:
'Behold, He cometh to baptise you.' 146
Yet we do not read that Christ rebaptised anyone after John. With regard, therefore, to these words:
'He cometh to baptise you,'
Christ coming after John baptised no one. This |224 promise was made for our times, that He might give what is given to-day, according to His Word:
'He who shall drink the water which I give shall not thirst for ever.'
And although the disciples of John said to their master:
'Behold He, whom thou hast baptised, baptises.' 147
He baptised indeed, but by the hands of His Apostles, to whom He had given the laws of Baptism. As it has been written in another place:
'For He Himself baptised no one, but His disciples baptised.' 148
In this matter we are all His disciples, so that we should work,149 in order that He may give, who promised that He would give. Still, when John was baptising many 150 thousands of men, even in the presence of Christ, the servant worked, and the Lord did nothing 151 until He gave the Form of Baptism.152 After the lapse of a considerable period,153 thousands of men were washed in repentance and forgiveness of sins. But no one was washed in the Trinity, no one yet knew Christ, no one had heard that there was a Holy Ghost. But when there came the fullness of time, at a fixed moment, the |225 Son of God gave the laws of Baptism. He gave also the way by which we might go to the Kingdom of Heaven, for He then commanded:
'Go ye, teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' 154
From that day what He had commanded had to be done. It was not His will to amend that which had been done before that time, lest He might [seem to] give permission to rebaptise----although the Baptism of John was one thing, and the Baptism of Christ is another. Before His law [was given] He willed the Baptism of John, which was not full, to be held for full. And yet with regard to the thousands of men mentioned above, although they knew not the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, He could not refuse them the Kingdom of Heaven, because they had believed in God. So it is the Voice of the Son of God, who says:
'From the days of John to this day the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and they who do violence bear it away.' 155
For this reason does He say:
'They who do violence,' 156
because John was still baptising. So, because the time before His commandments 157 was different from the time after His commandments, they who have been baptised in the Name of the Saviour after the commandments,158 have entered the Kingdom, through |226 the laws 159 [of Baptism], whilst those who were before the commandments did violence,160 without the law, but were not shut out. Therefore, though before the commandments,161 the Baptism of John was imperfect, it was judged by Him, in whose place no man judges,162 as though it were perfect,163 because a certain line of division 164 was placed between the times that preceded and those that followed His command.165
When the most blessed Paul saw some at Ephesus who had been baptised, after the commandments 166 [of Christ], in the Baptism of John, he asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost.167 They replied that they did not know whether there was a Holy Ghost, and he said to them that, after the Baptism of John, they must receive the Holy Ghost.
They had been baptised, in the same manner 168 as had been the many whom John had baptised. But those who had been baptised before the law,169 belonged to the time of exemption,170 for He had been present who could give exemption. Those who were not bound |227 by the laws 171 were altogether not guilty.172 But those who, as we read, were baptised at Ephesus with the Baptism of John after the law,173 had after the laws 174 erred in the Sacrament,175 because the Baptism of the Lord had now been introduced and the Baptism of the servant had been abrogated.176 And so it is that, after the divine commands,177 men had to go into the Kingdom by laws,178 not by violence.179 For Christ had already fixed the limit of time by saying:
'From the days of John until to-day.' 180
After 'to-day' that which was lawful yesterday was lawful no longer. Wherefore do not deceive yourselves 181 with the saying of the Apostle Paul,182 for he did not ask about the person of the 'Minister,' but about the thing.183 With the fact, not with the person, he was dissatisfied. So he commanded the Baptism of the Saviour, that they who did not know might learn, for this 184 they had not received, but something different. But what do you change? If you have been able to change things,185 you will have |228 done well, provided you have acted according to the Law.186 Paul said:
'In what Baptism have you been baptised?' 187
and they said to him:
'The Baptism of John.'
He persuaded them to receive the Baptism of Christ. You do not say:
'What have you received?
but
'From whom have you received it? '
and you inveigh against the characters of men, and wish to repeat what is for once only. They who had been baptised at Ephesus, had believed in repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Rightly was it said to them, that they should be baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But what is there for you to change in men, who have already made profession 188 that they believe in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost? 189 Whether you ask them this again, or |229 something else, be convinced that you must sin----if you either interrogate concerning that which has not been commanded, or wish to do something which has been done already.
VI. An answer to the argument, that a man cannot give that which he has not.
I return now to that question of yours:
'How is he, who has not anything to give, able to give?'
Whence comes this saying? Where can it be found? It has not been read in a book, but has been brought in from the street.190
'How is he, who has not anything to give, able to give?'
These words have not been written in the Law, for if (as you will have it) it is man who gives, God does nothing----and if God does nothing, and if everything that has to be given is in your hands, then [the baptised] are converted to you. Let those whom you baptise be washed in your name. Blush at the most blessed Paul, who cries out and expresses his thanksgiving:
'Have you been baptised in my name?' 191
He rejoices that he baptised only two persons and one household, but you strive to rebaptise whole peoples, and are contented 192 both to have sinned in the past, and to go on sinning, saying:
'What does he give, who has not anything to give?' |230
He, in whom we believe, is Himself the giver of that in which we believe, not another through whose instrumentality we are brought to believe.193 Besides, under John a vast 194 multitude of men were baptised. Prove (if you can) that John either received, or possessed, anything to give.
He was the 'Minister' 195; the gift was from God, who does not fail in giving. And now whilst we all are Ministers of Baptism, the works are man's, but the gifts are from God.196
VII. That the Grace of Baptism is the gift of God, not of man, who is shown to be only the Minister.
So consider how ridiculous is that saying, which is always heard to come from you, as though for your glorification:
'This gift of Baptism belongs to him who gives, not to him who receives.' 197
And would that you should say this of God, who is the true Giver.198 But----a stupid thing----you say that you are the givers. If this be so, suppose that both you and we are dealing with two Pagans.199 Do you, who say that you are holy, ask the one whom you have in your hands,200 whether he renounces the Devil and believes the Lord, and we will suppose that he says:
'I will not.' 201 |231
On the other hand, let us who, as you will have it, are sinners, ask the other Pagan, whether he renounces the Devil, and believes God and the other questions, and we will suppose that he says:
'I do renounce and I do believe, and the rest' 202 ----
will you tell me when you baptise the one who is unwilling, and we baptise the other who is willing, which of these two can arrive at the grace of God?
Surely, without doubt, it is acquired by the one who believes, not by him, in whose case, as you say, your holiness takes the place of his own will.203 Recognise, though late, that you are only ministers. Or if (you say that) the work is in the workmen, and not in itself, find some who will claim this for themselves in their arts, so that we may, according to your challenge, compare human arts with things that are divine.
When something is dyed with a precious colour, its nature is often changed. A white fleece is dyed, and becomes purple.204 Even as the white wool passes into the royal purple, so the catechumen passes into the Christian.205 Surely, whilst he begins to be that which he was not, he ceases to be that which he was. The wool changes both its colour and its name, and the man changes both his appellation and his |232 disposition.206 We have to think of the results that have been effected, and must consider once more what it is that has effected those results.207 You say that it is your gift that has made that man a Christian.
If this is all your doing, then the workman also who makes the purple, may say that he has the precious colour in his own hands, and has no need to procure from the Ocean precious dyes----unknown to many----that the fleeces may be promoted to a marvellous dignity,208 and is free to assert that he can make the purple, merely by his touch, without admixture from the blood of the fish.
But if on the contrary this workman is unable to give the colour by his touch alone, then neither is the workman in Baptism able to give anything of himself without the Trinity.
Such is this question, about which we have our present contention. For in Whom the nations should be baptised has been ordained by the Saviour. Through whom they should be baptised was appointed without the making of any exception. He did not say to the Apostles:
'Do it you! Let not others do it.'
Whosoever has baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, has discharged the Apostles' work.
And so it has been written in the Gospel.209 When John said: |233
'O Master, we have seen one casting out devils in Thy Name, and we have forbidden him, because he followeth not with us,'
Christ said:
'Forbid him not, for he that is not against you is for you.' 210
For to them the command had been given that their work should be sanctification by the Trinity,211 and that they should not baptise in their own name, but in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it is the Name which sanctifies, not the work.212
Understand, though late in the day, that you are labourers not lords.213 And, if the Church is the Vineyard, and men are the vines, and those who are to attend to the vines have been duly appointed, why do you rush upon that which appertains to the dominion of the Father of the Family? Why do you claim for yourselves what belongs to God? Why do you wish that something of which you cannot have even a part, should be yours altogether? For on account of swelling pride----yours----with which you are swollen against us 214 ----the most blessed Paul chides the |234 Corinthians. In himself and Apollo he gives a picture of that which happens in our time.215
'Let not one,' he said, 'be puffed up against another.' 216
And, that he may show how all this Sacrament of Baptism belongs to God, so that there is nothing here that the 'Minister' may claim for himself, he speaks as follows: 217
'I indeed have planted '----
that is,
'of a pagan I have made a catechumen'----'Apollo has watered'----
that is, he has baptised the catechumen, but God has given that which had been planted, or watered, the power to grow. In like manner anyone to-day, who wishes to dig up and loosen the ground in his vineyard,218 hires a labourer 219 for an agreed sum, to make holes in the ground, in which----with bent back, the sweat running down his sides----he may place the little vines that have been selected,220 and (after he has trodden the ridges under his feet) pour water upon them. He is able to dig at the trenches and plant the vines. He is able to bring them water, but he is not able to command the water to hold them 221; it is in the power of God |235 alone from the pith of vine-branches to bring forth roots which assimilate themselves to the soil, and the budding eyelets, out of which leaves burst forth.222
Even as the blessed Apostle Paul, to tame your presumption and pride, and that the workman 223 may not think either that he has any dominion over Baptism, or claim any share for himself----however small----in so great a gift, writes as follows, showing that all belongs to God:
'Neither he that plants nor he that waters is anything, but God alone, who leads to the attainment of the increase 224.'
You are workmen amongst others. When the sun goes in,225 that is to say, when the world has come to an |236 end----on the Judgement Day 226 ----you may argue with us about reward.227
Do not wish to claim for yourself that which belongs to the supreme authority of God.228 For if this is your due, then the servants who wait at the Lord's table should claim to be thanked by His guests for the courtesies which their Lord has rendered.229 It is the Voice of Christ, who gives the invitation:
'Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' 230
The nations flock to receive His grace. He, who deigned to invite, is the giver thereof. A crowd of His servants exercise their ministry. Thanks must be rendered, not to those who serve, but to Him who provides the repast. Since you are the ministers, it is shameless in you to claim for yourselves the entire ownership of the banquet,231 though the most blessed Paul confesses with humility that he and the others are servants----in order that no one may imagine that he ought to place his hope in Apostles or Bishops alone. On this account says the Apostle:
'For what is Paul, or what Apollo? Surely the ministers of Him, in whom you have believed?' 232
Accordingly, in all those who serve there is not ownership but service.233 Now, therefore, my brother Parmenian, you see that of the three elements [in |237 Baptism] which I have mentioned above,234 the one which is threefold 235 comes first, is immovable, is supreme and unchangeable, but that the person of any individual minister remains only for a time.
VIII. Concerning the faith of him who receives Baptism.
It remains 236 now to say something of the merit of the believer, to whom belongs the faith, which the Son of God placed before both His Sanctity and Majesty. For you cannot be more holy than is Christ. When that woman, whose daughter was dead, came to Him, and besought that she should be restored to life, He promised nothing of His own Power,237 but asked about the faith of another, so that if the woman believed, her daughter should be raised up, in view of her mother's faith 238; but that if she believed not, the Power of the Son of God would be idle, with nothing to do.239 The woman is questioned. She replies that she believed that what she had asked for could be accomplished. She is ordered to depart. She returns to her house, and finds the daughter alive whom she had left dead. She does not rush to kisses, she does not hasten to embraces, but returns to render thanks to the Saviour. And the Son of God, that He might show that He had stood by,240 and that her faith alone had worked, said to her:
'O woman, depart in peace. Thy faith hath made thee whole.' 241 |238
What comes of your saying:
'It is of the giver, not of the receiver' 242?
And what think you of the centurion's faith? He besought the Saviour to ward off death from his son, when he was ill. Christ then went to the dying boy. In such estimation did the centurion hold Him, that he acknowledged the unworthiness of his house, and begged that the Son of God would not enter it in person,243 but that He should send His Power, by which death might be put to flight, and the lad be restored to life. It was not the valour of the centurion, nor his wisdom that was praised, but his faith:
'And his son was cured at that hour.' 244
Of a truth it is 'of the giver,' not of him that receives! 245 There are many things of this kind in the Gospel about perfect faith, but we must finish the story of at least three witnesses to Faith.246 |239
What think you of that woman, who, after she had been ill for twelve years of a hidden malady, belonging to women, and had spent all her substance upon doctors,247 on beholding so many wonderful works 248 performed by the Son of God, went into the crowd, saw the physician, saw also the people? Her pain 249 urged her on to ask for medicine, shame hindered her from disclosing, in the presence of men, the cause of her complaint. Her silent faith told her what to do.250
'I will send forth my hand,' [she said] 'and I will touch the hem of His garment and I shall be healed.'
When no one observed her, in the midst of the crowd she put forth her hand. She touched and was healed. But she did not venture to tell aloud that for which she had not ventured to ask. However, that the fruit of her faith might not be hidden from those who were unaware of it, the Saviour asked:
'Who has touched Me?'
His disciples marvelled and said:
'The crowds press on Thee, yet Thou dost ask, "Who has touched Me?"'
and Christ asked:
'Who, I say, has touched Me? I have felt that virtue has gone forth from Me.'
So the woman acknowledged that she it was who had touched Him and been healed. In the other cases the mother had asked for her daughter, the centurion |240 had asked for his son. Here neither did the woman ask, nor did Christ promise, but faith obtained all that it anticipated.251 Without doubt 'it is of him that gives, not of him that receives.' 252
IX. That the example of Naaman the Syrian was brought by Parmenian without relevance.
In order to add to the bulk of your treatise, you have thought well, my brother Parmenian, to describe Naaman the Syrian at length as some kind of unripe mass of hardest wounds just coming to their birth.253 What has this to do with our present business? You might bring it forward relevantly, and might well have employed a long discourse about it, had you |241 come across some catechumen of rudest morals 254 and hardest heart, who should refuse to receive the most gentle grace of the saving Water.255 With relevance in that case would your words have shown how man may be renewed 256; with relevance might you then have pointed out that an inveterate 257 hardness of nature may be changed and softened into the flesh of an infant. But, with regard to this business, which we are at present discussing together, to what purpose have you recalled such a history as this 258? For we do hot read here 259 that anyone had washed that leprous Syrian before the word or at the command 260 of Elisha, in such a way that he might be duly washed again to his greater advantage.261 But even if it were so, still, it would not serve your purpose,262 as something which you might lawfully imitate. For we do not read that he had first washed in the waters of Syria, or that he had been washed by anyone, without gaining thereby any advantage. But if it had been so, this would not appertain to the praise of Elisha (who did not wash him, but gave him advice); rather would it redound to the glory of the Jordan that the first 263 grace came to the Syrian 264 ----in that river wherein afterwards, in the time of John, |242 through confession unto repentance, the sins of a multitude 265 were to die.
X. The Parable of the Marriage Feast was wrongly brought forward by Parmenian.
Lastly what is to be said with regard to that part of your treatise concerning the heavenly nuptials, in which----taking away hope of future things----you have applied it all to the present time, saying that he, who escaped your doorkeepers and ministers,266 has been cut off from your fellowship, in such a way as to be cast outside,267 with contumely, far from the communion of the Faithful? If the parable mean this,268 nothing is left for faith to hope, nothing for the resurrection to restore,269 nothing further in heaven to be awaited, nothing 270 for God, the King 271 and Father of the Family, to recognise at His own Banquet, when He shall rejoice over the presence of many and grieve over the absence of some,272 and shall say that many have been called, but few chosen.273 |243 In that case there will be no occasion for Him to be wrath with the man who is without the Wedding Garment.
For the Son of God, Christ Himself, is the Bridegroom; He is also the Garment and the Tunic, that floats in the water, to clothe many,274 yet awaits others innumerable 275 and is never used up.276
And before anyone say that I have been rash in calling the Son of God the Garment, let him read the words of the Apostle who says:
'As many of you as have been baptised in the Name of Christ, have put on Christ.' 277
O tunic ever one and unchangeable, which fitly 278 clothes all ages and forms, which is not too loose 279 in infants, nor stretched in youth, nor changed in women!
Assuredly the day will come, when the heavenly nuptials begin to be celebrated. There without anxiety shall they sit down, who have preserved |244 the one Baptism.280 For with regard to any who has allowed himself to be rebaptised by you----resurrection is not denied him, for he has believed in the resurrection of the Flesh.281 He shall rise indeed, but naked. But because he has allowed you to spoil him of his wedding garment, he shall hear the Father of the Family speak thus:
'My friend,' that is to say----'I recognise thee----once thou didst renounce the devil, and wert converted to Me, and I gave thee a wedding garment. Why hast thou come thus, without that which I gave thee?'----that is to say, 'why hast thou not what I gave thee?'
For no one can be angry with one who has not something, which has not been given him.
'Thou didst receive a wedding garment, together with these others, and thou alone art without one. Why hast thou come naked and doleful 282? Who has torn his spoils from thee? What thieves' doors hast thou entered 283? What murderous robbers 284 hast thou met on the way?'
However many they are who come thus, they shall have no place at that banquet.285 |245
XI. As the Donatists could not rebaptise children who were dead, why should they rebaptise the living?
And to make an end, however late,286 I think that even this is enough. Still, although we may be making a mistake in bringing forward so many proofs, let me give this one more. Let us suppose that, in your absence, a thousand have been baptised. Of these say that a hundred have chanced to die. For a little while keep your hands off this wickedness.287 Let your 'holiness' (as you call it) first raise again those who have been buried, let it cleanse the dead if it can, and let them be brought back to the living.288 If you are not able to raise the dead, to what purpose do you endeavour to lay hands upon the living, excepting to fulfil that which God spoke of you through the Prophet Ezekiel,289 saying:
'that they might kill souls, which ought not to die'?
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 Legis, id est, of the Holy Scriptures.
2. 2 docuimus.
3. 3 vos esse divino indicio.
4. 4 peccatores----i.e. in the matter of the schism (cf. iv, 3 etc.).
5. 5 It will be noticed that in this summary of the preceding Books, there is no express reference to the Fourth. For this reason Casaubon thinks that the two lines which are now printed at the end of the Fourth ought to be placed at the beginning of this Fifth Book; Probatum est ergo te non contra nos, sed contra vos dixisse, quod a te dictum est de oleo et sacrificio peccatoris.
6. 1 quod Baptisma vestra violavit audacia.
7. 2 multa contra vos pro nobis, quae sunt nostra, dixisti (cf. i, 5).
8. 3 dictionis tuae. (Dictio is a formal piece of rhetoric.)
9. 4 in processu tractatus tui. Tractatus is usually a sermon (cf. p. 176, note 2).
10. 5 de aqua vera et falsa.
11. 6 infirmando confirmas.
12. 7 That administered by Catholics.
13. 8 alterum te inanire professus es, ut alterum replere videreris. Videor is again used pleonastically.
14. 1 extra haereticorum Baptisma. By heretics St. Optatus here understands heretics such as Marcion, Praxeas and Valentinus (cf. iv, 5), who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. As they did not baptise in the Name of the Trinity, baptism administered by them was certainly invalid (cf. notes i,p. 17; 2, p. 22). Of such varia et falsa baptismata (i, 12) there was to be no question in this Book. They lay outside its scope.
15. 2 Baptisma alterum et alterum.
16. 3 diversa, in the same way that Catholic Baptism differs from any baptism not administered in the Name of the Trinity.
17. 4 auferre alterum, id est, to deny the validity of Baptism by Catholics.
18. 5 id est, rebaptism by Donatists.
19. 6 laborasti ut de secundo quasi primum facere videreris. We have here once more a pleonastic use of videor.
20. 7 prosapia.
21. 8 eius imago.
22. 9 rem singularem post esse debere.
23. 1 peritomen semel ablatum.
24. 2 Trinitate confectum.
25. 3 quid tibi igitur placuit, frater Parmeniane?
26. 4 rem singularem.
27. 5 contra hanc.
28. 6 mendacem.
29. 7 Cataclysmi.
30. 8 lavacro interveniente.
31. 9 in faciem pristinam mundaretur.
32. 10 extra.
33. 11 morbidos.
34. 12 mendacem. The epithet applied by Donatists to Catholic Baptism.
35. 1 si ita est.
36. 2 condita est.
37. 3 non de persona, that is not (as the Donatists maintained) from the sanctity of the baptiser.
38. 4 mendacem.
39. 5 ex toto.
40. 6 John xiv, 6.
41. 7 configere crimina.
42. 1 a nobis et pro vobis. G reads pro nobis. No doubt an emendation, to make the text less difficult.
43. 2 conversatio = manner of life.
44. 3 communes lectiones (St. Optatus, however, seems to contradict this in vi, 3, where he accuses the Donatists of having 'furtivas et alienas lectiones ').
45. 4 singulare baptisma.
46. 5 criminum mortem.
47. 6 peccatorum naufragium.
48. 1 quod omnes negare minime poteritis.
49. 2 In Baptism.
50. 3 The Donatists held that the Invocation of the Trinity effected nothing in Baptism unless the Minister of the Sacrament was pure (mundus). But, as they taught that all the Catholics were impure (inmundi), it followed that they held practically that the Trinity could do nothing in Baptism unless they were present.
51. 4 si nobis derogatis.
52. 5 qui in Trinitate prior est. The reference is to Psalm cix, 1: 'Dixit Dominus Domino meo.'
53. 6 omnia operatur et complet.
54. 7 aquas primum vivas animas edidisse. Parmenian no doubt had before his mind the following words of Tertullian (De Baptismo): 'Primus liquor quod viveret edidit; nec mirum sit in Baptismo, si aquae animare noverunt.'
55. 8 numquid sua sponte.
56. 9 Gen. i, 20.
57. 10 sine operante.
58. 1 qui operabatur (cf. John i, 3).
59. 2 Gen. i, 2.
60. 3 nihil minus a Tribus.
61. 4 revocate pisces in originem.
62. 5 geminare (cf. vi. 2: inmane facinus a vobis geminatum est; vi. 8: geminata fraude; vii. 6: salutatione geminata).
63. 6 non leve certamen innatum est et dubitatur, an...
64. 1 nutant et remigant animae populorum.
65. 2 omnes contentiosi homines sumus.
66. 3 studiis veritas impeditur. Cf. i, 26: 'de studio partium strepitus cotidiani sunt habiti.'
67. 4 non potest Christiana nosse secreta.
68. 5 Obviously this comparison cannot be unduly pressed. The Gospels cannot strictly be called Christ's Will, since not one word of them had been written at the time of His Death. St. Optatus, and St. Augustine after him (see note 2, p. 212), took advantage, for the purpose of their argument, of the word Testamentum (διαθήκη), which was already in use, though in a quite different sense, for the Sacred Books of the New Covenant. Dean Swift in his Tale of a Tub (Section II) is thought by some to have had this passage in his mind.
69. 6 numerosos.
70. 1 de pectore morituro transfert in tabulas diu duraturas.
71. 2 Catholics have always appealed in domestic dissensions amongst themselves on theological questions, concerning which the Church has not spoken authoritatively, to the testimony of (1) Holy Scripture, (2) Apostolic Tradition. In dissensions with heretics they have appealed to the testimony of Scripture, which heretics profess at least to accept. So St. Augustine in controversy with the Donatists makes the same appeal, and indeed uses the same words as St. Optatus: 'Fratres sumus; quare litigamus? Non intestatus mortuus est Pater; fecit testamentumet sic mortuus est... Sedet Christus in caelo, et contradicitur Eius testamento' (in Ps. xxi). But St. Augustine makes this appeal with greater caution than did St. Optatus. St. Optatus in the text appeals to John xiii, 7, in order to prove that Baptism may not be repeated; whereas St. Augustine, who no doubt felt that this was a forced application (cf. con. Petil. ii, 22) of the text, prefers to press the appeal to Scripture in order to prove thereby that the Catholic Church is the one Church of Christ. This he does without ceasing, urging the authority of the Catholic Church as decisive. When the discussion concerns any particular question (e.g. the repetition of Baptism) St. Augustine prefers to appeal to Apostolic Tradition rather than to Holy Scripture (cf. De Unit. xix; De Bapt. ii, 7, iv, 6, v, 23).
72. 1 John xiii, 8.
73. 2 inter ceteros Testamenti titulos.
74. 3 hunc titulum.
75. 4 solam formam humilitatis.
76. 6 obsequium.
77. 6 quo pars corporis petebatur ad obsequium, totum corpus obtulit ad lavacrum.
78. 7 nunc adestote, omnes turbae et singuli Christiani populi.
79. 8 dum provocat Petrus.
80. 9 mundus totus, John xiii, 10.
81. 1 de eo lavacro.
82. 2 de Trinitate.
83. 3 qui dum lavant, sordidant.
84. 4 quo de Trium Nominum fontibus inundat. Cf. note 3, p. 88,
85. 5 Matt. xxviii, 19.
86. 6 de hoc lavacro dixit
87. 7 de re locutus est non de persona (sc. the Minister of the Sacrament).
88. 8 distantia. (Cf. v, 4 infra: 'vos vultis eiusdem personae esse distantiam.')
89. 9 bene.
90. 10 simpliciter.
91. 1 haec sententia generalis est non specialis.
92. 2 venientem hoc magisterio et exemplo tota simplicitate suscipimus.
93. 3 absit.
94. 4 sanum fidelem.
95. 5 ut iam lotum revocemus ad fontem. It may be noted that in the Catholic Church to-day, whenever a convert has to be conditionally baptised, in consequence of some doubt as to the 'Matter' and 'Form' of his Ba.ptism outside the Church (e.g. as to whether it was in Trinitate), this ceremony does not take place at the font, but elsewhere in privacy.
96. 6 Cf. Matt. xii, 31-32; Mark iii, 28-29; Luke xii, 10.
97. 7 iteremus.
98. 8 quod semel est.
99. 9 duplicemus.
100. 10 una tinctio (cf. Eph. iv, 5).
101. 11 quasi libenter duplicare contenditis.
102. 1 in Marcionis foveas (cf. iv, 5; i, 9).
103. 2 De uno Deo unus est Christus.
104. 3 A man who has been born once, either in the natural or supernatural order, cannot be born again in the same order of things.
105. 4 una fides ab haereticorum erroribus, et ab eorum varia fide fides unica separatur.
106. 5 etiam vobis praescribitur, i.e. the first Baptism is 'in possession.' Cf. infra: quod praescribat praesumptionibus vestris.
107. 6 totum ponendo in dotibus, nihil in Sacramentis (cf. ii, 10, where the thought is more fully developed: 'Cur de solis ecclesiae dotibus loqui voluisti et iam illud respondeas et de sanctis eius membris ac visceribus tacuisti, quae sunt procul dubio in Sacramentis et in Nominibus Trinitatis?').
108. 7 hoc nomen fidei. St. Optatus writes of Nomen Christianum (iii, 8); Catholicum (iii, 1); Ecclesiae (i, 21; iii, 5); Baptismatis (v, 4); Traditorum (i, 28); Legis (vii, 1); fraternitatis (i, 3); pietatis (iii, 10); communionis (vii, 6).
109. 8 pertineat ad credentem, non ad operantem (i.e. minister of the Sacrament).
110. 1 quocumque enim interrogante, qui credidit Deo, credidit.
111. 2 post illius unum 'Credo,' tu exigis alterum 'Credo.' The reference is to the baptismal interrogatories.
112. 3 species. Literally aspects, points of view.
113. 4 in credente (the subject of the Sacrament).
114. 5 in operante (the minister of the Sacrament).
115. 6 non pari libramine ponderandae sunt singulae.
116. 7 quasi necessaria. Cf. 'quasi ecclesia '(iii, 10). 'Contingently necessary' is Mr. Sparrow Simpson's translation (op. cit. p. 47). It conveys the idea that the appointment of a Minister in Baptism is not absolutely necessary in itself, but contingent on the Will of God. I doubt, however, whether this thought was before the mind of Optatus. His argument proceeds, as we shall see immediately, on somewhat different lines.
117. 8 persona operantis. Persona from the part played by an actor = here the duty which the 'minister' has to perform----the official work assigned to him.
118. 1 fides in singulis una est.
119. 2 persona operantis.
120. 3 duabus prioribus speciebus par esse non posse.
121. 4 eiusdem personae esse distantiam. Persona, sc. operantis (v. supra). In the administration of Baptism, whether Peter baptises or Judas, there can be no real distantia. For distantia, as used by Optatus, cf. v, 3: Nam si esset distantia (i.e. personae, as here); i, 10 (inter schismaticos et haereticos); i, 21 (delictorum, i.e. inter delicta).
122. 5 For they attributed the efficacy of Baptism, not to the work of the Trinity, but to their own sanctity.
123. 6 Baptismatis unicum nomen est. There is only one Baptism. (Cf. Singulare Baptisma, passim.)
124. 1 cui subest proprium corpus.
125. 2 cui corpori certa sunt membra. That which we now call the Matter and Form of the Sacrament.
126. 3 i.e. of the 'body' of Baptism. The 'Minister' has to be chosen, and consequently is external to the 'body' of Baptism. This reminds us of the converse argument that Umbilicus cannot be reckoned as one of the Endowments, because it is not external to the Body of the Church, but is a member (membrum) of that Body (ii, 8). Evidently St. Optatus looked on the Minister in Baptism as a sort of 'Dos Baptismatis.'
127. 4 The water, the invocation of the Trinity, the Trinity Itself, the Faith never change. They are always one everywhere and are always necessary---- from the first Christian Baptism to the last that shall be administered before the coming of our Lord. Everything else admits of change----the place, the time, the person of the 'Minister.'
128. 5 operarios esse non dominos. The reference clearly is to Luke x, 2: 'Rogate Dominum messis ut mittat operarios in messem suam,' where Challoner's N.T. and both the A.V. and R.V. translate operarios 'labourers' (the old Rheims has workmen). Consequently I think it better to employ the word labourers here in order to recall the gospel text, though elsewhere, for the sake of lucidity, I translate operarius with reference to Baptism by the theological word Minister.
129. 1 Sacramenta per se esse sancta, non per homines. Harnack writes of these words (History of Dogma, v, p. 42): 'This is the famous principle of the objectivity of the Sacraments, which became so fundamental for the development of the dogmatics of the Western Church, although it could not be carried out in all its purity in the Roman Church, because in that case it would have destroyed the prerogatives of the clergy.' It is difficult to see what Harnack had in his mind when he wrote this last qualifying sentence. Nothing can be more certain than that the Roman Church has always taught, without any limitation or qualification whatsoever, that the efficacy of the Sacraments is always and everywhere independent of the virtues or vices of those who administer them. Harnack in this passage probably used the words Roman Church as synonymous with Western Church (although this would not appear to be the case at first reading), since he would not wish to suggest that there is any difference in doctrine or practice between any Catholic Church in the West and the Church in Rome. But whilst recognising this, we are none the nearer to a comprehension of his real meaning.
130. 2 Ps. 1, 9.
131. 3 Ps. 1, 4.
132. 1 Is. iv, 4.
133. 2 iii, 2.
134. 3 'qui non habet quod det, quomodo dat?' This was the great argument of St. Cyprian and his school against the validity of Baptism outside the Church. 'How,' they asked, 'can a man give the Faith which he has not got? No one can give what he has not.' In like manner the Donatists went on to argue that Baptism by a sinner was invalid, for----so they urged----by true Baptism grace is given; but the sinner without grace, cannot give what he has not. To this St. Optatus answers that it is God, not man, who bestows gifts in Baptism.
135. 4 videte Dominum esse datorem. These words are omitted by RBv.
136. 5 qui eiusdem fabricator est mentis.
137. 1 lavacrum vestrum.
138. 2 qualis est ipsa mens.
139. 3 quam habet formam.
140. 4 Is. i, 18.
141. 5 As St. Optatus has said already, man is by God's appointment the necessary (or rather the quasi-necessary) minister of the Sacrament. But God gives His Grace in Baptism directly to the baptised. He does not give it through a man----that is to say, He does not give it first to the 'Minister,' making him holy, so that this 'Minister,' by his own holiness, gives grace----though this would follow logically from Donatist principles.
142. 1 quod praescribat praesumptionibus vestris.
143. 2 John iv, 13.
144. 3 tota inportunitate. For inportunitas see ii, 18.
145. 4 in poenitentia et remissa peccatorum (cf. i, 9: in remissam peccatorum).
146. 5 John i, 33.
147. 1 Cf. John iii, 26.
148. 2 John iv, 2.
149. 3 ut nos operemur.
150. 4 infinita millia (cf. iii, 6: sub Iohanne infmita multitudo hominum baptizata est).
151. 5 operabatur servus et vacabat Dominus. There is a specific distinction between the Baptism of John and the Baptism of Christ. (Cf. v. 5: alterum fuerit baptisma Iohannis et alterum sit Christi.)
152. 6 antequam baptizandi daret formam.
153. 7 peractum est non modicum tempus Gb, per acceptum non modicum tempus RBv. Ziwsa has suggested per actum non modicum tempus.
154. 1 Matt. xxviii, 19.
155. 2 Matt. xi, 12.
156. 3 qui vim faciunt.
157. 4 ante praecepta, sc. de Baptismate.
158. 5 post praecepta.
159. 1 in Regnum legibus intraverunt.
160. 2 vim fecerunt.
161. 3 ante praecepta.
162. 4 cui nemo iudicat.
163. 5 pro perfecto iudicatum est.
164. 6 quasi quidam limes. Ziwsa says that limes = terminus.
165. 7 iussionis inter tempora antecedentia et sequentia. St. Optatus held that the Baptism of John conferred grace before the institution of Christian Baptism, but not afterwards. From this it follows that anyone who had received the Baptism of John after the institution of Christian Baptism had to receive the Baptism of Christ. This he proceeds to deduce from Acts xix, 1 seq.
166. 8 post praecepta.
167. 9 an accepissent Spiritum Sanctum.
168. 10 sic... quemadmodum, i.e. even without any knowledge of the Mystery of the Trinity.
169. 11 ante legem, sc. Baptismatis.
170. 12 ad indulgentiam pertinuerunt.
171. 1 legibus (sc. Baptismatis) non occupati.
172. 2 non erant ex ioto rei.
173. 3 post legem, sc. Baptismatis.
174. 4 post leges, sc. Baptismatis.
175. 5 in Sacramento erraverant.
176. 6 exclusum fuerat.
177. 7 post mandata divina, sc. de Baptismate.
178. 8 legibus (sc. Baptismatis) debuerant ire in regnum.
179. 9 non per violentiam.
180. 10 Matt. xi, 12.
181. 11 nolite vobis blandiri.
182. 12 At Ephesus.
183. 13 non post personam operarii interrogavit, sed post rem (cf. v, 3). St. Paul did not enquire as to the character of him who had administered the Sacrament, but as to the fact whether its recipients had received the Holy Ghost.
184. 14 non ipsum, sc. Baptisma Salvatoris.
185. 15 res. With a reference to that which he has just written of St. Paul enquiring not about the persona, but about the res.
186. 1 si tamen de lege aliquid feceritis. By the law is here still meant Christ's Law concerning Baptism. If the Donatists had put right any baptisms, which had not been validly administered, they had done well; e.g. if they had baptised any persons who had received a baptism, but not in the Name of the Trinity. Such, however, was not the case.
187. 2 Acts xix, 3.
188. 3 In their Baptism.
189. 4 Parmenian had urged that Baptism given outside the Church was null and must be repeated, because those baptised by the Baptist were baptised anew by the Apostles. Optatus answers that the cases are not parallel. The same reply is given by Augustine, con. Petil. ii, 37, iii, 56; De Bapt. v, 9, 10 etc.
190. 1 vox est de vico conlecta, non de libro lecta. A mere catchword without any real authority. It is impossible to express in English the verbal antithesis between conlecta and lecta.
191. 2 1 Cor. i, 13.
192. 3 gaudetis.
193. 1 cui creditur ipse dat, quod creditur, non per quem creditur.
194. 2 infinita.
195. 3 illo operante.
196. 4 humana sunt opera, sed Dei sunt munera.
197. 5 hoc munus baptismatis esse dantis, non accipientis.
198. 6 qui huius rei dator est.
199. 7 et nos et vos teneamus singulos gentiles. Cf. i, 8: nihil interesset inter fideles et unumquemque gentilem.
200. 8 quem tenetis.
201. 9 'nolo.'
202. 1 'renuntio et credo' et cetera.
203. 2 non ille, pro cuius voluntate, ut dicitis, sanctitas vestra succedit. For succedit cf. i, 3: 'Petrus, cui successit Linus,' etc. In pro cuius voluntate we have another curious example of Optatus' use of pronouns. Cf. v, 5: 'Qui non post personam operarii interrogavit.'
204. 3 confectione vellus candidum purpurascit. Cf. Cic. in Acad. ap. Non. 2, 717: 'Nonne unda, cum est pulsa remis, purpurascit? '
205. 4 fidelem.
206. 1 et vocabulum mutat et mentem.
207. 2 consideranda sunt effecta, retractanda sunt efficientia.
208. 3 quibus tincta vellera per colorem promoveantur in admirabilem dignitatem.
209. 4 Luke ix, 49.
210. 1 Luke ix, 49, 50.
211. 2 ut opus esset illorum sanctificatio Trinitatis.
212. 3 ergo Nomen est, quod sanctificat, non opus.
213. 4 operarios esse non dominos. Cf. note 2, p. 22.
214. 5 nam propter tumorem vestrum, quo in nos intumescitis. We may notice the verbal alliteration tumorem... intumescitis. St. Optatus does not, of course, mean to imply that St. Paul any more than Isaiah or Ezekiel had received a supernatural gift of prophecy, whereby Apostle or Prophet could consciously to himself foresee and provide medicine for the troubles brought on by Donatism. But the lessons given for all time by the Sacred Writers seemed to Optatus especially applicable to his own days.
215. 1 in se et Apollo actus nostri temporis conformat.
216. 2 i Cor. iv, 6.
217. 3 i Cor. iii, 6.
218. 4 vineam suam pastinare.
219. 5 operarium.
220. 6 electa plantaria.
221. 7 aquam inducere potest; imperare, ut teneat, non potest. It is very difficult to understand what is meant here by ut teneat. How can water hold the vines? Possibly he may be the subject of teneat: 'He cannot command the vines, so as to keep them there.' If for teneat we read teneant, we might translate in an intransitive sense: 'He cannot order that they hold' = coalescere in terram (infra). But nothing is really satisfactory. Casaubon thinks that the ut teneat is probably a corrupt gloss due to some scribe who could not understand the imperare standing alone. The meaning is clear. It is God alone who can ripen the vine. Casaubon suggests that if St. Optatus wrote anything between imperare and non potest, it was vineae. On the other hand, cf. iv, 9: Lacus detritos, qui non possunt aquam continere. St. Optatus, who often slightly varies his phrases, may have had this phrase unconsciously lingering in his ear.
222. 1 de medullis palmitum producere radices coalescentes in terram et gemmantes oculos, incrementa frondium provocare. Coalescentes: cf. Plin. xiv. 2: 'Ut nisi pinguissimo solo coalescere non possit.' The little feelers or feeling roots must be one with the soil. Gemmantes oculos: cf. Cicero, De oratore, iii. 38: 'gemmare vites, laetas segetes etiam rustici dicunt,' 'Even rustics understood and used such metaphors as these.' Oculos = the knob from which the bud rises; cf. Columel. iv, 29: 'Interest plures oculos, quibus egerminet inesse.'
223. 2 operarius.
224. 3 qui ad incrementa perducit. Cf. 1 Cor. iii, 7.
225. 4 sole intrante. This is a Hebraism. The Jews spoke of the setting sun as entering (into the heavens), and of the rising sun as coming forth (from the East).
226. 1 in die retributionis.
227. 2 nobiscum de mercede contendere.
228. 3 Maiestatis dominium. Cf. iv. 9: 'in Deo perennis Maiestas exundat.'
229. 4 pro humanitate exhibita.
230. 5 Matt. xxv, 34.
231. 6 totum convivii dominium.
232. 7 1 Cor. iii, 4, 5.
233. 8 in universis servientibus non dominium sed ministerium.
234. 1 The reference is to v, 4: 'In hoc Sacramento baptismatis celebrando tres esse species constat.'
235. 2 ex tribus speciebus illam primo tripartitam esse, sc. the Trinity.
236. 3 Having discussed the part played by the Trinity and the minister (operarius) in Baptism, something must be said of the remaining species, the Faith of the adult recipient.
237. 4 de virtute sua.
238. 5 pro matris credulitate.
239. 6 feriata cessaret.
240. 7 se vacasse.
241. 8 Luke viii, 48. St. Optatus was evidently quoting by heart, and in consequence got strangely mixed. It is hardly necessary to point out that no such incident as that here described is to be found in any of the Gospels. Optatus seems to have been confusing his recollections of Luke viii, 42-48 with Matt. viii, 5 and Luke vii, 2 seq.
242. 1 dantis est, non accipientis was, as we have learned already, a saying of the Donatists. By 'the giver' they meant the Minister of the Sacrament, one of themselves, one of the holy. St. Optatus has already shown, in answer to their argument Nemo dat quod non habet, that the real giver is God. He now proves that God does not 'work' (vacat), but is always ready to give, and lets the recipient receive according to his faith. Unless he who is to be baptised possesses faith, God will not give the grace of Baptism, even as our Lord on earth would not work miracles excepting on behalf of those who believed----their faith He put before His own power.
243. 2 totus = corporeally.
244. 3 Matt. viii, 13.
245. 4 This is evidently sarcasm.
246. 5 vel tria complenda sunt fidei testimonia. Optatus often uses vel in the sense of at least.
247. 1 Luke viii, 43-46; Matt. ix, 20-22; Mark v, 25-34.
248. 2 tantas celebrari virtutes (cf. iv, 9).
249. 3 dolor.
250. 4 invenit consilium tacita fides.
251. 1 fides quantum praesumpsit exegit. Quantum, 'so far as,' = 'all that.' Ziwsa, however, thinks that exegit here = impetravit.
252. 2 dantis est, non accipientis. It is clear that Parmenian had given a series of proofs, concluding at the end of each: Dantis est, non accipientis, and Optatus ironically repeats the words. According to the argument of St. Optatus there are three 'species': (α) The Name of the Trinity by which all the grace is given; (β) the minister of the Sacrament, who is only instrumental----a servant; and (γ) the faith of the recipient, which by the ministry of (γ) impetrates the grace from (α). Finally therefore all depends upon (γ). The Trinity is unchangeable, the minister a mere servant, but the disposition of the recipient all-important. If, then, outside the Church the recipient has faith the Baptism will be valid. Of course this implies that although baptism by heretics (if administered in the Name of the Trinity) is valid, the baptism of a heretic is invalid. But we have to bear in mind that St. Optatus assumes (for such had so far for the most part been the experience of the Church) that a heretic does not believe in the Trinity or in the Catholic Doctrine of the Incarnation (cf. note i, p. 17). His argument, so far as it is here stated (apart from any implications), is good, but incomplete. The doctrine of character handed down by the Greek Fathers was unknown to St. Optatus. He had no idea of character being given without grace, nor of reviviscentia on arriving at true and living Faith.
253. 3 quasi immaturam quandam durissimorum nascentium vulnerum massam. [Note to the online text - the last couple of words were obliterated in the printed copy]
254. 1 scabrosissimis moribus.
255. 2 qui lenissimam gratiam aquae salutaris accipere detractaret.
256. 3 hominis innovationem.
257. 4 veternosam. Cf. 'vetus, vietus, veternosus senex': Ter. Eun. iv, 4, 21.
258. 5 talis commemorata est lectio.
259. 6 Cf. 4 Reg. v.
260. 7 iussione. Casaubon reads with G ante... iussionem.
261. 8 ut merito denuo melius lavaretur.
262. 9 nec sic vobis occurreret.
263. 10 primitivum.
264. 11 illi homini.
265. 1 populorum peccata. This use of populi = multitude is not uncommon in Optatus.
266. 2 qui ianitores et ministros fefellerit vestros.
267. 3 foras.
268. 4 si ita est.
269. 5 quod resurrectio repraesentet.
270. 6 sc. the Wedding Garment.
271. 7 Casaubon supplies the word caelestis after Rex, but since the word Deus follows, caelestis (which is not in the MSS.) hardly seems necessary.
272. 8 praesentia multorum gaudeat et de aliquorum absentia contristetur. aliquorum, i.e. the Donatists. Optatus on several occasions already has spoken of God grieving (cf. i, 2 bis; ii, 24; ii, 26; iii, 2 'Deus dolet'). Here he represents Him as grieving over the absence of those first called, and rejoicing over the presence of others from the byways and hedges. St. Optatus evidently leaves the opposition between his praesentia multorum and the pauci electi without noticing it.
273. 9 Cf. Matt, xxii, 14.
274. 1 cum Films Dei Ipse Christus sit Sponsus et vestis et tunica natans in aqua, quae multos vestiat. Casaubon has suggested natos in aqua for natans in aqua. If this suggestion be adopted, we translate 'and the Tunic, wherewith He may clothe many who are born in the water (the baptised).' This, however, has no MS. authority, and is quite unnecessary. The spiritual garment of grace is Christ, whom the baptised 'puts on' (induit), as the water flows over him. But St. Optatus will not identify Christ with the water----so He is the Grace in the water----a spiritual garment invisibly 'floating in the water,' which clothes the baptised, as the water covers him. It is a very beautiful idea. There seems to be no reference here to the i0xqu&j. (Still cf. iii, 2: 'Hic est piscis, qui in baptismate per invocationem fontalibus undis inseritur.')
275. 2 infinitos.
276. 3 nec vestiendo deficiat.
277. 4 Gal. iii, 27.
278. 5 decenter.
279. 6 nec rugatur. Literally 'is not wrinkled.'
280. 1 qui baptisma singulare servaverint.
281. 2 Is it the case that this strange sentence shows that St. Optatus was a Chiliast? It is quite possible that the text as we have it is corrupt; however, the view that St. Optatus held Millennarian tenets in some form or other is at least plausible. We know that, though St. Augustine abandoned Chiliasm, he would by no means have held that its repudiation, even in his time, was a matter of obligation.
282. 3 nudus et lugubris.
283. 4 quas fraudulentas adisti fauces?
284. 5 quos latrones? (cf. i, 19).
285. 6 All the MSS. finish this Book at this point.
286. 1 This chapter is to be found in G at the end of Chapter viii. Though not to be found in RBv, Du Pin thinks on intrinsic grounds that it was written by Optatus, but that it has been dislocated in position. He placed it (and in this Ziwsa follows him) here, at the end of the Book. The words with which the passage begins (Et ut vel sero compendium faciam, credo etiam hoc sufficere etc.) undoubtedly seem to point to this transposition. It is possible that St. Optatus placed it in his first edition and deliberately omitted it in his second. It is certainly very poor and not worthy of the book or of its argument.
287. 2 sc. of rebaptising.
288. 3 If the holiness of the Donatists was great enough, as they claimed, to give the grace of Baptism----the life of the soul, it ought to suffice to restore the life of the body. According to Catholic doctrine God gives the life of the soul in Baptism, but God can also, if it so please Him, raise the dead to renewed earthly life.
289. 4 Ez. xiii, 19.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_06_book .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 6. pp.246-268.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 6. pp.246-268.
I. The wickedness of the Donatists in breaking or scraping the altars.
II. That the Donatists sacrilegiously broke and sold the chalices.
III. Refutation of the Donatist pretext that the altars and sacred vessels had been contaminated through being used by Catholics.
IV. That virgins consecrated to God were wrongfully stripped by the Donatists of the ornaments proper to their state.
V. That the sacred books and vessels were taken away forcibly from the Catholics by the Donatists.
VI. The folly of the Donatists in washing the walls.
VII. That the Donatists raged even against the dead.
VIII. The Donatists compared to bird-catchers.
BOOK THE SIXTH
In this Book it is shown that the Donatist Bishops wickedly destroyed altars, that they sold the Holy Vessels, and without Warrant stripped Nuns of their Veils.
I. The wickedness of the Donatists in breaking or scraping the altars.
Your wicked actions with regard to the Divine Sacraments 1 have----so it seems to me----been clearly shown up. I now have to describe things done by you, as you yourselves will not be able to deny, with cruelty and folly. For what so sacrilegious as to break, to scrape, to take away altars of God, upon which you too once offered sacrifice,2 upon which were laid both the prayers of the people, and the Members of Christ,3 where Almighty God was called upon, where the Holy Spirit descended in answer to prayer, from which many have received the pledge of everlasting salvation, and the safeguard of faith, and the hope of resurrection? Altars, I say, upon which the Saviour forbade the gifts of the brotherhood 4 to be laid, unless they should be seasoned with peace.5 |247
'Lay down,' He said, 'thy gift before the altar,6 and go back, agree with thy brother, that the priest may be able to offer on thy behalf.' 7
For what is an altar excepting the seat of both the Body and the Blood of Christ? 8
All these altars you, in your madness, have either scraped, or broken, or taken away. Whatever reason you may have had prompting you to this wickedness (for which no atonement is possible), it should have been done in the same way [everywhere]. But in one place, the abundance of wood it was (as I think) that led to the altars being broken up, in other places the lack of timber caused them to be scraped, whilst yet again elsewhere it was partly the sense of shame, which induced men to take them away. But in each case a disgraceful wickedness was committed when you laid sacrilegious and impious hands upon so great a Thing.9
Why should I mention the hired mob of abandoned wretches, and the wine that was given as the pay of crime? 10 ----the wine, for which a fire was made out of |248 the broken remnants of the altars, that unclean lips might drink it [hot] with sacrilegious draughts? 11 If in your jaundiced judgement we seemed to you to be corrupt,12 what harm had God done you, God, who at those altars 13 was once habitually invoked? In what way had Christ offended you, whose Body and Blood were wont during determinate times there to dwell 14? In what way had you yourselves even offended yourselves, that you should break down those altars, upon which before us you had (as you think, with sanctity) offered sacrifice for long periods of time? In impiously attacking our hands there, where the Body of Christ used to dwell,15 you have also smitten your own.16
By thus acting you have imitated the Jews. They laid hands upon Christ on the cross; you have struck Him upon the altar.17 If you wished to attack Catholics at these altars, there 18 you might have spared at least your own former sacrifices.19
Thy 20 pride has now been manifested in that place |249 where formerly thou didst offer sacrifice with humility, there thou dost freely sin, where once thou wert accustomed to pray on behalf of the sins of many. After this fashion you 21 have, of your own accord, entered into the company of sacrilegious priests, and are associated with the crimes of wicked men, concerning whom Elijah the prophet makes his plaint before the Lord. For he has used these words (with which you too, amongst others, have deserved to be accused by him):
'O Lord,' he says, 'they have broken down Thine altars.' 22
When he says 'Thine,' he shows that the [altar] where any offering has been made to God by anyone whomsoever, belongs to God.23
It might have satisfied your madness, to have wounded the members of the Church, and to have divided by your beguilements the peoples of God, who were formerly placed in unity. Amongst all your other proceedings, you might at least have spared the altars. Why did you break, together with the altars themselves, the entreaties and longings of men? 24 For from them the people's prayer was wont to go up to the ears of God. Why did you cut to pieces the road of their prayers to Him? 25 With impious hands you have laboured in a sort of |250 fashion to draw away the ladder,26 that you might prevent supplication ascending in the accustomed way to God.
And though all of you shared in one conspiracy, still, in this matter, whilst your wrongdoing was the same, you carried it out by different methods.
If it was sufficient to move, it was not lawful to break; if it was right to break, it is a sin to have scraped. For if, as your assembly decreed, it was not lawful [to preserve the altars], that man who broke them up would seem to have acted rightly. In that case he is guilty who, by scraping, preserved the larger part of them.
What is this new and foolish wisdom of yours to seek for that which is new in the very heart of that which is old 27? It is as though, after having removed some skin from the body, you were to look, as it were, for a second skin in that part of the body which lay hid under the part which you had cut away.28 The gift 29 which is proper to itself and, by reason of |251 its unity,30 is a whole in itself, may, after something has been taken from it, be lessened. Changed it cannot be. You have, it is true, scraped what seemed good to you, but what you hate is still there! Again, even though you have agreed,31 that whatever has been touched by us in the Name of God in His actual service,32 should be deemed by you to be unclean, which of the Faithful is there who is unaware that during the celebration of the Mysteries, the wood of the altar is itself covered with linen 33? During the sacred rites themselves,34 the covering can be touched, not the wood. Or, if the veils can be penetrated by the touch, then so can the wood; and, if the wood can be penetrated, then so can the earth. If you scrape the wood, you should also dig up the earth which is underneath, you should make a deep hole, whilst you are searching after that which you are pleased to judge to be purity.35 But take care lest you go down to those below,36 there to find Korah, Dathan and Abiram, the schismatics----your masters. It is, then, well known that you have both broken and scraped altars. How is it that in this matter your madness seems to have presently somewhat cooled down 37? For we see that afterwards you changed your plan, and that the altars were now no longer either broken or scraped by you, but only |252 moved. If this was enough, then you yourselves prove that what you did at first should by no means have been done.
II. That the Donatists sacrilegiously broke and sold the chalices.
But when you broke the very Chalices, which carry the Blood of Christ,38 you committed two horrible sins.39 For you have melted them down, thus making money for yourselves by abominable bargains.40 Nor in this business did you even trouble to select the purchasers, but were guilty of sacrilege in selling indiscriminately,41 and of avarice in selling at all. You also suffered 42 your own hands to be burned, with which you were accustomed, before us, to handle these same Chalices.43 Still you ordered the sale to take place everywhere. Perhaps wanton women |253 bought them for their own purposes; Pagans bought them, so that from them they might manufacture vessels, in which to burn incense to their idols. O shameful wickedness! O unheard-of crime! To take away something from God, that you might give it to idols----to steal something from Christ, that it might serve for a sacrilege.
III. Refutation of the Donatist pretext that the altars and sacred vessels had been contaminated through being used by Catholics.
But I perceive that, in this matter, in order to stir up undeserved hatred against us, you wish to have recourse to the book of the Prophet Haggai, where it has been written:
'Those things which have been touched by the defiled have been defiled.' 44
For those who are in anger, it is easy whilst the anger lasts to hurl abuse, but whenever an accusation is made, some clear proof is necessary.
Who then amongst us has ever entered the temples of idols? Who has watched the sacrilegious sacrifices? Men may be defiled by incense,45 odours,46 sacrileges, sacrifices, blood.47 But in this matter between us, who has entered the temple? Who has burnt incense to idols? Who has been stained by unclean odours 48? Who has looked upon the blood of an unclean beast, or of a man, poured forth? Whom can you prove to have given his advice for the perpetration of any |254 evil deed? Prove----if you can----that even one Bishop has been mixed up with any wrongdoing. You have your suspicions, about some Primate or other, who was at that time reported to have faltered.49 Suspicion is not a sufficient ground for accusation.50 Who has charged him? Who has convicted him? On what occasion was he ever ashamed, or put out of countenance? 51 Keep your suspicions to yourselves.52
So, as we have said above, if in this matter anything was done with severity,53 we have shown, when it is looked at in its commencement, that your fathers are responsible. Why then do you speak of Catholics, as though they were defiled? Is it because we have followed the Will and Command of God by loving peace, by communicating with the whole world, in union with those who live in the East, where Christ was born, where His holy footsteps touched the ground, where His adorable Feet have walked, where so many and such great miracles were worked by the Son of God Himself, where so many Apostles accompanied Him, where is the Sevenfold Church,54 on having been cut off from which, you do not merely fail to grieve, but in a sort of way rejoice? You call us defiled, because we have loved Unity well-pleasing to God. Because we have agreed with and hold communion with the Corinthians, Galatians, |255 Thessalonians, you call us defiled. You call us defiled, because we have not, together with you, read corrupt 55 books----deny, if you can, that you read books which differ [from those of the Church].56 How do you venture to read the Epistles written to the Corinthians, you who have refused to communicate with the Corinthians? To what purpose do you read aloud that which was written to Galatians or to Thessalonians, with whom you are not in communion? 57
Since it is certain that all these things are so, understand that you have been cut off from the holy Church, and that we are not defiled. What ground, therefore, have you for thinking that the prophet Haggai can be of any help to you?
The altars, then, and the sacred vessels, which we have mentioned above, were formerly in both your hands and ours. If you slander our hands, why at those altars 58 condemn your own hands as well?
But you say that you have read:
'That, which one, who is defiled, has touched, is defiled.' 59
Suppose that anyone has been defiled, so that |256 the things which he has touched appear to be defiled----let it be granted, if there has only been the touch, that the things which the defiled has touched, without any invocation of the Name of God, may be contaminated----provided that silence has been kept about God. For if there be invocation of the Name of God, the invocation itself sanctifies even that which appeared to have been defiled. Thus when two hundred and fifty censers, which had been carried in the hands of sinners, remained cast away (after those sinners were swallowed up by the earth), as the Holy priest Aaron hesitated what to do about them, he heard the Voice of God, saying:
'Take up, O Aaron, these censers, and make plates of them and fasten them in the corners of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, because, though those who carried them have sinned, nevertheless these vessels are holy, for My Name has been invoked with them, saith God.' 60
And surely to carry is more than to touch. Therefore it is quite clear that a thing can be made holy by the invocation of the Name of God, even though it be a sinner who invokes God. For the touch cannot have as much efficacy, as has the invocation of God's Name. And do you too, who count on your own sanctity, tell us whether the touch makes holy or the invocation. Surely it is the invocation not the touch. Otherwise if you rely upon the touch alone, touch a board, a stone, a garment----and let us see whether (if silence be kept about God) they can be sanctified. |257
IV. That virgins consecrated to God were wrongfully stripped by the Donatists of the ornaments proper to their state.
Now consider what a foolish----what an empty thing it is for you to have exercised your will and your sham authority 61 by making God's virgins 62 learn to do Penance, so that they who had already made their Profession had afterwards by your orders to change the signs of their choice upon their heads,63 and were compelled to cast away their veils, and to receive others in their place.64 First tell us where there is any commandment that has been given concerning veils. For virginity is a matter of choice,65 not of necessity.
So Paul the Apostle, that famous innkeeper,66 to whose care was entrusted a people wounded with the wounds of their sins, had received two pence to lay out----that is, the two Testaments. These he, as it were, expended by his teaching, and taught how Christian husbands and wives ought to live; but, when he was asked what command he would give concerning virgins, he answered that nothing about |258 virginity had been commanded. He acknowledged that he had laid out the two Testaments, that is the two pence. In a certain way the commission was exhausted, but, inasmuch as Christ, who had entrusted the wounded man to his keeping, had promised that He would repay whatsoever over and above might be expended upon his care,67 Paul, after having laid out the two pence, gives not commandments, but a counsel with regard to virginity. He does not stand in the way of those who desire it,68 but neither does he drive or force those who desire it not.69
'He who has given his virgin, does well, and he who has not given her, does better.' 70
These are words of counsel, nor are any precepts joined to them, neither as to the kind of wool from which the veil should be made, nor with what sort of purple dye it should be stained. For virginity cannot be aided with this kind of garment,71 nor with it are quenched the heats of the soul,72 which sometimes are enkindled by the summer,73 nor by it is the mind |259 relieved, which from time to time is pressed down by the burdens of desires. For if it were otherwise, not one veil, but very many, would be placed on the virgin's head, that, whensoever the desires of the flesh should trouble 74 the soul, the number of veils might fight against the stings of the mind.75 The veil was thought of as a sign for the head, not as a remedy on behalf of chastity. So a garment of this kind may get old, and be gnawed through and worn out; and yet virginity, as long as it has suffered no damage, can be safe without a veil.
This kind of life 76 is a kind of spiritual marriage. They had already come to the nuptials of their Spouse by their choice and Profession; and had already loosed their hair,77 thus to show that they had given up worldly nuptials, and were joined to their spiritual Spouse. They had already celebrated heavenly nuptials. For what reason have you forced them to loose their hair a second time? For what reason is it, I say, that you have exacted of them a second Profession? Who is the second spiritual spouse whom they may wed a second time? When did He die, to whom they had been wedded, that they may marry again? You have laid heads once more bare, which had already received the veil. You have stripped them of the marks 78 of their Profession, which seem to have been introduced, as a protection |260 against abductors or suitors.79 The veil is a sign of their free choice ---- not an aid to chastity 80 ----lest the suitor should either continue to sue for, or the abductor dare to violate, that which had already been consecrated to God.
The veil, accordingly, is a sign, not a sacrament. You have then found virgins of this kind, who had already been wedded spiritually----these you forced to second nuptials, and ordered once more to loose their hair.
This is not suffered even by those women who enter upon a natural marriage.81 For if it should have chanced to any one of them to change her husband,82 after widowhood has befallen her, the great secular festivity is not repeated; she is not puffed up to the skies; there is no great assemblage of people provided. Therefore, you have not taken away ornaments from their heads, but (as we have said above) the proofs of the choice of the better part. You have sprinkled the hair, which had been already consecrated to God, with unclean ashes.83 You even gave orders that they should be washed with salt water.
And would that you had quickly restored that which you had taken away. You lengthened out delays, so that some who were dragged back to [the world] remained a long time in their original dress, after you had removed the outward signs, with which they had fortified themselves against suitors and |261 abductors. For when men saw that you had removed the barrier which formerly stood in their way, instead of suitors they became abductors. Nor did anyone seem to himself to have sinned, in carrying off one who was such as he had seen her to be, at the time when he was looking for a wife.84
V. That the sacred books and vessels were taken away forcibly from the Catholics by the Donatists.
In this business how great were the injuries that you did to God, how great were the gains that you won for the Devil. You impiously melted down Chalices, you savagely 85 broke and foolishly 86 scraped altars, you forced wretched maidens (not without disgrace) to take a second veil, although nothing can be read in Scripture 87 about the first. And I cannot pass over a thing, which neither is pleasing to God, nor can be excused by your adherents, nor be defended by any man. You judged that by civil courts 88 and public laws the books of the Divine Law should, through the action of officials,89 be torn away from very many, wishing to have for themselves alone that which before the schism the Church had held for all in common.90 I do not fear, as a Christian, to state a fact of which, through your accusations, the pagan officers could not be unaware.91 You seized with |262 violence the altar cloths and books belonging to the Lord,92 which formerly had been possessed in common. You also seized the palls 93 and the manuscripts. In your proud judgement you thought that in each case they had been defiled. If I mistake not, you made haste to purify all these things. Without doubt you washed the palls. Tell us what you did with the manuscripts. If you are to act wisely you must pass the same judgement in all things. Either wash both, or leave both alone. If you act differently, you will have tainted your own efforts.94 The pall you wash; the manuscript you wash not. If you do well on one side, you do evil on the other. You are unable to deny that you give scandal on the one hand, if you do well on the other; and if you rejoice to seem full of respect for religion 95 in one matter, you ought also to bewail that you are held to be guilty of sacrilege in the other.
VI. The folly of the Donatists in washing the walls.
Now, what kind of thing have you done when you determined in many places to have even the walls washed,96 and ordered the whole interior 97 to be sprinkled with salt water? 98 |263
O Water, which by God wert created sweet, over which the Holy Spirit was borne before the very birth of the world! 99 O Water, which, that thou mightest make the land pure, hast washed the earth! O Water, which, in the days of Moses, after thou hadst been sweetened by wood,100 so that thou mightest lose the bitterness that is natural to thee, didst satiate by thy most sweet draughts the hearts of so many people 101! It has remained for thee, after so high an office, to receive no slight degradation! 102 In the presence of Moses bitterness dies in thee, and to-day thy sweetness, together with the Catholic people, is harassed by schismatics.103 Together we suffer the conflict, together we look for the vengeance of God.104
Tell us, my brother Parmenian, what injury the place had done you, what injury the very walls that they should suffer such things as these at your hands? Is it because within them God was entreated? Or, that there Christ was praised? Or, that there was invoked the Holy Ghost? Or, that there, though you were absent, the books of the Prophets and the Holy Gospels were read aloud? Or, that there the minds of brethren, who had once been at strife, had been brought into harmony? Or, that unity, well pleasing to God, had found there a house, wherein to dwell? |264 Point out to us what it is that you have found to wash. If it be the footsteps of Catholics----we have trodden both street and square 105 ----why do you not cleanse them all? 106 For you and we, in order to care for our bodies, have cleansed them in the same baths, and many of ours have often used them before you. If you think that everything should be purified after us----wash the water also, if you can. Or, if, as we have just said, our footsteps seem to you to be defiled, it might be enough to wash the earth. Why, then, have you thought fit to wash the walls also, on which the footsteps of men cannot be placed? We could not tread the walls, but have only been able to see them. But if you think that what has been touched even by our looks should be washed, why have you left other things unwashed? We see the roof; we also see the heavens. They cannot be washed by you! Have you deserved well of God by washing the one? In that case you would seem to have committed a sin, for which there is no expiation, in not washing the other. As, then, you wish to appear full of a sort of diligence in one quarter, you have been found to have been negligent in another. Your diligence, however, should be termed folly, or----to call it by its true name----vanity----unless, indeed, in thus acting you have perhaps inspired the uneducated populace with terror, making them think that, since the pillar in the church has been washed, so also should be their bodies.107 If you have had this cunning design, |265 you have craftily deceived the wretched people; if you have acted as you have done without thought, then your dulness 108 has been exposed. Those whom you have led astray know that your conduct in these matters has been stupid,109 and this you will not yourselves be able to deny.
VII. That the Donatists raged even against the dead.
Why should I also mention that great act of irreverence which arose from your conspiracy to seize the temples for this purpose,110 that you might claim the cemeteries for yourselves alone, and not permit the bodies of Catholics to be buried? To terrify the living, you do wrong even to the dead and refuse them a place for their funeral rites. If you had been at war with them whilst they were living, at least the death of your foe might appease your hatreds. Now that man is silent, with whom a moment ago you were in conflict, why insult his obsequies? Why interfere with his burial? To what purpose do you enter into strife with the dead? You have lost the fruit of your malice.111 And if you are not willing that bodies should rest together,112 you will not be able to separate their souls, set together 113 before God.
VIII. The Donatists compared to bird-catchers.
To make an end----it is impossible fully to narrate |266 all the evil things that you have done; but we may take them for granted in you, who are the leaders of this wrongdoing. Still who could keep silence about those who are now yours----those, that is, whom you have succeeded in drawing to your faction either by party-spirit or by subtle craft 114 ----not only men, but also women? From sheep they have been suddenly made wolves, from being faithful they have become faithless, from being patient full of rage, from lovers of peace lovers of strife, from lovers of simplicity full of craft, from lovers of modesty without shame, once gentle now they are savage, once innocent now they are doers of evil.
After persons of either sex have fallen away to you,115 they grieve that others are still there, where they were born 116; they urge those who are standing firm 117 to follow them in their fall. If they knew that they had gained glory,118 they would have enjoyed their own happiness in silence.119 But, desiring to have some consolation for their own wicked departure, they invite others to fall in like manner,120 and accuse those who are resting 121 in the bosom of Mother Church as |267 though they were slothful and slow.122 For they are not ashamed to use these words:
'Gaius, Seius, or Gaia, Seia,123 how long are you staying where you are?'
That is to say:
'You ought now to follow me in my error, you ought now to desert the truth. How long are you staying where you are?'
That is to say:
'Imitate me in my fall, imitate me in my shameful passing over.124 How long will you be called one of the Faithful? Now desert the Faith. Now learn to do Penance.'
You are bird-catchers, and these men or women are the birds. For there is not only one kind of bird-catchers.
Some there are who with an art that is not artful 125 go to trees resting on deep roots, which are to be found in front of a grove, where the birds fly naturally and sit on real boughs. Amongst them you will find no frauds, no wily devices. These men rely only upon their art and skill in bird-catching.
But I say that you resemble the bird-catcher, who, unlike the rest, is not content to go, after night has departed, before sunrise, to real trees. He carries his tree with him, and makes up into a bundle what will be his grove. Out of which, with all kinds of devices, he fashions a tree that has neither pith nor |268 roots. On this he places false boughs. So that, which had been lately cut down, now receives strange leaves in place of those which it had lost. Some birds he carries with him shut up in a cage. Upon the false branches he places others that have been stuffed to look as though they were alive. The living birds are hid in their cages, the others are seen, like living birds upon the branches. A double fraud is united by the craft of one man.126 And to deceive the simplicity of the birds that are alive and flying about, those which are certainly dead seem to stretch out their necks and sing, whilst those which are out of sight in their prison are thought to be singing from the throats of the others. Between the appearance on the trees and the sound from the cage one crafty mind does its work. The birds that were already captured capture those that are free, and the birds that are dead slay those that are alive.127 Such are they whom you have wounded either by re-baptising them, or by making them submit to Penance. These men and women strive with great zeal and labour, that other men and women may perish with them----for fear lest they should perish alone.
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 in divinis Sacramentis quid nefarie feceritis.
2. 2 in quibus et vos obtulistis.
3. 3 in quibus et vota populi et Membra Christi portata sunt.
4. 4 fraternitatis munera.
5. 5 de pace condita.
6. 1 Matt. v, 24.
7. 2 This is the most extraordinary instance of St. Optatus' habit of quoting the Scriptures from memory. That he should, however, have added the words 'ut possit pro te sacerdos offerre' and applied them to the Christian priest and sacrifice shows how unquestioned at the time was the Catholic doctrine on the Mystery of the altar. Had it been otherwise, he would necessarily have been more careful. No one can imagine that such carelessness would be possible at any period when the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was questioned amongst Christians.
8. 3 Quid est enim altare nisi sedes et Cor ports et Sanguinis Christi?
9. 4 tantae rei, sc. the altar of God.
10. 5 quid perditorum conductam referam multitudinem et vinum in mercedem sceleris datum?
11. 1 quod ut immundo ore sacrilegis haustibus biberetur, calida de fragmentis altarium facta est.
12. 2 sordidi.
13. 3 illic.
14. 4 cuius illic per certa momenta Corpus et Sanguis habitabat.
15. 5 dum impie persequimini manus nostras, illic, ubi Corpus Christi habitabat.
16. 6 feristis et vestras. The Donatist excuse for sacrilegiously destroying the altars was that Mass had been celebrated there by the hands of Catholics (Betrayers, as they called them); but Mass had been celebrated at those same altars by their own hands as well.
17. 7 hoc modo Iudaeos estis imitati; illi iniecerunt Christo manus in cruce, a vobis percussus est in altari.
18. 8 illic.
19. 9 vel vestris antiquis oblationibus.
20. 10 St. Optatus now, using the singular number, addresses Parmenian personally.
21. 1 St. Optatus here suddenly reverts from the singular to the plural number----apparently from Parmenian in particular to the Donatists in general.
22. 2 3 Kings xix, 10.
23. 3 res est Dei.
24. 4 cur vota et desideria hominum cum ipsis altaribus confregistis?
25. 5 cur concidistis precibus viam?
26. 1 In this chapter St. Optatus calls the altar successively: 'That which carries the prayers of the people and the members of Christ,' 'the place of the gifts of the brotherhood,' 'the seat of both the Body and Blood of Christ,' 'the dwelling-place during fixed periods of the Body and Blood of Christ,' 'the dwelling place of the Body of Christ,' 'the possession of God,''the place whence the prayer of the people was wont to go up to the ears of God,' 'the Way,' and 'the Ladder' to God.
27. 2 novitatem quaerere in visceribus vetustatis. It has been suggested to read maiestatis instead of vetustatis. But this supposed emendation takes away the contrast with novitatem and the whole point of the analogy, which is sufficiently explained by that which follows immediately.
28. 3 in latenti corpore cutem quasi alteram quaerere.
29. 4 donum, sc. consecrationis.
30. 1 quod unum est. The gift of consecration is bestowed upon the altar as a whole, and in it all its parts. It possesses a unity which may be likened to that of the Church.
31. 2 quodsi sic coniurastis.
32. 3 in ipso ministerio.
33. 4 linteamine.
34. 5 inter ipsa sacramenta.
35. 6 dum pro vestro arbitrio quaeritis puritatem.
36. 7 ad inferos.
37. 8 quasi languere.
38. 1 Christi Sanguinis portatores (RB portitores).
39. 2 hoc tamen inmane facinus a vobis geminatum est.
40. 3 quorum species revocastis in massas, merces nefariis nundinis procurantes.
41. 4 inconsiderate = passim.
42. 5 passi estis. Casaubon conjectures passi essetis = in your avarice you would even have suffered.
43. 6 This is simply a sarcastic retort. Albaspinaeus and Du Pin find here a mysterious identification between the chalices and the hands of the priests who used them. When the chalices were melted down, so metaphorically were the hands of the priests who had touched them. In so far as this was true, it held good not of Catholics only, but also of Donatists who had said Mass at the same altars with the same chalices. It seems however to me that the thought of St. Optatus may be expressed more simply. If the Donatists imagined that by burning the chalices which they considered to have been polluted through the touch of Catholic priests, they were burning away that touch----in the concrete, those hands----they should remember that at the same time they were burning away their own touch----their own hands----for they too had touched the chalices which they burned. The drift of the argument is sufficiently clear, but to us it must seem laboured and far-fetched (cf. note 4, p. 255).
44. 1 Hagg. ii, 14.
45. 2 fumis.
46. 3 nidoribus (cf. infra 'immundis nidoribus' and iii, 8: 'immundis arae fumabant nidoribus').
47. 4 fumis, nidoribus, sacrilegiis, sacrificiis, sanguine. Casaubon thinks that Optatus wrote fumi sacrilegis nidoribus, sacrilego sacrificii sanguine.
48. 5 immundis nidoribus.
49. 1 ambulare ( = ire opposite of stare).
50. 2 suspicio non est idoneum crimen.
51. 3 ubi vel erubuit vel confusus est?
52. 4 servate vobis suspiciones vestras.
53. 5 id est, by Macarius.
54. 6 Septiformis Ecclesia. The Seven Churches of Asia which (mystically) were interpreted as the whole. (Cf. note 2, p. 79.)
55. 1 furtivas lectiones = falsified versions of Holy Scripture.
56. 2 alienas lectiones. If the Donatists denied that they used corrupt versions, at least (writes St. Optatus) they will not be able to deny that they use alienas lectiones. Ziwsa writes that alienas here = diversas, and so I have translated it. But may it not mean books to which, as schismatics, you have no right? (Cf. ii, 6: Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid foris est, alienum est.)
57. 3 St. Augustine (Ep. clxv) also uses this argument: 'Quid autem perversius et insanius quam lectoribus easdem epistulas legentibus dicere, Pax tecum, et ab earum Ecclesiarum Pace separari, quibus ipsae epistulae scriptae sunt? '
58. 4 si infamatis manus nostras, quare illic damnatis et vestras? Cf. note 6, p. 252.
59. 5 Hagg. ii, 14.
60. 1 Cf. Num. xvi, 37, 38.
61. 1 quasi dignitatem vestram.
62. 2 Nuns who had deserted the Catholic Church for the Donatist schism.
63. 3 ut iamdudum professae signa voluntatis capitibus... immutarent. Casaubon thinks that there should be a comma after professae, and conjectures that the word imposita has fallen out after capitibus. He remarks that the words profiteri and professae were already quite common, but that he knows no other instance of the phrase capite profiteri signa voluntatis, whereas Optatus proceeds very soon to write of veils capiti impositae. But signa voluntatis for veils sounds quite Optatian. The word signum for a Nun's veil is traditional in the Church. Thus the consecrated virgin on receiving the veil is bidden by the Pontifical straightway to stand up and to sing 'Posuit signum in faciem meam.'
64. 4 ut mitellas alias proicerent et alias accepissent. For the first alias RBv read aureas.
65. 5 voluntatis.
66. 6 stabularius ille.
67. 1 quicquid in curam amplius erogasset. As St. Optatus understands by the two pence of the parable the two Testaments, i.e. the Commandments of God, so by 'whatever thou shalt spend over and above' (Luke x, 35) he understands works of supererogation, v.g. the Counsels of Perfection.
68. 2 nec impedimenta est volentibus.
69. 3 This passage, from 'For virginity is a matter of choice' to 'who desire it not,' is incorporated, as it stands, by St. Fulgentius. (Cf. ii, ad Monimum, cap. 13.)
70. 4 Cf. 1 Cor. vii, 25-38.
71. 5 hoc panno.
72. 6 aestus animi.
73. 7 aestas, so Rv. G has aetas. This is adopted by Ziwsa, but is it not possible that Optatus used aestas metaphorically in juxtaposition with aestus (summer heats) just before, according to his custom of playing upon words?
74. 1 pungerent.
75. 2 impugnationem mentis.
76. 3 hoc genus, sc. voluntary profession of virginity.
77. 4 Nuns, like married women, of old 'put up' their hair. It was not, as now, cut off.
78. 5 indicia.
79. 1 raptores aut petitores.
80. 2 non castitatis auxilium.
81. 3 quae carnaliter nubunt.
82. 4 maritum mutate.
83. 5 sc. the ashes of Penance, inflicted by the Donatists.
84. 1 dum talem rapuit, qualem viderat, quando, ut uxorem acciperet, postulabat.
85. 2 crudeliter.
86. 3 inconsulte.
87. 4 in lectione.
88. 5 per iudicia saecularia. Under Julian the Apostate the churches and sacred books were taken from the Catholics and given to the Donatists by imperial decree and process of law.
89. 6 executione officiorum. 'Officia pro officialibus, ut ministeria pro ministris et sexcenta huius generis' (Casaubon).
90. 7 quod Pax in commune possederat.
91. 8 quod vobis postulantibus gentilis executio non potuit ignorare. Ziwsa points out that postulare here = criminari (cf. iii, 3: 'postulabant utique contra episcopos').
92. 1 velamina et instrumenta dominica extortistis. For velamina Cochlaeus suggested volumina---- a suggestion adopted by Casaubon.
93. 2 pallas. Casaubon thinks that pallas has crept in for pallia and quotes Victor Uticensis, who has written of velaminum pallia and of pallia altaris. But Pope Innocent I (De Mysteriis Missae, ii, 55) writes: 'Duplex est palla quae dicitur corporalis; una quam Diaconus super altare totum extendit, altera, quam super calicem plicatam imponit.'
94. 3 corrupisti diligentiam tuam. RB concupisti.
95. 4 religiosus.
96. 5 sc. of churches that had been used by Catholics.
97. 6 inclusa spatia aqua salsa spargi praecepistis. For inclusa RBv read in caussa, Cochlaeus conjectured sine caussa.
98. 7 St. Optatus could not have written in the strain of the next paragraph, had he known anything of the later usage of mixing
salt with water, to make Holy Water; much less had he known of the salt, water, ashes and wine prescribed, for certain purifications, in the Pontifical.
99. 1 Cf. Gen. i, 2.
100. 2 indulcata ligno. Indulcare = γλυκαίνειν. Cf. Martius 'Prudenter edulcare convenit vitam.'
101. 3 tot populorum pectora suavissimis haustibus satiasti. (Cf. Ex. xv, 23, 25.)
102. 4 restabat tibi post promotionem non leviter degradari.
103. 5 a scismaticis hodie cum Catholicorum turba dulcedo tua vexatur.
104. 6 paves patimur bellum, pares expectamus vindicem Deum.
105. 1 et in vico et in platea, CG plateis.
106. 2 quare non omnia emendatis? (emendare ---- rebaptisare: i, 5 'post vos non emendamus'; v, 11 'Sanctitas vestra emendet, si potest, mortuos.' Cf. iii, 10: 'emendate voluntatem Dei, si potestis,')
107. 3 sc. by Rebaptism.
108. 1 vestra hebetudo.
109. 2 haec vos stulta fecisse.
110. 3 Even in places where the Donatists had a church of their own, they were empowered by the Edict of Julian to seize the church of the Catholics. St. Optatus here suggests that they did this in order to deprive Catholics of the privilege of burial amongst their fellow Catholics in the cemeteries which were attached to every Catholic church.
111. 4 perdidisti malitiae fructum.
112. 5 in unum.
113. 6 in uno.
114. 1 quos aut factione aut subtilitate, ut vestros faceretis, seducere potuistis.
115. 2 post quod ad vos delapsi stint aut delapsae.
116. 3 sc. in the Catholic Church.
117. 4 bene stantes, sc. in Ecclesia Catholica. Cf. iii, 9: 'Aut stetit frater, sorore migrante.'
118. 5 si scirent se gloriam consecutos. Cf. v, 7: 'Quod quasi ad gloriam vestram a vobis semper auditur.'
119. 6 Nothing, of course, could have been easier to the Donatists than to retort this observation.
120. 7 nunc autem perditos transitus suos consolari cupientes ceteros, ut similiter labantur, invitant. Consolari = to divert their attention from their own mistake and thus get some consolation. Du Pin places a comma after perditos, thus making it agree with the ceteros that follows.
121. 8 residentes.
122. 1 quasi pigros. In iii, 8 St. Optatus has called the schismatic Donatists pigri.
123. 2 Gai Sei vel Gaia Seia (cf. iii, 11).
124. 3 transitus turpes. Evidently it was inconceivable to St. Optatus that any deserters from the Catholic Church should invite others to join their schism from any sense of duty.
125. 4 arte simplici.
126. 1 iungitur una geminata fraude calliditas.
127. 2 A friend has been kind enough to give me the following information:----In the Shahabad District of Bengal, there are bird-catchers to this day who place a light woodwork frame on their heads covered with small branches and leaves. Armed with a long thin pole with a small two-pronged fork at the end, which is bird-limed, they catch birds sitting on the trees high above them. The man under the cover cannot be seen by the birds, whilst he can see the birds through two small eye-holes in the cover.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_07_0intro_to_book .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917). Introduction to book 7. pp. 269-274.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917). Introduction to book 7. pp. 269-274.
INTRODUCTION TO BOOK VII
At first sight there appears to be some question as to the genuineness of this Seventh Book. But on examination it becomes practically certain that the great bulk of the Book was written by St. Optatus several years after he had closed his original work with the striking metaphor on bird-catching to be found at the end of Book VI. Some slight doubt still remains concerning two passages in the first chapter, and one paragraph in the second chapter. But these are almost certainly (were it not for the opinion of Ziwsa, to which we shall shortly allude, we should write quite certainly) spurious. Accordingly----in this following the example of Du Pin----we have separated them from the text, and marked them A, B, C.1
Du Pin indeed tells us in his Preface to his Edition of St. Optatus that until he had examined the MSS. he was inclined to reject all the Seventh Book as spurious, in consequence of the following considerations:
(I) St. Optatus himself gives the argument of his work as a whole, and says that he had divided it into six Books.2 Moreover, St. Jerome writes expressly that St. Optatus wrote six Books against the Donatist calumnies.3
(II) In his First Book St. Optatus terms the sins of Betrayal and Schism, duo mala pessima.4 In certain parts of the Seventh Book, on the contrary, all kinds of excuses----some of them very far-fetched----are made for the sin of Betrayal, and the writer endeavours to tone down its guilt by all the means at his command. |270
(III) It seemed to Du Pin at first that there was a certain difference of style between the Seventh and the first six Books.
But on discovering that the Seventh Book was found (without A, B, C) in all the manuscripts which he was able to consult, Du Pin was led to revise his opinion as to its genuineness.
The difficulty arising (I) from the fact that St. Optatus has himself mentioned his intention of writing six Books vanished upon further consideration, for (a) it is certain (as we have already stated 5) that Optatus made additions to his original work in the time of Pope Siricius, and further (b) in the opening words of Book VII its author himself distinctly states that this Book is an afterthought, due to the fact that the Donatists did not profess themselves satisfied by that which he had already written. With regard to (II) the change of tone concerning the sin of Betrayal----which had been Du Pin's chief difficulty ----it is only to be found in the passages marked A and B. These Du Pin unhesitatingly rejects (whilst, in the end, with no less hesitation accepting the rest of the Book) as the work of a Donatist interpolator, referring to them in his Index as pseudo-Optatus.
As for (III) the dissimilarity of style, Du Pin remarks that this too is only to be observed in A and B. Indeed far from being dissimilar in style there is a very remarkable similarity in this respect between Book VII, speaking generally, and the other six Books; whilst for myself I fully agree with Ziwsa in thinking that even A and B are quite Optatian in style. From this point of view they seem to me to be clever forgeries----skilful imitations of the genuine work of St. Optatus, with which their author was evidently familiar.
The only remaining difficulty arises from the statement |271 of St. Jerome to which we have already alluded. But is it not possible that St. Jerome was only acquainted with the First Edition of St. Optatus? 6 However this may be, Du Pin meets the difficulty by suggesting that when St. Jerome wrote, that which we now read as a connected whole, and call the Seventh Book of St. Optatus, was principally to be found in the shape of Appendices or additions,, not to the completed work, but to several of the other Books regarded separately. To illustrate this idea, Du Pin points out that the Donatists very likely objected that two statements----both of them to be found in the First Book----that their Fathers were Betrayers, and that yet they were the Brethren of Catholics----were markedly inconsistent and even destructive of one another. 'If our Fathers were Betrayers,' we can well imagine that they urged, 'why do you call us Brethren, and why invite us to Communion?' 7 To this objection St. Optatus made his reply in the first three chapters of the Seventh Book.
All that we read in the two following chapters concerning 'flies about to die' and about Jamnes and Mambres should be referred to the end of the Second, or perhaps rather to the Fourth Book, where Donatist calumnies of a similar character are refuted.
The last two chapters (6 and 7) belong to the Third Book, to which they are an addition. As this seems to be, in the judgement of all, a fact established beyond doubt, I have already printed the translation of those chapters in their proper place at the end of Book III. |272
I have thought it safer, however, (in this following not only Ziwsa but Du Pin himself,) to keep the first five chapters in the form of a separate Book, as we find them in the existing manuscripts.
A, B, C, etc., stand in a different position from the rest of the Book, not merely from the fact that they are wanting in most of the MSS.,8 but above all from their character. Ziwsa indeed hesitates and thinks that they may perhaps be a kind of retractation by St. Optatus of the severe things which are to be found in his work, especially in his First Book. Everything written by Ziwsa concerning Optatus deserves, and must always receive, the most serious and respectful consideration. But it is certain that there is no sign whatever in Book VII (apart from A and B) of anything that expresses toning down or apology, much less retractation, by the author. There is no recognition of any contrast between previous and present statements. Ziwsa's theory must therefore remain, what after all he states it to be, a bare possibility and unverifiable hypothesis. Moreover, not only do A and B contradict the argument concerning the wickedness of Betrayal, which has been brought forward again and again in the previous Books, but they are also in opposition to the clear statement made in the Seventh Book itself at the end of its first chapter:
'Tradere peccatum est.'
They seem to me to be in their poverty of thought, lack of argumentative force, and general perversity of expression, quite unworthy of St. Optatus (as well as contrary to the consistent expression of his mind), and to be just what a cunning Donatist, if he had the opportunity, would be glad to insert in the work of his great adversary----or possibly they may have come from the hand of some unscrupulous Catholic, who, in his desire to make the |273 reconciliation of the Donatists as easy as possible, allowed himself to forget for the moment that no end, however good and desirable in itself, can justify the employment of dishonest means for its attainment. In any case, whatever their history, we may be quite sure that A and B failed of their purpose. They remain merely as a somewhat wearisome curiosity.
Ziwsa, who has no doubt as to the genuineness of the rest of Book VII, observes that in many places it is carelessly written, and partakes rather of the nature of a rough sketch, or of notes not yet worked up, than of a finished composition. But we must not press this too far, for, as Du Pin reminds us, St. Optatus in all the Books is very unequal in the polish of his work. Still, even though we bear this fact in mind, we shall have to admit that, if Book VII is really to be considered as a whole (and not a collection of chapters to be added to preceding books), the conclusion----wherever we place it (whether at the close of Chapter 5 or of Chapter 7)-----is exceedingly abrupt and furnishes the most marked contrast in this respect to the highly polished termination of Book VI. That this was the end of the work as originally written, there can (as we have already stated) be no doubt.
With regard then to Book VII, problems exist with reference to its exact purpose and original arrangement which will never admit of certain and definite solution, but that (apart from A and B) it is the work of St. Optatus is no longer questioned by any critic. The MSS. evidence is too clear, and the similarity of thought and expression too striking, for doubt to be possible. For example, who that has ever read the undoubted
'Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram episcopalem esse conlatam,'
of ii, 2, can hesitate as to the
'Cathedram Petri... poteris adprobare mendacium?' |274
of vii, 5? This question of the Seventh Book is simply the echo of the statement of the First Book. Non potes negare = poteris adprobare? (id est, non poteris adprobare) mendacium. We have here St. Optatus' summing up ----his final cry of triumphant gladness. No forger could have had the first sentence of St. Optatus so stamped upon his mind, with its unmistakable ring, as to be able to change its form and yet reproduce it with such apparent unconsciousness and lack of effort, as forgery would here involve. And many similar instances might be adduced, which prove that, even independently of the weight of MSS. authority, this Seventh Book comes from the same brain and personality to which we owe the first six Books of St. Optatus against the Donatists.
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 Three other short passages, which I have printed in square brackets, are in the same position as A, B, C (see p. 310).
2. 2 i, 7.
3. 3 Lib. de viris illustribus, Cap. cxxi.
4. 4 i, 13.
5. 1 See Preface, p. xxii.
6. 1 St. Jerome's words are as follows: 'Optatus Afer Episcopus Milevitarms ex parte Catholica scripsit sub Valentiniano et Valente Principibus adversus Donatianae partis calumniam Libros sex.' We know that, on any hypothesis, St. Optatus wrote only six Books 'in the time of the Emperors Valentinianus and Valens.' (Cf. Preface, p. xxii.)
7. 2 Cf. vii, 1: 'video adhuc vestras vel vestrorum provocationes pullulare, quas vos audio dicere, ad unam communionem non oportuisse quaeri, cum filios traditorum vos esse constiterit, ad ea pauca respondeam.'
8. 1 They are only to be found in C and in the Codex Tilianus.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_07_book .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 7. pp.275-...
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 7. pp.275-310.
I. That the Donatists can be received back into the Communion of the Church more easily than could have been their fathers who were guilty of Betrayal.
II. That good and evil will be found in the Church of God, and must be borne with to the Day of Judgement.
III. The Donatists might have appealed to the example of the Apostle Peter to ask pardon for themselves.
IV. That Eccles. x, 1 should be referred to Donatists rather than to Catholics.
V. That the Donatists and not the Catholics resembled Jamnes and Mambres.
Pseudo-Optatus, Passage A (see p. 276, l. 21).
Pseudo-Optatus Passage B (see p. 279, line 3).
Pseudo-Optatus, Passage C (see p. 279, 1. 16).
BOOK THE SEVENTH
In this last Book it is shown that the Children of the Betrayers, whose Names were given in the First Book, may now, for the Sake of Unity, be received back into the Catholic Communion.
I. That the Donatists can be received back into the Communion of the Church more easily than could have been their fathers who were guilty of Betrayal.
Having shown up the Betrayers and having pointed out the holy Church----having refuted the calumnies which you were wont to utter against us, and having exposed your sins----which have merited to be chidden by God----and your repetition of the Sacraments, and your gratuitous claims 1 and your violence, we ought now to finish our answers and statements 2; but, since I perceive that, though the wood of malice has been cut down by the axes of truth, challenges are still sprouting 3 forth from you or from your friends, in which, as I hear, you maintain that, in consequence of your being known as the children of Betrayers, you ought not to be invited to the communion of unity 4 ----to this let me say a few words in reply.
It is most true that the Catholic Church was sufficient for herself with her countless peoples in all |276 countries 5; she was sufficient for herself also in Africa, although here she is but in few places. But God was not pleased with your separation, for the members of one body had been torn asunder, and, against the Will of God, you, who are our brothers, wandered away from your brethren. Sentence had been passed at home 6 upon your fathers, that they who ought to have been expelled in consequence of their confession of Betrayal, should go forth of their own accord. No [formal] judgement was pronounced,7 yet the effect of the sentence was obtained. They should have been cast off after the Betrayal, to which they owned in the Council in Numidia. But, not to give an opportunity for the display of their malice,8 the severity of judgement was refrained from, and your ancestors of their own accord made their plans, in consequence of their guilt, to cover up their crime and depart with the appearance of pride----when they should have grieved and blushed for shame. For if at that time they had thought it right, for the sake of Peace, to enter into unity,9 {Passage A is found here in the manuscripts} and had come to the Catholic Church of their own accord----unlike you, who are known to have been drawn 10 by the Will of |277 God 11 to return whence you had wandered (though you are wandering still)----if, as I have said, they had come of their own accord to the Catholic Church, perhaps our fathers would have hesitated about receiving them, because they had been Betrayers; but we have cause for rejoicing, that none guilty of Betrayal have lived down to our times.
So to-day we find quite a new state of affairs, since we have to deal, not with them, but with you. Although it appears that a stain has passed from them to you by inheritance, nevertheless you cannot on this ground be held guilty together with your fathers, according to the Judgement of God, who has spoken by Ezekiel the prophet, saying:
'The soul of the father is Mine, and Mine is the soul of the son. The soul that sinneth, shall be punished alone.' 12
And this was proved even in ancient times----at the very beginning of the world,13 in that his father's sin did not belong to Seth, the son of Adam.14 And |278 that no one might say that in another place it was written by the Lord that He would
'punish the sins of the fathers even unto the fourth generation' 15 ----
----these are undoubtedly both words 16 of God, but both do not refer to one people. The first was said through Moses to a definite set of men, the second through Ezekiel to a different class. God, since He knew that the Jews would declare to Pontius Pilate:
'His Blood be upon us, and upon our children,' 17
in His foreknowledge saw that what they would say, was, in comparison with the greatness of their sin, but little, and threatened the Jews themselves, in order that their crime might be expiated by adequate 18 penalties, saying that He would punish the offences of the fathers even to the fourth generation. So this word 19 belongs in a particular way to the Jews, and to them alone; but the other, in which God has deigned |279 to promise not to punish in sons any sins of their fathers, nor in fathers any faults perchance committed by their sons, belongs to Christians. 20
{Passage B is found here in the manuscripts}
Your fathers, who are proved to have done these things in the days of Unity, have fallen away from the number of the living, leaving you as it were an inherited stain, which God has already washed away by His Providence, when He made a distinction (as we have said above) between fathers and their sons. Accordingly, since Betrayal is a sin, your fathers must see to it, as to what answer they may make in the Judgement of God; but your sin it cannot be, since you are living in other times.
II. That good and evil will be found in the Church of God, and must be borne with to the Day of Judgement.
So it is that for long past we have desired to receive you into our Communion, because it was not you that sinned at that time, but your fathers. 21
{Passage C is found here in the manuscripts}
Nor ought any man to judge concerning another man, as though he were himself wholly without sin, since it has been written in the Gospel that Christ says:
'Judge not, that you be not judged.' 22
And this above all, because it will not be possible to find one who is absolutely holy. For should any such there be, who are unable to sin, they are guilty of lying in the Lord's Prayer, if without reason they beg for pardon and say to God the Father: |280
'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us.'
So the Apostle John both shows the consciences of all men and discloses 23 his own with these words:
'If we shall say that we have not sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,' 24 ----
a saying the reason of which we have explained more clearly in our Fourth Book. But grant that there are some who have been made perfect with complete sanctity, it is not lawful for them to be without brethren, whom they are taught not to repel by the precepts of the Gospel, wherein we find described a field----that is the whole world, in which is the Church 25 and Christ the Sower, who gives wholesome precepts.26 On the other hand there is an evil man----that is the Devil,27 who sows cruel 28 sins not in the light, but in the |281 darkness.29 Different kinds of seeds come to birth 30 in one field. Similarly, in the Church there is not a mass of souls all alike.31 The field receives good seeds or bad----the seeds are different. But there is One Creator of all souls----one Lord of the field. There are Two who sow seeds where the tares are born, but the field has one Lord, the Lord God Himself. His is the earth; His are the good seeds; His is also the rain. Accordingly, we have consented to receive in unity you, who have been drawn 32 [to the Catholic Church], for we are not free either to separate or to reject even sinners who have been born with us in one field [and] have received nourishment 33 from one water 34----that is from the one Baptism; even as the Apostles were not free to separate the tares from the wheat (since separation is impossible without destruction35), lest, whilst pulling up what ought to be pulled up, that which ought |282 not to be, should be, trodden down. In like manner Christ has commanded that both His own seeds, and those which belong to the other,36 should grow in His field throughout the entire world, in which there is the One Church.37
After all have ripened 38 together, shall come the Day of Judgement, which is the harvest of souls. Then there shall sit the Judge, the Son of God, who recognises what is His own and what is the other's.39 His it shall be to choose what He may gather in His barn,40 and what deliver over to the burning----whom He shall condemn 41 to torments that know no end,42 and upon whom He may bestow 43 the rewards which He has promised.
Let us recognise that we all are men; let no one usurp to himself the power of Judgement that belongs to God. For if any Bishop were to claim it all for himself,44 pray, what will there be for Christ to do in Judgement? It should be enough for a man not to be guilty of sins of his own, without wishing to be judge of the sins of another. |283
So it is our declaration 45 [not only] that we do not reject you, [but even that for the sake of Peace we would not have rejected your fathers, if it had come to pass in their day that unity was accomplished].46 For it would be a sin for us Bishops to do now, that which was not done by the Apostles, who were not permitted either to separate seeds or to pluck up the tares from the wheat.
III. The Donatists might have appealed to the example of the Apostle Peter to ask pardon for themselves.
But even if the Catholic Church should hesitate about receiving you, ought you not to have striven to attain the pattern of unity 47? But you have shrunk from bringing forward the examples to be found in the Gospel, as for instance what has been written concerning the person of the most blessed Peter, where we may read a description of the way in which unity is to be retained or procured.48 Without doubt it is evil to do anything against a prohibition, but it is worse not to have unity when you may. We see that this unity was preferred to punishment 49 by Christ Himself, who chose that all His disciples should be in unity rather than punish 50 a sin against Himself. For, as He did |284 not wish to be denied, He declared that whosoever should deny Him before men him would He deny before His Father,51 [but He did not declare that He would punish one who should give up any Scripture, since it is more serious to deny Him who spoke, than to give up the words which He has spoken].52 And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest.53 So from |285 this example it is given us to understand that for the sake of unity sins should be buried, since the most blessed Apostle Paul says that charity 54 can cover a multitude of sins:
'Bear your burdens together,' 55
he says; and in another place:
'Charity is high-souled,56 charity is kind, charity envieth not, charity is not puffed up, charity seeketh not the things that are her own.' 57 |286
And he has said well. For he had seen all these things in the other Apostles, who for the sake of unity, through charity, would not withdraw from the communion of Peter----of the man, that is to say, who had denied Christ.58 But if their love of innocence had been greater than the gain 59 of peace and unity, they would have said that they ought not to hold communion with Peter, who had denied his Master and the Son of God, the Lord. They might, as has been said, not have held communion with the most blessed Peter; it would have been possible for them to quote against him the words of Christ, who had declared that He would deny before His Father whosoever should have denied Him before men. We ought industriously 60 to pay attention to the inward meaning of this.61 Whilst I say a few words concerning it, may the blessed Saint Peter himself pardon me,62 if I mention that which we read and know that he did. I hesitate to say that so great holiness as his has sinned, but he himself proved this fact, when he grieved bitterly and wept copiously, since he would neither have grieved nor wept, had he not committed any offence. Now the Head of the Apostles might surely have so governed himself, as to have done nothing, on account of which |287 he should grieve. But many faults 63 are seen in this one case of his,64 for this reason, that it might be shown that for the sake of unity all things should be reserved for God.65 And I know not whether in any other man this kind of sin could be of such weight, as was clearly the case in blessed Peter. For whoever during some persecution perchance denied the Son of God, will be seen, when compared with blessed Peter, to have sinned more lightly, if he denied Him whom he had not seen, if he denied Him whom he had not recognised, if he denied Him to whom he had made no promise, if he denied but once. For in blessed Peter this kind of sin was broadened out 66 ----in the first place, when Christ asked of all, whom did men say that He was, one said 'Elias,' another said 'the Prophet'; then we read that Christ said:
'Whom do you say that I am?'
and Peter said to Him:
'Thou art the Son of the Living God' 67 ----
on account of which recognition 68 he deserved to be praised by Christ, [because this he had said through the prompting 69 of God the Father 70 ]. Behold, when the others did not recognise the Son of God, He was recognised by Peter alone.
In the second place, when Christ said on the eve of His Passion: |288
'Behold I am bound, and you all flee,' 71
when the others kept silence, he alone promised that he would not go back.72 Out of His Foreknowledge, the Son of God said:
'O Peter, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.' 73
Something else was added to the weight of his sin----a promise, which he would not fulfil. After Christ was brought into the house of Caiaphas, out of so great a number no one was questioned----to fill up the measure of his transgression ---- save blessed Peter. When questioned, at first he denies; when questioned, he denies a second time; thirdly, he said that he knew Christ not at all; and the cock crew, not to mark the time by his crowing, but that blessed Peter might recognise how he had sinned. At last he grieved bitterly and wept copiously.
Behold (as we have said above), when the others did not recognise he alone recognised, when the others made no promises he alone promised, when the others did not deny once he alone denied and that three times, but yet, for the sake of unity, he was not to be separated from the number of the Apostles.74 From which we understand that all things were ordered by the Providence of the Saviour, that Peter should receive the Keys. The way of malice was stopped up, that the Apostles might not conceive in their minds that they were free to judge, and condemn with severity, him who had denied Christ. So many guiltless ones |289 are standing upright,75 and the sinner receives the Keys, that the work of unity 76 might receive its pattern.77 It was provided that the sinner should open for the guiltless,78 lest the guiltless might close [the gates] against sinners, and thus the unity which is necessary could not be.79
If you had mentioned these things, and asked for communion, how 80 could the Catholic Church, our Mother, have hesitated to receive you in her Bosom,81 since it is certain that you are not Betrayers, but the sons of Betrayers?
IV. That Eccles. x, 1 should be referred to Donatists rather than to Catholics.
Now some of your party in their desire to point us out to their people as worthy of contempt, mix up in their discourses that which was said by the Prophet Solomon concerning 'the flies that are soon to die':
'Flies that are soon to die banish the sweetness of oil,' 82
and call us 'flies that are soon to die.' That liquid 83 which is seasoned by 84 the Name of Christ, and, after |290 it has been seasoned is called Chrism, they call 'Oil.' 85 Before consecration 86 it is still by nature simple oil; it becomes sweet, when it is seasoned from 87 the Name of Christ.
There are then three things, of which the Prophet Solomon has made mention----the oil, the sweetness and the flies that are soon to die which destroy the sweetness. These three things have their places in due order. In the first place is the oil, in the second is the sweetness that has been produced,88 in the third the dying flies which banish the sweetness. Let then whoever amongst you brings forward such an argument 89 prove why he calls us 'flies that are soon to die.' You think that you have the power of consecration 90 which gives its sweetness to the oil----you have then both the oil and its sweetness. Do we 'banish' your oil,91 so that you may with reason 92 call us 'flies which are soon to die'? That which is yours remains with you. And if anyone passes over from you to us, he is left by us, as he was sent away by you.93 So how can |291 you say that we are 'flies soon to die, which corrupt the sweetness of the oil,' when, [coming] after you, we do no such deed? 94
Again if you say that the sweetness of the oil can be corrupted by us, either we can effect something, and give sweetness to the oil, or if, as you maintain, we are not able to effect anything, then the oil still remains such as it was by nature.95 How then do you say that we are 'flies soon to die, which corrupt the sweetness of the oil'?
Accordingly, the oil, before it is consecrated by us, is such as it was by nature.96 After it has been consecrated,97 it is able to receive sweetness from the Name of Christ. How can we by the same action both consecrate and corrupt? 98
It follows that, if the oil be sweet of its own nature, there is nothing more left for men to effect, when it is consecrated in the Name of Christ.
The same workman cannot at the same time make two things which are repugnant and opposite to each other.
When we, in your absence, consecrate, we do not corrupt. But if we do corrupt, who had before us consecrated anything for us to corrupt? Wherefore ----that the saying of the Prophet (if it be such) may not remain without application----understand that you are the flies that are soon to die. For you have |292 banished what it had not by nature, but by consecration, since we read that what is sweet is not capable of corruption by nature,99 for oil is simple and has its own one and distinctive name. Once it has been consecrated it is called Chrism, in which there is the sweetness which, having shut out 100 the hardness of sins, softens the outward skin of the conscience,101 which renews a gentle mind, which prepares a habitation for the Holy Spirit, so that He may be hither invited and, after bitterness has been put to flight, may deign here gladly to dwell. This 102 is the sweetness of the oil which flies that are soon to die are able to corrupt. If we were to banish the oil which you had consecrated, with reason might you call us flies that are soon to die, but so long as we preserve that which you have anointed even as we find it, we cannot be flies that are soon to die; but whilst you, driven by the storms of jealousy, falling, as it were, [like flies] into the oil, banish (by rebaptising) the sweetness of that oil, which has been consecrated in the Name of Christ----from which good morals should be seasoned,103 and the light of the mind be enkindled to a health-giving 104 and true understanding----you are banishing the reality in which was the oil and sweetness.105
But how have we been able to corrupt a sweetness, which no man before us produced by consecration? You have led men astray. You have rebaptised. |293 You have anointed a second time.106 Oh for shame! To your own destruction have you----like flies, which destroy even whilst they are dying----banished that which had been consecrated in the Name of Christ. Now, sin which has no pardon is death. It has been written that:
'he who shall have sinned against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven unto him, either in this world or in the world to come.' 107
Wherefore, inasmuch as you untruly call us flies, and hasten to annul 108 all that we have done, and say that we ought to be rejected or despised, claiming sanctity for yourselves alone, you put forward your innocence, as the ground for promising that you can forgive the sins of others. You see therefore that it was not of us, as you argue, but of yourselves that the most blessed Apostle Paul has said:
'There shall be men, lovers of themselves, covetous, praising themselves, proud, blasphemers, not obeying |294 parents, ungrateful, wicked; not guarding peace, without affection, detractors, not gentle, without kindness, 109 and the rest.'
V. That the Donatists and not the Catholics resembled Jamnes and Mambres.
Now, to turn to the fact that you have thought fit to take upon yourself the character of Moses, who, as the Apostle Paul tells us, was opposed by Jamnes and Mambres 110 ----if this be so, what is the truth, that may be found with you, which the Catholic Church opposes?
Or, what is there with us which you can prove to be a lie? Is it that we are in one communion with the whole world? Will you be able to prove that this is a lie? Is it that we keep and defend the true and one Creed? Will you be able to prove that this is a lie? Will you be able to prove that the Chair of Peter is a lie----and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion? 111 |295
In the very passage of Scripture which you have mentioned, consider the order of the actions of the persons themselves, and pay attention as to which was the first. Yes, surely, Jamnes and Mambres who by their false artifices strove to fight against Moses and the truth, are in the second place. Moses, whose miracles they attempted in vain to impugn, was before them.112
As Moses is the first, so also is the Catholic Church; the first.113 As Jamnes and Mambres fought against and opposed Moses, so also do you in rebellion fight against the true Catholic Church.114 Why, then, is it that you 115 have wished to change names between yourselves and us excepting that thou 116 mightest prove thyself on a level with thy colleagues? For there are some of your party, who, having forgotten, or being |296 ignorant of past times, say against us things which belong of right to those men who, having already fallen away from the Catholic Church,117 consecrated Majorinus----that is to say to the authors of Schism and Betrayal. Because they still preserved Peace, before they banished unity,----well-pleasing to God----they were the light of the world, and with reason were they termed the salt of the earth. So long as they taught Peace, they were still called the sons of Peace. Before they were puffed up, they were blessed in their poverty of spirit, and were part of the savour. Whilst they were meek, they were blessed----they were part of the savour. Whilst they were just, they were blessed----they were part of the savour. Whilst they were sons of Peace, they were blessed----they were the whole of the savour. After they bestowed the riches of error upon their breath and lungs 118 and made the schism, they were seen to be cruel and without mercy; whilst they impiously tore asunder the members of the Church following after wickedness, they held the Kingdom of God in contempt, and, dividing the Church, were unwilling to be in Peace, they became salt that has been spoiled,119 from which nothing could be seasoned to please God with its sweetness.120 And since your first leaders were thus wicked, some of your colleagues |297 argue in a wrong-headed way,121 so that they say that those were foolish, who, quitting the Schism, having, however late, recognised the truth and their Mother the Catholic Church, followed after Peace. Some of your party think that these men made a mistake; they consider that, as it were having lost their savour,122 they departed from wisdom. From which it is clear that you all make the same mistake in your application of names. For you have compared both Jamnes and Mambres to peace-loving Catholics, and yourselves, who are schismatics, you have compared to Moses----something very far removed from the truth. And some of your foolish colleagues have thought well to pass judgement on the wise, so as to say that the lovers of Peace have become fools and have refused to understand that their own fathers have, through their dissension, lose their savour 123. 124 |298
Pseudo-Optatus, Passage A (see p. 276, l. 21).
If at that time they had thought it right, for the sake of Peace, to enter into unity, even they would not have been repelled by the Church, since in their case dire straits 125 made excuse for the will. For not any of them had been voluntarily Betrayers; otherwise, this sin of theirs might have been likened to other transgressions.
Whatever God has willed not to be done, He has forbidden by His Mouth----even as He has said:
'Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery,' 126
and the rest. He might have also forbidden what was done by your fathers. But since that which the mind does is one thing, whereas that which circumstances bring about is quite another, whatever is within the power of man to effect is fit matter for prohibition, but whatever evil deeds are brought about through necessity may not be blamed with much violence. Therefore wilful sins receive punishment, those done through necessity receive pardon.
The murderer, who is not compelled to his crime by any man, is free to do the deed; he is also free to leave it undone; the adulterer, who is compelled by no one from outside, can commit adultery or not, as he chooses. Similarly with other matters of like nature, where free choice exists.
Accordingly, when those things are done, which have been forbidden, they are destined for judgement; when things which have not been forbidden are done through some sort of necessity, perchance He who was unwilling |299 to forbid them, may deign easily to pardon. So with regard to this crime 127 which might have been brought against your fathers as a deadly 128 offence----if at that time they had been exposed, or brought to judgement concerning it, they might have come to their own rescue by alleging more than one example. For we read that in the first times 129 the Tables of the Law were broken,130 also that Books were given up or cut and burned,131 but that no one was condemned.
If (as I have just said) your fathers' deeds had then been laid bare----if they could have been brought to judgement----without doubt they might have pleaded that they had done no more than was done by Moses the Lawgiver. Although necessity and free will have no resemblance, but are contrary to one another, [yet] since (so far as the legal name is concerned) there was the same case for your fathers as for Moses, your fathers might have said 132 that they, through necessity, did what Moses had of his free will done first. In his indignation with the people, he did not consider that God had written with His own finger----and what has been written in heaven is more than what has been written on earth----nor did he reflect that what the Finger of God has written is not the same 133 as that which has been written with a pen made by the hand of a man. Moses carried what he had received in the Cloud, and your fathers gave up what they had made for payment. With reason, then, might your fathers have defended themselves, arguing that it was not a deadly 134 offence, if anyone of them had done, when |300 terrified by an excessive fear, what Moses had done through anger. Neither do we read that the Lord was wroth with Moses, nor that He avenged those broken Tables which He had written with His own Hand, nor that Moses was termed a sinner or punished. The Law came from God in the same way that water comes from a fountain, or that fruit 135 is cut from a tree without injury to its root. That which has been used 136 is not lost, provided that it is safely preserved in its source.137 Similarly, Moses was not condemned after he had scattered and broken to pieces 138 the Tables of the Law. And subsequently he was called back, went up Mount Sinai,139 was permitted to speak with God, and received a second time the Law now renewed, as has been disclosed by the title of the book, which in Greek is called Deuteronomy.140 You see that in the Law that which had been preserved safe in its Source was not lost. But lest anyone should suppose that Moses had merit in a certain boldness with God due to his converse with Him, and that it was for this cause that God was not displeased with him, and that, this being so, it was fitting for friendship always to demand and receive its |301 reward and fruit----why then was he afterwards punished for another offence? Was it not to show that what he had done in his wrath was a venial 141 offence? The Law was safe in God,142 even after it, together with the Tables of Stone, had been broken by man; whereas [on the other occasion] through not rendering that reverence which was due from man, Moses deserved the penalty of dying in the midst of his journey, so that he entered not into the Land of Promise 143----from which it is clear that something, which, as in the present example,144 could escape without punishment,145 cannot be looked upon as a very great sin.
If this had been pleaded by your fathers, who could have refused them communion? And again, if they had put forward instances, which followed afterwards, in which we read of what happened when the renewed 146 Law was kept in the Ark, and the people of Israel were conquered in battle. The Law, which by the advice of the people 147 was borne in the Ark against the enemy, could not be guarded by the priests themselves and by the rest of the children of Israel, but far from being carried away [in safety] was given up 148 to the enemy.149 When the Law had been given up,148 those who had urged its being brought forward fled away in panic, and we do not read that they suffered any punishment in consequence. If this example had been alleged 150 by your fathers, who would have been able to repel them from his communion? Again, (what would have happened) if your leaders had not kept silence concerning those cases in which we read that Baruch gave up to Judin the Scribe the book of the |302 Law which he had received from the lips of Jeremiah the Prophet, and that the king's chief men commanded both Baruch himself, who had received the book, and Jeremiah, through whom God had spoken, to escape and lie hid? Jeremiah dictated, Baruch surrendered----both fled. The book was brought to Joachim the king. Now the king, in consequence of the coldness of the season, had a brazier 151 burning before him----so, as he was not pleased to hear the book recited by Judin the Scribe, he at once tore it up into small fragments 152 and consigned it to the flames. And God was wroth neither with Jeremiah who fled, nor with Baruch who fled with him and surrendered the book. For if God had been wroth with them, He would have spoken to some other Prophet. He did not speak to any other, but to Jeremiah himself, for thus do we read:
'The Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after the King burned the chapter of the book 153 and the words, which Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah. God said to Jeremiah: " Take to thyself another paper and write all thy words, which were formerly written in the book, that was burned by Joachim, king of Judah."' 154
So we see that neither was God wroth, nor did the book which had been burned perish, nor was Baruch punished, nor was Jeremiah disowned by God.155 From this it is clear that something, which no punishment ever followed, was at no time a serious fault.156 If your fathers had alleged these examples, who could have rejected them from communion? So when God saw that the Tables of the Law had been broken by Moses, and that the Ark had been abandoned to its foes, and that the book of the Law, after it had been given up by Baruch, was both cut up and burned, He showed His Providence and promised |303 that He would write the Law henceforward neither on Tables nor in Books, but in the very inward parts of man 157 ----that is, on the mind and heart of each believer, even as He had written it in the heart of Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the other Patriarchs, who, without the Law, certainly lived according to the Law.158 This is proved by the blessed Apostle Paul, when he says:
'Written not with ink, but by the Spirit of the Living God, not on Tables of Stone, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart.' 159
After the Law had been broken by Moses, and abandoned by the children of Israel to their enemies, and torn up and burned (when offered by Baruch to Joachim the king)----before the Christian times in which later on God would write in a better way----God pointed out a law through the Prophet, when He said:
'For this is My Covenant, which I will provide for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah, and after those days, saith the Lord, I will give My Laws and will write them in their heart and in their minds.' 160
This He promised long ago and has last of all fulfilled in Christian times. Therefore the Book is now in the second place; in the second place are the parchments.161 If God wrote the Law there, where it could not be betrayed ----so that your fathers, who had already believed in the Trinity, although they gave up the books, gave up neither their own hearts nor minds, in which God, according to His Promise, had already written His Law----on what ground, my brother Parmenian, have you said that the Law was completely burned by the Betrayers? Behold, neither has it been completely burned, nor has it been wholly taken away, so long as it both remains in the |304 hearts of the Faithful, and thousands of books are everywhere read aloud.162 From these considerations it is evident that you have, though in ignorance, taken on you to accuse your fathers in vain. If, therefore, it would have been impossible to repel even your fathers from communion, had they at the time of Unity brought forward so many examples which might have been reasonably alleged, how much more impossible is it to reject you, who are certainly not Betrayers, but the sons of Betrayers; since a distinction has to be made between both the persons and the names of fathers and sons, and where the sin has not been shared, there the same judgement cannot be passed?
Although if they had been brought into unity,163 and had come to the Catholic Church of their own accord.... etc.164 |305
Pseudo-Optatus Passage B (see p. 279, line 3).
Nor would he have visited upon the fathers any offences perchance committed by the sons. Since, therefore, the Law was renewed in the times of Moses without any man being punished, and the Ark of the Covenant was freely restored by the enemy, and at God's command a second book was written by Jeremiah,165 why is it thought that your fathers alone committed a deadly 166 sin, when they did something, on account of which, in so many instances, no one was condemned?
For if the Law was given for this purpose, that men should be taught, not that the Law itself should be as it were worshipped in the place of God, then, after your fathers' sin, though individuals 167 lost their volumes 168 under the pressure of fear, yet the mass of the Faithful 169 suffered no loss. For the Law, which had been necessary, 170 still has its force 171 amongst the teachers of the people and the worshippers of God. The libraries are filled with books. Nothing is wanting to the Church. In different places 172 the divine praises are everywhere proclaimed. The mouths of the lectors keep not silence. The hands of all are full of volumes 173 [of Scripture]. Nothing is lacking to the people who wish to be taught----although the law would not seem to have been written more for the sake of teaching, than for that of the judgement to |306 come, in order that the sinner may know what may befall him, should he not live rightly. Thus has it been written, and thus do we read, that
'the Law has not been given for the just,'
because
'every just man is himself a law unto himself.' 174
And in another place the blessed Apostle Paul also says that the Law does not make men just, but itself loves justice.175 It is results which are always looked for in all those things that produce results.176 The Law, which produces results, is not needed,177 when the result is obtained in a quicker way.178 It was not said to Abraham: 'Believe,' but he believed of his own accord 179 ----so in him the result of the Law was made complete without the Law. We do not read:
'Abraham heard the Law and believed,'
but we do read:
'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for justice.' 180
And in the earliest times the Patriarch Noah did nothing by which he might become just, yet he as a just man was chosen to build the Ark, in which during the Deluge 181 he might navigate the waters with success. It were a long task to go through all the cases individually of all who, without the Law, were found to be just. |307
If these things had been pleaded by your fathers, who would then have rejected them from his communion? Again, [what would have happened] if they had asserted that what the Apostle says of those who are outside the Law 182 ought not to be passed over in silence?
'the nations, that know not the Law, do the things that belong to the Law, for they have the Law written in their hearts.' 183
For many are known to have sinned with the Law,184 and many to have lived well without the Law. The Law and Man are two things, but they cannot be on an equality,185 for Man was not made for the Law, but the Law was given for the sake of men. I do not see that injury has anywhere been done to God, so long as the source 186 of the Law remains with Him. After the Scripture has been given up----so it is said----by your fathers, it wants for nothing, all the members of the Law are sound----are safe, and are read aloud. There is, for those who desire to teach and to be taught, nothing less than there was of the Law. Was it then necessary for man to be slain rather than that any Scripture should be given up? Again, men have not been slain, yet all the Scriptures are here without diminution. The Law and God are not one and the same thing. If they had had to die for God, who can both raise up the dead and give reward, [well and good]; but a book that has not been surrendered cannot do even the second of these two things.187
Therefore, necessity shackles [a man's] own strength of will.188 We often see that carelessness is as disastrous |308 as necessity. For if the parchments or the books, in which the canonical 189 Scripture is contained, must be kept totally unimpaired, why are not some careless people condemned? There is no wide gulf between giving up 190 and placing in a bad situation, or treating badly. One man has placed the book in a house, which has been burned down in a fire. Let him be condemned, who carelessly placed the book in that house, if another is to be condemned who through fear gave up the book that he knew would be demanded of him. Let them also be condemned, who placed neglected parchments, or books, where they might be gnawed by little household animals 191 (that is by mice) in such a way that they could not be read. Let him be condemned, as well, who has placed them in a part of the house, where, in consequence of too great abundance of rain, water has dropped through the eaves from the roof, so that all the writing has been washed away by the wet, and can no longer be read. Let those too be condemned, who have been rash enough to entrust themselves, together with the books of the Law, to the hungry waves of the sea, and in their eagerness to save their lives, when in the water, have let the Scriptures slip from their hands. Accordingly if the Scripture be the same 192 always, and, if he who has not been able to save it, is guilty----then, one has given it up to the waves, another has abandoned it to rodents,193 another has carelessly allowed it to be spoiled by the dropping water, and yet another, terrified by the fear of death, has, as man, given it to man. If all have done the same thing,194 why is one chosen out to be condemned----and this, even though the fault of the Betrayer is lighter than is that of him who has been careless? He who placed it in the way of mice, or left it under the dropping water, with his will was careless, whilst he who lost it in the river, sinned through rashness. He who through the fear of death gave anything up, gave it as a |309 man to a man. It was whole whilst with the giver, it remained whole in the hands of the receiver. If he who received it, gave it up to the flames, this is the sin of the one who burned it, not of him who surrendered it. If these things had been urged by your fathers, how could we have rejected them from our communion? Or if again they had thought well to refer to the times of King Antiochus,195 when all the Jews were compelled to surrender their Books to be burned, and the whole of the Scripture was given up so completely that not a letter 196 remained in any one book? Not one of the Jews was then condemned, nor was any sentence pronounced against any Jew either by God or by some angel, because the sin was his who commanded and threatened, not the people's who surrendered with fearfulness and sorrow. And in order that this Antiochus should do no injury to His people in these early days,197 God immediately provided for one man Esdras,198 who was called a Reader at the time, to dictate the whole as it had been before, to the minutest point.199 In this way the tyrant Antiochus was not able to enjoy the fruit of his wickedness,200 since (with the exception of the Seven Brothers and one old man who refused to eat swine's flesh) 201 he killed no Jew, and yet the Law could not be destroyed.202 In the same way your fathers too in their day were not killed, and yet all the books of the Law of the Lord are read aloud everywhere. If, as I have urged above, your fathers had pointed out these things, who would not have received them into his communion without fear,203 since, as has been said, their sin was a sin of necessity, not of the will 204? Your fathers, who are proved,....etc.205 |310
Pseudo-Optatus, Passage C (see p. 279, 1. 16).
... for if one who has sinned, as did your ancestors, comes to the Church to plead the necessity of his case, first of all let him be received, and then sheltered 206 in the kindly bosom of Mother Church.
Nor ought any man, etc.207
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered. The positions of A, B, and C have been indicated in {} in the text as part of the online edition. The printed copy from which this was made was defective at a couple of points in the footnotes: these are indicated in {} below.]
1. 1 {Note to the online edition: defective printed text here} (cf. i, 7; ii, 5 etc.), i.e. that the effects of Baptism were derived from the sanctity of their recipients, not from God.
2. 2 responsorum dictorumque nostrorum.
3. 3 pullulare.
4. 4 ad unam communionem.
5. 1 revera sufficiebat sibi Ecclesia Catholica habens innumerabiles populos in provinciis universis.
6. 2 domesticum iudicium. At the Council of Cirta in Numidia.
7. 3 Against those who had consecrated Majorinus.
8. 4 ne invidia esset. Du Pin forgets the 'malice' against Secundus (cf. 'et cum ipse Secundus a Purpurio increparetur,' i, 14), when he understands 'ne invidia esset' to mean here 'that they might not be reproached with the expulsion of so many Bishops.'
9. 5 Balduinus in his second Edition inserted here the passage A which I print at the end of the Book (p. 298).
10. 6 adductos (cf. in, 11: 'quem fides adduxerit').
11. 1 non sine voluntate Dei (St. Optatus often uses this phrase, as also its equivalent cum voluntate Dei).
12. 2 Ez. xviii, 4.
13. 3 in ipsis natalibus mundi.
14. 4 dum non pertinuit ad Seth, filium Adae, patris admissum. From the theological point of view this has been considered the most difficult passage to be found in the works of St. Optatus. St. Augustine writes (de Haer. 19): 'Sethiani nomen acceperunt a filio Adae, qui vocatus est Seth. Eum quippe honorant, sed fabulosa et haeretica vanitate.' The Sethitic legend is distinctly African. Julius Africanus is quoted as one of the first Christian writers to extol this Patriarch unduly, and the legend went on growing. Some, therefore, have thought that St. Optatus had received unawares a false tradition from heretical sources about Seth. Thus Casaubon writes with regard to this passage of Optatus: 'Non ego is iam, qui gravius quidquam de viro sancto pronuntiaverim. Id tantum dicam, vereri me, ne imprudenti et incauto illi haec exciderint, quae saevioris examinis acrimoniam aegre sustineant.' All the other commentators pass the passage over in silence. But is it not almost certain that St. Optatus had not the doctrine of original sin before his mind at all? With much probability it may be urged that the question here concerns not Adam qua father of the human race, but Adam considered as any other father. In this sense it is clear that Adam's sins were not attributed to his son Seth any more than are the sins of any other father attributed to any other son. We must always bear in mind that Optatus wrote before the rise of the Pelagian heresy. Still, the difficulty will remain unanswered: Why should Optatus in this connection have mentioned Seth rather than Abel, or even Cain?
15. 1 Ex. xx, 5.
16. 2 voces.
17. 3 Matt. xxvii, 25.
18. 4 conpetentibus.
19. 5 vox.
20. 1 Here Balduinus inserted B, the second doubtful passage. I have printed it immediately after A (p. 305).
21. 2 And here C; it may be found on page 310.
22. 3 Matt. vii, 1; Luke vi, 37.
23. 1 resignet. CGv designet.
24. 2 I John i, 8.
25. 3 ager, qui est totus orbis, in quo est Ecclesia. If St. Augustine at the Conference at Carthage had remembered and employed these careful words of St. Optatus----'the field in which is the Church,' he would have been saved a tiresome discussion with his Donatist adversaries. The Donatists naturally and triumphantly replied to the argument of the Catholics that the tares had to grow up with the wheat in the Field, and that the Field is the Church: 'Oh no, on the contrary, the Maker of the world Himself has said that the Field is the world. Now "the world has not known the Father." But if (as you say) the Church is the Field, it is also the world, for "the Field is the world." Therefore the Church has not known the Father! Which is absurd.' To this ingenious syllogism St. Augustine had to rely upon a long explanation as to the different meaning of the word 'world' in Holy Scripture (Gesta Coll. Carthag. Diei iii, cclxv-cclxxxi; Brev. Coll. iii, 10). No exception could have been taken to the statement of Optatus 'the Church is in the world.' Had it been used, the Donatists would have been deprived of one of their many opportunities of wasting time.
26. 4 praecepta salutaria.
27. 5 homo est malus, id est diabolus.
28. 6 inportuna peccata. In contrast with the wholesome precepts ('praecepta salutaria') of Christ, concerning which Optatus has just written. (Christ's precepts save us; sins harm us cruelly.) Inportunitas has been used in the sense of inmanitas in ii, 18 (cf. however iii, 7, where inportune is used for unseasonably, which may perhaps be the meaning here----'unseasonable sins').
29. 1 per tenebras.
30. 2 nascuntur diversa semina.
31. 3 in Ecclesia non est similis turba animarum.
32. 4 adductos, sc. ad Ecclesiam Catholicam (cf. last chapter: 'ad Ecclesiam Catholicam... non sine voluntate Dei adductos').
33. 5 nutritos.
34. 6 una pluvia nutritos. Thus Du Pin. Ziwsa places a comma after pluvia, making una pluvia depend not upon nutritos, but upon preceding natos = 'born with us from one water----that is to say, nourished from the one Baptism.' It must be admitted that, strictly speaking, not nourishment but birth comes from Baptism, but on the other hand seeds are not born from rain. For this reason I prefer on the whole Du Pin's punctuation, and have translated accordingly.
35. 7 sine exterminio.
36. 1 aliena.
37. 2 in agro Suo per totum orbem terrarum, in quo est Una Ecclesia.
38. 3 post crementa communia. Crementum (literally increase) is an unusual Low Latin variant of incrementum.
39. 4 quid est Suum et quid alienum.
40. 5 in horreo.
41. 6 destinet.
42. 7 interminata.
43. 8 repraesentet.
44. 9 si sibi totum vindicet. The context tells us that the totum here refers to the power of judgement and especially of separation. If any Bishop were now to separate all sinners from the Visible Church, there could not be that separation by Christ, on the Day of Judgement, of the tares from the wheat, and of the goats from the sheep, of which we read in the Gospels. It is hardly necessary to say that the Church has never at any time claimed to judge in foro interno, that is, concerning the conscience or interior state and fixture lot of any man.
45. 1 professio.
46. 2 The words in square brackets are only to be found in C and Codex Tilianus.
47. 3 unitatis adsequi formam. Unitatis forma = the idea of unity presented by Christ and externally realised in the Visible Church. It is very difficult to translate forma, as used by St. Optatus, into English (cf. v, 5 formam baptizandi; i, 21 exemplorum formam; v, 3 formam humilitatis; vii, 6 iudicandi formam; v, 14 quam formam habet mens). It is obviously impossible to render forma in these passages by the same English word, though the idea is the same in all of them----a rule or concept, clothed, as it were, before our eyes, in order that we may adhere to it.
48. 4 forma unitatis retinendae vel faciendae.
49. 5 vindictae suae.
50. 6 vindicare.
51. 1 Cf. Matt. x, 33; Luke xii, 9.
52. 2 The passage in square brackets is a clumsy interpolation. It is, however, to be found in C and Codex Tilianus.
53. 3 bono unitatis beatus Petrus... et praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit et claves regni caelorum communicandas ceteris solus accepit. After communicandas some Gallican and Anglican authorities have supplied a Christo. Thus Dr. Pusey (Note R to Tertullian, Oxford Translation of the Fathers). Similarly Mr. Denny (op. cit., n. 1165) writes 'that is, as Bossuet says, that Peter first received the keys which were afterwards to be imparted to the Apostles (Matt, xviii and John xx), but to be imparted not by Peter, but by Christ, as is clear.' Dr. Pusey sends us to Du Pin. Now it is curious that in his edition of St. Optatus Du Pin has no note whatsoever on this passage. Dr. Pusey, however, refers to his De Antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina Dissertationes historicae, where we read as follows (Diss. iv, cap. i): 'communicandas ceteris (id est quod Christus commendaturus erat ceteris).' But it should be noted that neither Du Pin nor Bossuet nor Denny say one single word in support of their view that a Christo should be understood after the word communicandas in this passage of Optatus. It is simple assertion, to which Bossuet adds the words 'as is clear' (Defensio Decl. Cleri Gallicani, pars III, lib. viii, cap. xii, tom. ii, p. 90); on the other hand, it should be observed that we nowhere read either in Matt. xviii or in John xx----the passages referred to by Bossuet----that Christ gave the Keys to the other Apostles. With regard to the words of St. Optatus we may note in the first place that we shall search in vain for any passage where he states that Christ gave the Keys to 'the other Apostles'; on the contrary Optatus says expressly, both here and in i, 10 ('ut haeretici omnes neque claves habeant, quas solus Petrus accepit'), that Peter alone received them; so that for the Gallican interpretation of this passage to be possible we should have to change the word solus to primus----the alone of Optatus for the first of Bossuet; secondly that, though Optatus uses the verb communicare in eighteen places, in every other case it is used intransitively----twice absolutely and fifteen times with the dative----in the technical sense of ecclesiastical communion (to be in communion with). Here however we find the usual classical construction, communicare aliquid (here claves) cum aliquo or alicui (here ceteris). Communicare aliquid alicui always means in Latin to give something (e.g. information, power, here the Keys) to someone else, without ceasing to possess it oneself----to make it a common possession shared between oneself and the other (cf. Liv. Lib. xxiii, 5: 'Civitatem nostram magnae parti vestrum dedimus communicavimusque vobiscum,' and Cicero De Inv. ii, 39: 'Praemia virtutis non oportet cum improbis communicari'). This is undeniable and forces us to see that the gloss a Christo is impossible----apart from the exigencies of controversy----and does violence to the text, to which indeed it is in direct opposition. The meaning is clea beyond all doubt----'the Keys which he was to communicate to the rest.' St. Peter had to impart to the other Apostles, for them to use also, the Keys which, as their 'Head' (cf. infra), he had himself alone received from Christ.
54. 1 Once more St. Optatus identifies 'charity' in this famous passage with unity (cf. iii, 8: 'si beatus Paulus... pronuntiat se nihil esse, nisi caritatem habuerit, videte an non dicantur martyres... caritatis [i.e. unitatis] desertores').
55. 2 onera vestra invicem sustinete. Cf. Gal. vi, 2.
56. 3 magnanimis.
57. 4 1 Cor. xiii, 4, 5.
58. 1 Harnack quotes this sentence and observes: 'That is still a dangerous fundamental thought of Catholicism at the present day.'
59. 2 utilitas.
60. 3 diligenter.
61. 4 ad quam formam.
62. 5 ipsius Sancti Petri beatitudo veniam tribuat. In the same spirit St. Augustine carefully praises St. Cyprian before combating his views as to Rebaptism of heretics (e.g. De Baptis. con. Donat. vii, 1: 'Et beatus Cyprianus quidem iam corpore quod corrumpitur non aggravante animam nec deprimente terrena habitatione sensum multa cogitantem serenius aspicit veritatem quam meruit adipisci per caritatem talem. Adiuvet itaque nos orationibus suis in istius carnis mortalitate' etc.).
63. 1 multa errata.
64. 2 in uno titulo eius.
65. 3 omnia debere Deo servari, sc. for the Judgement of God. (Cf. i, 14: 'Secundus consilium accepit... ut talem caussam Deo servaret... hi dixerunt talem caussam Deo debere reservari.')
66. 4 dilatatum est.
67. 5 Matt. xvi, 15-17.
68. 6 pro qua agnitione.
69. 7 instinctu Dei Patris.
70. 8 The passage in square brackets is to be found only in C and Codex Tilianus.
71. 1 John xvi, 32; Matt. xxvi, 31.
72. 2 non recessurum.
73. 3 Matt. xxvi, 34.
74. 4 de numero apostolorum separari non meruit.
75. 1 stant tot innocentes ---- are standing unfallen (cf. ii, 25). (Possibly stant = are standing by----so Ziwsa in Index s.v. stare.)
76. 2 unitatis negotium.
77. 3 formaretur (cf. p. 283, note 3).
78. 4 It was provided that St. Peter ('the sinner') should open for the other Apostles ('the guiltless').
79. 5 A schismatic or other sinner could not comply with the command of living within the Unity of the Church ('the unity which is necessary'), unless recovery were possible for him on repentance. So Peter holds the Keys, and through his ministry the gates of the Church on earth and of Paradise above are always open for the sinner who will turn from sin and seek the admittance which will never be denied him.
80. 6 quando. Quando in several places is used by St. Optatus to = How (e.g. ii, 21).
81. 7 pio sinu.
82. 8 Eccles. x, 1.
83. 9 illum scilicet liquorem.
84. 10 ex.
85. 1 Albaspinaeus observes that the heretics of his day in like manner called the holy Chrism 'oil' out of contempt. This fact is familiar to all students of the letters of both the English and foreign Reformers. They habitually wrote of Ordination as 'greasing.'
86. 2 antequam fiat.
87. 3 de.
88. 4 suavitas de confectione, i.e. through consecration.
89. 5 quisquis est talis tractator ex vobis.
90. 6 si apud vos putatis esse confectionem. Catholic writers often use the phrase conficere sacramentum, and even conficere Corpus Domini.
91. 7 Catholics never questioned the validity of Donatist orders. Consequently such an Episcopal act as the consecration of Chrism (however illicitly) was validly performed.
92. 8 merito.
93. 9 The baptised man was regarded as baptised, the priest as a priest, the Bishop as a Bishop, etc.
94. 1 By re-baptising or re-confirming or re-ordaining converts from Donatism.
95. 2 oleum tale esse, quale et natum est. Cf. natus est hoc facere in late Latin (it is his nature to do this), and the classical fruges consumere nati (whose nature it is).
96. 3 conficiatur.
97. 4 confectum.
98. 5 quomodo possumus uno facto et conficere et corrumpere?
99. 1 suavitas enim legitur non natura posse corrumpi (cf. supra).
100. 2 exclusa.
101. 3 cutem conscientiae.
102. 4 sc. sweetness derived from consecration.
103. 5 unde condirentur mores.
104. 6 salutarem.
105. 7 vos exterminatis rem ubi oleum fuit et suavitas.
106. 1 You have repeated not only Baptism, but also Confirmation.
107. 2 Matt. xii, 22. Casaubon thinks that St. Optatus could not have made this quotation, and that it slipped in from a marginal note. It is quite true that the object of St. Optatus, which was to show that the Donatists were not only muscae (flies) but also muscae moriturae (flies that were about to die), would have been attained without the quotation. It would have been enough for his purpose to have said that their rebaptising was a great sin and that 'sin without pardon----until it is pardoned----is death.' But unhappily he has already said (v, 3) that rebaptising (as involving a certain exorcism of the Holy Ghost) is that sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness in this world, or in the world to come. So hard was it to kill rigorism in the African Church, that we find it even in unexpected places. Still, we rejoice to find that St. Optatus is not always consistent with himself in this terrible severity. We have seen how clear he was that even these rebaptisers should have been reconciled with the Church, had they been willing.
108. 3 dissolvere.
109. 1 2 Tim. iii, 2.
110. 2 Cf. 2 Tim. iii, 8; Ex. vii, 11.
111. 3 Cathedram Petri et claves regni caelorum a Christo concessas, ubi est nostra societas, numquid poteris adprobare mendacium? (cf. ii, 23: 'Negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma... societate concordat'). The Donatists claimed that they possessed the truth. To this Optatus opposed the authority of the Catholic Church and set out the grounds of Catholic security in three pertinent questions:
(a) Is it a lie (a delusion) to appeal to the fact of communion with the Catholic Church throughout the world? 'Is it a delusion that we are in one communion with the whole [Catholic] world,?'
(b) Is it a delusion that we keep and guard the Creed? 'Is it a delusion that we keep and defend the true and one Creed?'
(c) Is the Chair of Peter a delusion? 'But you cannot deny that you know that Peter established his Chair at Rome.' Or, is it a delusion that we are in communion with that Chair? Or, is it, perhaps, a delusion that Christ gave the Keys of Heaven to Peter?----the Keys of Heaven which, through our communion with the Chair of Peter, we share ('ubi est nostra societas': cf. i, 12; ii, 4; ii, 9).
Is this all a falsehood----a mere delusion? ('Numquid poteris adprobare mendacium?')
Such is the argument of Optatus. He appealed just as Catholics appeal to-day (and as they always have appealed):
1. To communion with the Catholic Church in other lands,
2. To the possession of the Creed,
3. To communion with the Chair of Peter.
This is the ultimate assurance of safety for a Catholic that he is in the true Church of Christ----the Soliditas Cathedrae Petri. This is no freak of the imagination (mendacium). Here beyond all doubt we find and here we possess the great reality.
112. 1 Moses came first, before Pharaoh, and though Jamnes and Mambres worked the same miracles, yet Moses had precedence and prescriptive right. (Cf. Exod. vii, 11.) St. Optatus here passes to another great argument for the Catholic Church. It is 'in possession.'
113. 2 ut Moyses prior est, sic et Catholica prior est.
114. 3 rebelles contra veram Catholicam militatis (cf. 'contra Cathedram Petri sacrilegio militatis,' ii, 5).
115. 4 plural----Donatists in general.
116. 5 singular----Parmenian in particular.
117. 1 iamdudum de Catholica lapsi.
118. 2 erroris divitias dederunt spiritui et pulmonibus suis.
119. 3 sal infatuatum. Cf. S. Aug. De Serm. Dom. i, 6: 'si sal infatuatum fuerit, in quo salietur... ergo ad nihilum valet sal infatuatum, nisi ut mittatur foras, et calcetur ab hominibus... qui persecutionem timendo infatuatur, calcatur ab hominibus,' and S. Hilar. in Matt. iv: 'si sal infatuatum fuerit, ad nihilum valet id quod salietur.'
120. 4 St. Optatus forgot for a moment that salt does not produce sweetness.
121. 1 aliter.
122. 2 quasi infatuatos (with reference to sal infatuatum supra).
123. 3 infatuatos esse.
124. 4 Chapters VI and VII have been placed at the end of Book III, to which they belong as an Appendix (v. p. 175-179).
125. 1 necessitas. Here this word does not mean necessity literally, but rather dire straits.
126. 2 Exodus xx, 13, 14.
127. 1 There is here an anacoluthon in the Latin.
128. 2 capitate.
129. 3 primis temporibus.
130. 4 Cf. Ex. xxxii, 19; Deut. ix, 17.
131. 5 vel incisi et incensi.
132. 6 cum eodem nomine legis parentum vestrorum et Moysi una fuerit caussa, possent dicere parentes vestri etc. Both Du Pin and Ziwsa print a full stop after caussa, but this punctuation seems to obscure the sense.
133. 7 unum.
134. 8 capitate.
135. 1 poma.
136. 2 quod erogatum est.
137. 3 si in origine sua salvum est.
138. 4 post tabulas sparsas legis et comminutas.
139. 5 Cf. Ex. xxxiv, 2; Deut. x, 1.
140. 6 et secundum legem innovatam accepit, quam prodiit titulus libri, qui Graeco vocabulo Deuteronomos scribitur. For prodiit Casaubon conjectured prodidit. I have translated secundum as an adverb = secundo, though for this it is hard to find authority. Ziwsa in his index says that secundum is here a preposition, but it is very difficult thus to get even fair sense. 'He received the renewed Law in accordance with the Law' hardly seems satisfactory. I am much tempted to think that secundum is a mistake for secundam. The reference to Deuteronomy makes this to me almost certain. ('The very title Deuteronomy,' our author seems to say, 'bears witness to the second Law.') But as secundam has no MS. authority, and has occurred to no one else, I have not ventured to translate it in the text. It is hardly necessary to say that in Greek Deuteronomy means 'The Second Law,'
141. 1 leve.
142. 2 Cf. Rom. vii, 12.
143. 3 Cf. Num. xx, 12; Deut. i, 37.
144. 4 in praesenti exemplo. Casaubon suggests in praecepta = against the Commandments. But in praesenti exemplo means as contrasted with the later offence of striking the rock.
145. 5 inpune.
146. 6 innovata lex. Cf, p. 300, note 6.
147. 7 populorum.
148. 8 tradita.
149. 9 Cf. 1 Kings v, 1.
150. 10 haec ratio redderetur.
151. 1 arulam ardentem.
152. 2 concisum minutatim. Cf. Jer. xxxvi, 19, 21.
153. 3 capitulum libri.
154. 4 Jer. xxxvi, 27, 28.
155. 5 nec Hieremias a Deo contemptus est.
156. 6 gravis culpa.
157. 1 in ipso interiori homine.
158. 2 legitime sine lege.
159. 3 2 Cor. iii, 3.
160. 4 Jer. xxxi, 33. (Cf. Heb. x, 16.)
161. 5 secundo loco est charta, secundo loco membranae.
162. 1 librorum milia ubique recitantur.
163. 2 quamquam et si illorum unitas fieret, et si ad Ecclesiam Catholicam sponte venissent, etc. Casaubon suggests that it should be 'etsi illorum unitas fieret,' and that the si in next clause ought to be omitted. If this emendation can be adopted, the translation will be much easier.
164. 3 (See page 276, line 22, for continuation.)
165. 1 Cf. Ex. xxxiv, 28; i Kings vi, 2 seq.; Jer. xxxvi, 27 seq.
166. 2 capitale.
167. 3 unusquisque eorum.
168. 4 codices suos. Codices, according to the original meaning of the word in this connection, were vellum books, which in the course of time had taken the place of rolls.
169. 5 turba credentium.
170. 6 quae necessaria fuerat.
171. 7 valet.
172. 8 per loca singula.
173. 9 mantis omnium codicibus plenae sunt.
174. 1 2 Tim. i, 9 (cf. Rom. ii, 14).
175. 2 Cf. Rom. iii, 10; Gal. ii, 16.
176. 3 semper in omnibus rebus efficientibus effect a quaeruntur.
177. 4 vacat.
178. 5 per compendium paratum est, quod efficitur (paratum est = comparatum est).
179. 6 ultro.
180. 7 Gen. xv, 6 (cf. Rom, iv, 3; Gal. iii, 6; James ii, 23).
181. 8 Cf. Gen. vi.
182. 1 extralegalibus.
183. 2 Cf. Rom. ii, 14.
184. 3 in lege.
185. 4 Lex et Homo duae res sunt, sed pares esse non possunt.
186. 5 origo.
187. 6 liber non traditus de duobus his nec alterum potest. It seems impossible to imagine that this trivial special pleading should be the work of St. Optatus.
188. 7 impedit igitur necessitas vires suas. This is the reading of the MSS, We understand homini. Casaubon suggests impendit.
189. 1 legitima.
190. 2 tradere.
191. 3 domesticae bestiolae.
192. 4 una.
193. 5 rosoribus bestiis.
194. 6 unum.
195. 1 Cf. 1 Maccab. i, 59.
196. 2 apex. Literally a dot or accent or point.
197. 3 primitivo populo.
198. 4 Cf. 1 Esdr. vii.
199. 5 ad apicem.
200. 6 malignitatis suae.
201. 7 Cf. 2 Maccab. vii, 13.
202. 8 lex perire non potuit.
203. 9 intrepide.
204. 10 peccaverat necessitas, non voluntas.
205. 11 (For continuation see p. 279, line 4.)
206. 1 sustinendus.
207. 2 (For continuation see p. 279, line 17.)
For three other probably spurious passages see p. 283, l. 1-4; p. 284, l. 2-5; p. 287, l. 21-22.
[Note to the online edition: pp.311-320, which contain 100 quotations in Latin from Optatus: "A hundred noteworthy sayings of St. Optatus", have been omitted.]
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_08_intro_to_appendix.htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917). Preface to the appendix. pp.321-325.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917). Preface to the appendix. pp.321-325.
PREFACE TO THE APPENDIX
St. Optatus makes several references to the documents which he tells us that he was appending to his work, in order fully to establish the accuracy of his statements. For example, with regard to the Council at Cirta, which was the beginning of all the evil subsequently to be known as Donatism, he appeals to the evidence afforded by the writings of Nundinarius the Deacon, and to the Acts of the Council, which----so he says----
'dubitantibus proferre poterimus, harum namque plenitudinem rerum in novissima parte istorum libellorum ad implendam fidem adiunximus' (i, 14).
In the same way he states (i, 20) that he is appending the letter, in which the Bishops who were responsible for the consecration of Majorinus brought their charges against Caecilian. Again, with regard to the decrees of Eunomius and Olimpius he is able to write (i, 26):
'De iis rebus habemus volumina actorum, quod, si quis voluerit, in novissimis partibus legat.'
These decrees have been lost. But we have still extant (in their entirety or in part) most of the documents which were placed in his Appendix by St. Optatus. |322
The Colbertine MS. (C) has alone preserved for us any part of this Appendix. Moreover we possess this MS. in a very incomplete state. It commences only with the middle of the Sixth Book, and at the end of the Seventh we read:
'Expliciunt Sancti Optati Episcopi Libri Numero VII vel Gesta Purgationis Caeciliani Episcopi et Felicis Ordinatoris Eiusdem. necnon Epistola Constantini Imperatoris. Amen.'
But unfortunately there are many pages wanting between the Gesta Purgationis Caeciliani and the Gesta Purgationis Felicis----so that Duchesne writes that at least as much of the Gesta Purgationis Caeciliani has been lost as yet remains, perhaps double or treble or possibly even more.1 With regard to the Gesta Purgationis Felicis comparatively little is missing, though the account of the inquiry before the Pro-Consul Aelianus starts somewhere in the middle.2
Duchesne has carefully reconstructed the Appendix of St. Optatus,3 and shown that it probably contained the following documents:
I. Acta Purgationis Caeciliani
(1) Gesta apud Zenophilum.
(2) Acts of Cirta.
(3) Synodal letter of Donatist Council at Carthage against Caecilian (lost).
(4) Letter of Pro-Consul Anulinus to Constantine. |323
(5) Supplication of Donatists (in Optatus i, 22).
(6) Letter of Constantine to Miltiades.
(7) Report of Anulinus to Constantine (lost).
(8) Acts of Roman Council (nearly all lost: a fragment in Opt. i, 23, 24).
(9) Letter of Constantine to Eumelius (lost).
(10) Proceedings of Eunomius and Olimpius in Africa (lost).
II. Acta Purgationis Felicis
(11) Letter of Constantine to Aelius (or Aelianus?) (lost).
(12) Letter of Constantine to Probianus.
(13) Acta Purgationis Felicis (the beginning lost).
III Epistola[e] Constantini Imperatoris
Probably, however, the collection of Optatus did not contain the letter of the Council of Arles (though it is found in C), since we find no reference to it in his work.
Of these documents, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 have been quoted or analysed by St. Optatus and St. Augustine; 4 and 12 have been reproduced in their entirety, and 9 in part, by St. Augustine only; 10 was known to St. Optatus only. All these documents, with the exception of 1 and 10, were put in and read at the Conference at Carthage in 411.
I give, in the first place, a translation of everything that we still find in C.
We have part of the two interesting trials----of Felix of Aptunga (the consecrator of Caecilian) on the one side and of Silvanus (one of the consecrators of Majorinus) on the other. By these documents considerable light is thrown upon several details of Roman |324 judicial procedure in Africa during the early years of the fourth century. There are also six letters of Constantine; a short document consisting of a joint letter from officials named Petronius and Julianus; and the well-known synodal letter sent by the Council of Arles, at the conclusion of its labours, to Pope Silvester. These letters have been printed in their chronological order. In each case I have thought it well to prefix a short introduction.
With regard to my translation, perhaps I may be permitted to crave the indulgence of my readers. The great Emperor's sentences (as at least they appear in his letters) are of extraordinary length and complexity, with parenthesis heaped upon parenthesis, so that the task of disentangling them in such a way as to make their meaning intelligible in English, without the sacrifice either of grammar or of verbal accuracy, is one of no small difficulty, as anyone who may make the attempt will discover for himself.
Ziwsa is satisfied with printing these ten documents, but I have also translated and printed the others of St. Optatus' original collection which still remain extant. They are:
xi.----(a) The Acts of the Council of Cirta (to be found nearly complete in Augustine con. Crescon. iii, 30).
xii.----(b) Letter of Anulinus to Constantine (of which the text has been preserved in Augustine Ep. lxxxviii, 2).
xiii.----(c) Letter of Constantine to Miltiades (to be found in Eusebius, H.E. x, 5).
xiv.----(d) Letter of Constantine to Probianus (entire in Augustine con. Crescon. iii, 81).
I give also two official letters (xv, xvi) from |325 Constantine to the Pro-Consul Anulinus, which have been preserved by Eusebius, and throw considerable light on the Emperor's attitude towards Catholics and Donatists respectively at this time (a.d. 313).
In addition to the documents which Duchesne shows to have been contained in the Appendix of Optatus, the following were quoted either by St. Augustine or by the Donatists at the Conference of Carthage (a.d. 411).
(1) Acts of seizure of Sacred Books at Rome in 303 (lost).
(2) Acts of Donatist Martyrs of Abilina (Migne, P.L. viii, 689-703).
(3) Letters of Mensurius and Secundus (lost).
(4) Procès-verbal of the restitution of the Holy Places in Rome to Pope Miltiades by order of the Emperor Maxentius (lost).
(5) The two letters of Constantine preserved by Eusebius (x, 5, 7), which I have printed and numbered xv, xvi.
(6) Three letters of Constantine (lost).
(7) Supplication to Constantine by Donatists, complaining of persecution (lost).
(8) Letter of Constantine to Verinus, May 5, 321 (lost).
[Footnotes moved to the end]
1. 1 Le dossier du Donatisme, p. 9.
2. 2 The famous scholar Stephen Baluze published (in 1680) the Gesta apud Zenophilum and Acta Purgationis Felicis in his Miscellanea (Lib. II).
3. 3 Le dossier du Donatisme, p. 42.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_09_appendix .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Appendix 1. The trial of Felix, Bishop of Aptunga. pp.327-345.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Appendix 1. The trial of Felix, Bishop of Aptunga. pp.327-345.
APPENDIX I.
ACTA PURGATIONIS FELICIS EPISCOPI AUTUMNITANI
INTRODUCTION
The scene of the events described in this document----of which unfortunately a large part is missing----was Carthage. The date is a.d. 314. It is, therefore, exactly sixteen hundred years since Constantine, fresh from his victory over Maxentius and full of zeal for the welfare of the religion which he had so recently embraced, gave orders for the charge of Betrayal brought so persistently against Felix, Bishop of Aptunga, to be heard publicly on the spot----that is to say in Africa. It was indeed notorious that there was no real ground for this charge. But to the Donatists it was a matter of life and death that the truth of their accusation against the consecrator of Caecilian should be substantiated, or at any rate generally accepted. Otherwise any attempt to justify their schism broke down of itself. When the matter was gone into at Rome under Pope Miltiades, it had been admitted that no accusation was made against Caecilian personally.1 The whole |328 question really concerned Felix. Consequently Caecilian was declared at Rome to be the rightful Bishop of Carthage, and the legates Eunomius and Olimpius promulgated the Roman decree at Carthage itself. Still the Donatists remained obstinate, and represented to Constantine that their case had not been fairly heard, but that the judges had shut themselves up and given their verdict without any regard to the weight of evidence.2 Thus it came to pass that a certain Alfius Caecilianus 3 was ordered to go before the Proconsul's court at Carthage, there to give an account of a former investigation of this same matter which had been held at the time when he was himself duovir. He was told to bring with him the men who had been his secretary and notary respectively. The name of the Proconsul before whom the trial was to be heard was Aelianus. With Aelianus were at least three commissioners or assessors (though their name of duovirs seems to us somewhat quaintly out of keeping with this fact), Gallienus, Fuscius and Sisenna.
The case heard at Rome had direct reference to Caecilian. Now, the case of Felix was to be examined anew, without any reference to Caecilian, on its own merits.4 We shall see that Aelianus required the Acts of the former African trial to be produced and read in extenso. Alfius Caecilianus, in consequence of his age, had been excused from going to the Imperial Court and had made a deposition before the duovir Aurelius Didymus Speretius. It was shown that the letter upon which the Donatists relied to convict Felix had been interpolated (or rather |329 added to) by a certain Ingentius. This Ingentius was secretary to one Augentius, who had been fellow-aedile with Caecilianus. After these Acts had been read the counsel Apronianus insisted on questioning Caecilianus, who explained in some detail his dealings with Ingentius.
Ingentius had falsely represented that Felix had told him that he had certain valuable codices in his possession----and that their owner now wanted them back----so would Ingentius obtain a letter from Caecilianus stating that they had been burned when he was duovir? Thus Felix would be able to steal the codices! Had Caecilianus given the letter, as requested, it was to have been used as a proof that Felix had been a Betrayer. It was an ingenious plot; but it failed. At first Caecilianus would not write anything. In the end Ingentius induced Augentius to persuade Caecilianus to write a letter of some kind. This letter has been almost wholly lost, but it is clear that from the point of view of Ingentius it was quite unsatisfactory, as it contained nothing which would have been of any value for his purpose. So Ingentius forged the interpolation, which had been read out at the previous trial. Caecilianus swore that this interpolation was a forgery, and indeed it could not possibly be genuine, since it consisted of an addition (after the original conclusion) purporting to relate a conversation with Felix, who was absent from home at the time. It represents him as giving up the Scriptures privately to a friendly official. This was meant to explain why there was no public proof available of Felix's fall.
The evidence was all against Ingentius, who had to confess to the forgery, under fear of torture. But he tried to make out that he committed his crime through love for a certain Bishop Maurus, who was charged with simony. It was shown, however, that, notwithstanding his oaths to the contrary, he had been an envoy of the Donatist faction throughout Numidia and Mauritania, so that it became |330 clear that the calumny had been invented in the interests of party.
Thus was Felix finally and triumphantly vindicated.
The Donatists, who styled themselves 'the Pure,' were conscious of being themselves Traditores. It was partly in order to cover up their own guilt that they invented the quite baseless charge against Felix, the consecrator of Caecilian Bishop of Carthage.5 That charge once formulated, the next step was to argue that all who communicated with Caecilian----'polluted' by Betrayal----were themselves 'polluted,' even though this conclusion might involve the whole Catholic world in apostasy from Christ. All this has been made clear in the pages of St. Optatus.
The document now before us has vivid touches of dramatic interest, where various scenes are described, as they took place, with much actuality. Sometimes, it must be admitted, we cannot well refrain from asking ourselves how far, with regard to details, play is being given to the exercise of the imagination. But as to the central fact of the innocence of Felix there can be no question, nor as to the justice of the verdict which Optatus tells us was delivered in his favour.6 Whoever else may have behaved discreditably, against Felix of Aptunga there was no evidence. |331
The Acts of the Vindication of Felix, Bishop of Aptunga 7 (the Consecrator of Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage) before Aelianus, Proconsul of Africa, at Carthage, during the Consulate of Volusianus and Aunianus.8
... 9 In the town 10 of Autumna, Gallienus the Duovir said:
'Since, Caecilianus, you are here present, listen to the letter of my lord, the Right Honourable 11 Aelius Paulinus, acting deputy of the Prefect,12 in which, according to his letter addressed to us, he has deigned to command that you and the secretary whom you employed during the period of your administration, and the notary 13 should make a declaration. But, inasmuch as the notary of that time has departed this life, you will have to bring with you all the Acts of your administration, in compliance with the requirements of the letter of my Lord, and you will have to go with your secretary to Carthage. The Curator is present. In his presence we charge you, what answer do you make to this?'
Caecilianus said:
'As soon as you handed to me the letter of the Right Honourable Aelius Paulinus, acting deputy of the Prefect, I sent immediately to my secretary Miccius to come and bring me the Acts which were set down at that time, and he is still searching for them. For no small space of time has passed since I held the office of Duovir. It was eleven |332 years ago. So, as soon as he has found them, I will obey a command of such high dignity.'
Gallienus the Duovir said:
'It is to your interest to obey the command, for you see that it is sacred.14'
Caecilianus said:
'I have due devotion to a command of such great dignity.15'
Then when, a little time after, the secretary Miccius had also arrived, Fuscius the Duovir said:
'Have you too, Miccius, heard that you also have to go with Caecilianus to the office of the Right Honourable Deputy, and bring there with you the documents concerning that time? What have you to say to this?'
Miccius answered:
'The magistrate, when his year of office was completed, took all his Acts home with him.... I am searching to see whether the wax tablet can be found among them. 16'
And whilst he was searching, Quintus Sisenna the Duovir said:
'He has answered according to what the Court already knows.'
Apronianus said:
'If the magistrate took away all his Acts, whence can we procure the Acts which were then made or put together at a time of so great importance?' |333
And, when he said this, Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Both my questions and the answers of the various persons are contained in the Acts.'
Agesilaus said:
'There are besides other letters, necessary for the understanding of this affair. It is of importance that they should be read.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Read them in the hearing of Caecilianus, that he may know whether he dictated them.'
Agesilaus read aloud 17:
During the consulate of Volusianus and Annianus, on the nineteenth of August, in a lawsuit before Aurelius Didymus Speretius, priest of mighty Jupiter, duovir of the magnificent colony of the Carthaginians, Maximus said:
'I speak in the name of the seniors of the Christian people of the Catholic Law.18 The case must be pleaded before the Supreme Emperors against Caecilian and Felix, who strive their utmost to attack the supremacy of that Law.19 The proofs of the charges against them in this matter are being searched for. When persecution was proclaimed against the Christians, that is to say, when they were required to offer sacrifice, or betray whatever Scriptures they might have, to be burned, Felix, who was then Bishop of Autumna, had given his consent for Scriptures to be given up by the hand of Galatius, that they might be committed to the fire. And at that time Alfius Caecilianus, whom you may observe here present, was a magistrate, and since it was then his duty to see that, in accordance with the proconsular command, all should sacrifice, and that, in accordance with the Imperial law,20 they should hand over any Scriptures they might possess, I ask him, since |334 he is here 21 and you see he is an old man and cannot go to the Imperial Court, to make his deposition in the Acts as to whether he gave (as is stated in the Acts 22) a letter in accordance with an agreement which he had already made, and as to whether the statements which he has made in the letter are true----so that the actions and the truthfulness of these persons may be set forth in the trial before the Emperor.'
Speretius the Duovir said to Caecilianus who was present:
'Do you hear what are the depositions in the Acts? '
Alfius Caecilianus said:
'I had gone to Zama with Saturninus to buy linen garments,23 and when we arrived there, the Christians themselves sent to me in the praetorium to ask "Has the Emperor's ordinance reached you?" I answered "No, but I have already seen copies, and have seen churches destroyed and also Scriptures burnt at Zama and Furni. So if you have any Scriptures, bring them forth, that the Emperor's command may be obeyed." Then they sent to the house of the Bishop Felix to bring out the Scriptures from there, that they might be burnt in accordance with the Emperor's decree. So Galatius went with us to the place where they had been accustomed to celebrate their prayers. We took out the Chair and the letters of salutation,24 and afterwards 25 all were burnt in accordance with the Emperor's decree. And when we sent to the house of this Bishop Felix the public officials informed us that he was not there. And when, at a later time,26 Ingentius |335 arrived----the secretary of Augentius, with whom I was aedile----I dictated to that 27 colleague the letter which I wrote to this Bishop Felix.'
Maximus said:
'He is here.28 Let this letter be shown him, that he may recognise it.'
He answered:
'It is the one.'
Maximus said:
'Since he has recognised his own letter, I shall read it, and ask that it be inserted in the Acts in full.'
And he read it aloud:
'Caecilianus to his father Felix, health! Inasmuch as Ingentius has approached my colleague Augentius his friend, and asked whether, in accordance with the Emperor's command, any Scriptures of your Law were burnt in the year when I was aedile 29... my friend Galatius, a Christian,30 publicly brought forth letters of salutation from the Basilica. I wish thee good health.
'This 31 is the proof that the Christians and the owner of the praetorium had written to entreat my mercy----that you said "Take the key and take also whatever books you may find upon the Chair and whatever codices there may be upon the stone. But see, I beg you, that the officials do not take away the oil and wheat." 32 And I said to you "Are you unaware that where Scriptures are found, the house itself is pulled down?" And you said "What then are we to do?" And I said to you "Let one of your people take them out into the court where you make your prayers, and let them be placed there. And I will come with the officials and take them away.' |336
'And we all went there and took everything away in accordance with the Emperor's command.'
Maximus said:
'Since the reading of his letter, which he has acknowledged that he sent, has been placed upon the Acts, we ask that his words should remain upon the Acts.'
Speretius the Duovir said:
'What you have said has been written down.' 33
Agesilaus said:
'With regard to the present letter which he has recognised, he says that the last part which has just been read is a forgery.'
Caecilianus said:
'My lord, I dictated up to the point where we find the words "My dearest father, I wish thee good health." '
Apronianus said:
'Always has it been so, that those who have refused to adhere to the Catholic Church, have acted thus treacherously, by terrorising, by acting a pretence, by anti-religious bent.34 For when Paulinus was Vice-prefect here, a man without official position was suborned to act the part 35 of a courier, that he might go to those who belong to the Catholic unity,36 and ensnare and terrify them.37 And now the conspiracy 38 has been discovered. For a lying story was made up against the most holy Bishop Felix, so that it might appear that he had betrayed and burnt the Scriptures. It was in fact Ingentius (since his |337 whole line of conduct was opposed to the holiness and religion of Caecilian) who was suborned to come with a letter that purported to be from Felix the Bishop to Caecilianus the Duovir, and pretend to him that he was commissioned by Felix. Let him give us the very words in which this story was concocted.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Tell us.'
Apronianus said:
['Ingentius spoke in this way to Caecilianus:] "Tell my friend Caecilianus," said Felix to me, "that I received [from somebody] eleven precious divine codices, and, as he is now demanding 39 of me to restore them, say that you 40 burnt them in your year of office, so that I need not return them to him." 41
For this reason Ingentius must be questioned as to the manner in which these designs were manufactured and fabricated, as to how he strove to lead his master to tell lies, that he might bespatter Felix with infamy. Let him tell us by whom he was sent, but if this plot against the good name of Felix, by which he might do injury to the episcopal character 42 of Caecilian from its commencement...43 For there is a certain person 44 who was sent by the other side 45 as ambassador through Mauritania and Numidia.' |338
In the presence of Ingentius, Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'At whose bidding did you undertake to do these things that are brought against you? '
Ingentius said:
'Where?'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'As you pretend not to understand what you are asked, I will speak more plainly. Who sent you to the magistrate Caecilianus?'
Ingentius said:
'No one sent me.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'How was it then that you went to the magistrate Caecilianus?'
Ingentius said:
'When we had arrived and the case of Maurus, a Bishop from Utica, who bought his bishopric,46 was being tried, Felix, the Bishop of Autumna, came up to the city to preach,47 and said "Let no one communicate with him, for he is guilty of fraud.48" And I, on the other hand, said to him "Let no one communicate with you any more than with him,49 because you are a Betrayer." I was grieving over the case of Maurus my guest, since I had communicated with him when I was abroad----for I escaped from the persecution. From it 50 I went into the country of Felix himself and took with me three seniors, that |339 they might see whether in truth he had been a Betrayer or not.'
Apronianus said:
'It is not so. He went to Caecilianus. Ask Caecilianus about it.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said to Caecilianus:
'How was it that Ingentius came to you?'
Caecilianus answered:
'He came to me at home. I was at dinner with the workmen.51 He came in and stood in the doorway.52 "Where is Caecilianus?" said he. I answered "Here." I said to him "What is it? Is all right? " "Everything," said he. I answered him "If you are not too proud to dine, come and have dinner." He said to me "I am coming back." He came alone. He began to tell me that he wanted me to look into the matter and inquire whether the Scriptures had been burnt in the year when I was Duovir. I said to him "You annoy me. You are a man who has been suborned.53 Be off with you. Take yourself away from me." And I spurned him from me.54 And he came yet a second time together with my colleague with whom I had been aedile.55 My colleague said to me "Felix, our Bishop, sent this man here that you might give him a letter, because he has received precious codices, and is unwilling to give them back. Write for him that they were burnt in the year when you were Duovir." And I said "Is this the faith of Christians? " '
Ingentius said:
'My lord, let Augentius also be called, for I too have |340 held honourable office.56 [If you listen to this story] it will be all over with my honour, and...' 57
Aelianus the Proconsul said to Ingentius:
'You are convicted on another ground.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said to an officer:
'Strip and bind him.' 58
And when he was made ready, Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Let him be drawn up.' 59
And while he was being drawn up on the rack, Aelianus the Proconsul said to Caecilianus:
'Under what circumstances did Ingentius come to you? '
He answered:
' "Our friend Felix," so he spoke, "sent me here that you should write to him, since there is an abandoned man who is the owner of some most precious codices which are in his possession, and he is unwilling to restore them. So ----that they may not be claimed back----write that they were burnt." And I said to him "Is this the faith of a Christian? " Then I began to rebuke him. But my colleague said "Write thither to our friend Felix." And so I dictated the letter which lies before you, up to the place that I have pointed out.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Listen without fear to the reading of your letter. See how far you dictated.' |341
Agesilaus read out:
' "... I wish you, my dearest father, good health for many years." '
Aelianus the Proconsul said to Caecilianus:
'Did you dictate as far as this? '
He answered:
'As far as this. The rest is a forgery.'
Agesilaus read aloud [the remainder of the letter]:
' "This is the proof that the Christians and the owner of the praetorium had written to entreat my mercy, and that you had said 60 'Take the key and take also whatever books you may find upon the Chair and whatever codices there may be upon the stone. But see, I beg you, that the officials do not take away the oil and the wheat.' And I said to you, 'Are you unaware that where Scriptures are found the house itself is pulled down?' And you said 'What then shall we do?' And I said to you 'Let one of your people take them out into the halls where you make your prayers, and let them be placed there. And I will come with the officials 61 and take them away.' And we went thither, and took everything away as we had arranged,62 and burnt it in accordance with the Emperor's command." '
Maximus said:
'Since there has also been placed upon the Acts the purport of this letter, which he himself said that he had acknowledged and sent, we ask that this should be set down on your Acts.' |342
Speretius said:
'What you have said has been written down.'
Caecilianus answered:
'It is a forgery from that point. It is my letter up to where I said "My dearest father, farewell." '
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Who do you say added to the letter? '
Caecilianus said:
'Ingentius.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Your statement is set down in the Acts.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said to Ingentius:
'You shall be tortured to prevent your telling lies.'
Ingentius said:
'I have sinned. I did add to this letter, through my grief on account of Maurus my guest.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Constantine Maximus ever Augustus, and Licinius, Caesars, deign to show such favour to Christians as to be unwilling that their discipline should be corrupted; on the contrary, they are determined that this religion should be observed and respected. Do not, therefore, flatter yourself that, because you tell me that you are a worshipper of God, on this account you cannot be tortured. You shall be tortured, that you may not tell lies----a thing which is thought to be foreign to Christians. So tell the truth frankly, that you may not be tortured.'
Ingentius said:
'I have already confessed without torture.' |343
Apronianus said:
'Be pleased to ask him by what authority, by what craft, by what madness he went through all the districts of Mauritania and also of Numidia, and by what means he stirred up sedition against the Catholic Church.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Have you been to the Numidias?'
He answered:
'No, my Lord. Let anyone prove it who can.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Nor to Mauritania? '
He answered:
'I was there on commercial business.'
Apronianus said:
'In this he lies, my Lord, for it is impossible to travel to Mauritania, excepting through the Numidias. Now he says that he was in Mauritania, but not in Numidia.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said to Ingentius:
'What is your rank?'
Ingentius answered:
'I am a decurion of the Ziquenses.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said to the officer:
'Lower him.'63 |344
When he had been lowered, Aelianus the Proconsul said to Caecilianus:
'You have given false evidence.'
Caecilianus answered:
'Not so, my lord. Command the attendance of him who wrote the letter. He is his friend. He will tell you to what point I dictated the letter.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Who is it whom you wish to have here? '
Caecilianus said:
'Augentius, with whom I was aedile. It is only through the evidence of Augentius himself who wrote the letter, that I can prove my case. He can tell you to what point I dictated to him.'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Is it then certain that the letter is a forgery?'
Caecilianus answered:
'It is certain, my lord. In my blood I do not lie.' 64
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Since you held the office of Duovir in your country we ought to give credence to your words.'
Apronianus said:
'It is no new thing for them to act in this way. They have added what they pleased to the Acts. It is a trick of theirs.' |345
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Through the evidence of Caecilianus, who tells us that the Acts have been falsified, and many additions made to his letter, the purpose of Ingentius in doing these things has been made clear. So let him be committed to gaol, for we shall require him for stricter examination. Moreover, it is manifest that Felix the holy Bishop has been cleared from the charge of burning the Divine writings, since no one has been able to prove anything against him to show that he gave up or burned the most sacred Scriptures. For through all the evidence, it has been made clear on the interrogatories that no Divine Scriptures were either discovered or corrupted or burnt by him. It is shown by the Acts that Felix the holy Bishop was neither present when these things were done, nor was privy to them,65 nor did he order anything of the kind.' 66
Agesilaus said:
'What does your lordship order to be done with these witnesses, who came to give evidence to your lordship?'
Aelianus the Proconsul said:
'Let them go back to their homes.'
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 'Illo tempore a tot inimicis nihil in eum [Caecilianum] potuit confingi; sed de ordinatore suo, quod abillis falso traditor diceretur, meruit infirmari' (Opt. i, 19).
2. 1 Cf. letter of Constantine, p. 385.
3. 2 For the sake of clearness I have called the Bishop Caecilian; the official Caecilianus.
4. 3 'Sed quia in ipsa caussa iamdudum in Catholica duorum videbantur laborare personae, et ordinati et ordinatoris; postquam ordinatus in Urbe purgatus est, et purgandus adhuc remanserat ordinator' (Opt. i, 27).
5. 1 '... ut crimina in silentium mitterent sua, vitam infamare conati sunt alienam' (Opt. i, 20).
6. 2 'A supra memorato proconsule haec pars sententiae dicta est: "Felicem religiosum Episcopum liberum esse ab exustione librorum manifestum est, cum nemo in eum aliquid probare poterit... Hoc actis continetur quod Felix illis temporibus neque praesens fuerit, neque conscientiam accommodaverit, neque aliquid tale fieri iusserit." Unde pulsa atque extersa infamia, cum ingenti laude de illo iudicio recessit' (Opt. i, 27).
7. 1 Episcopi Aptungitani, of Aptunga, or Autumna.
8. 2 Du Pin's heading.
9. 3 The early part of the MS. is lost.
10. 4 in municipio. Municipium is a self-governing township.
11. 5 viri spectabilis. A title, showing the precise rank----equivalent to our Right Honourable.
12. 6 agentis vicariam praefeciuram.
13. 7 tabularium.
14. 1 iussionem esse sacram, i.e. the Emperor's.
15. 2 devotus sum tanto praecepto.
16. 3 The MS. has si mei in cera possint inveniri inquiro. This is plainly corrupt. Baluzius suggested si in eis cera possit. This emendation is accepted by Ziwsa.
17. 1 Here begin the Acts of the former trial.
18. 2 Catholicae Legis. Cf. Opt. i, 11: 'Catholicam facit simplex et verus intellectus in Lege.'
19. 3 principatum eiusdem Legis.
20. 4 secundum sacrum legem.
21. 1 The MS. has secundum sens est. Deutsch (Drei Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Donatismus. Berlin, 1875) supplies [quod prae]-sens.
22. 2 secundum. Deutsch supplies Acta. Ziwsa accepts these two emendations. Evidently something is lacking.
23. 3 propter lineas comparandas. Possibly it may mean 'to compare the lines of the document.'
24. 4 cathedram tulimus, et epistolas salutatorias. It has been thought that these were letters of St. Paul. The point seems rather to be that they were ordinary, not sacred, letters, and as such not of an incriminating character.
25. 5 postea, an emendation for ostia.
26. 6 i.e. many years afterwards.
27. 1 eidem collegae (i.e. Ingentius).
28. 2 i.e. Caecilianus, who had just finished speaking.
29. 3 Here there is a lacuna. The greater part of the letter is lost.
30. 4 ex lege vestra.
31. 5 At this point, after the usual conclusion, commences the forgery of Ingentius.
32. 6 oleum et triticum.
33. 1 Here the reading ceases, and the later trial proceeds.
34. 2 per terrorem, per scaenam, per inreligiosam mentem.
35. 3 modum ( ---- speciem, formam). The MS. has modicum.
36. 4 Catholicae unitatis.
37. 5 eos induceret et terreret.
38. 6 factio (cf. Optatus ii, 4: 'factio quae mater scismatis est').
39. 1 convenit me, a frequent late use of convenire, = 'he is calling upon me to.' He is the owner of the codices.
40. 2 i.e. Caecilianus.
41. 3 Apronianus is quoting here the actual words in which Ingentius is said to have reported to Caecilianus the actual words supposed to have been used by Felix.
42. 4 pudori et initio. Pudori is manifestly corrupt. Possibly the right reading may be innocentiae. Initio ---- the source of his episcopate.
43. 5 There is here a lacuna. Ziwsa suggests paraverit, but as this is only a guess, I have left the sentence incomplete.
44. 6 quidam, i.e. Ingentius himself, who had been a Donatist agent (cursor).
45. 7 ex diversa parte, i.e. by the Donatists.
46. 1 qui Episcopatum sibi redemit.
47. 2 ut tractaret.
48. 3 quia falsum admisit. Falsum-----fraud----in this case, simony.
49. 4 nec tibi nec illi.
50. 5 exinde, i.e. from the persecution.
51. 1 prandebam cum operarios (accusative for ablative, as not unusual in this kind of Latin) (cf. p. 341, n. 2).
52. 2 stetit in ianua.
53. 3 homo immisus es.
54. 4 sprevi illum a me.
55. 5 i.e. Augentius.
56. 1 et ego honorificus sum (I too have held public office----honor----and so am as worthy to be believed as Caecilianus).
57. 2 'et huius latera habemus.' These words follow in the MS. They seem hopelessly corrupt.
58. 3 apta eum.
59. 4 suspendatur (i.e. on the rack, ready for torture).
60. 1 I have corrected the text here from the copy of the letter already given (p. 335). The MS. has 'hoc signo quod deprecatorium ad me misisti, nisi ego et tu et cuius est praetorium et dixit,' which is clearly corrupt and, as it stands, untranslatable.
61. 2 cum officiates (cum with accusative).
62. 3 secundum placitum = as had been arranged between us.
63. 1 submitte illum. Ingentius had been 'prepared' (stripped and bound) and then hung up on the equuleus, ready for the screws to be turned. When Aelianus hears he is a decurion, he has him lowered. We learn from St. Augustine (con. Cresc. iii, 70) that Ingentius was prepared for torture, but not actually tortured, because he said that he was a decurion. Submitte corresponds to suspendatur (supra). Aelianus is for the moment favourable to Ingentius, and turns upon Caecilianus: 'Your evidence was false.' Still, as we shall see immediately, he recognises that, as an ex-duovir, Caecilianus is more to be trusted than Ingentius, who was only a decurion! Moreover, Ingentius had actually confessed.
64. 1 non mentior in sanguine meo.
65. 1 conscientiam accommodaverit, lit. 'gave his privity to it' = allowed the thing to be done with his knowledge.
66. 2 The italicised words are quoted by St. Optatus textually (i, 27). Cf. p. 55.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_10_appendix .htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Appendix 2. The trial before Zenophilus. pp. 346-381.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Appendix 2. The trial before Zenophilus. pp. 346-381.
APPENDIX----II
GESTA APUD ZENOPHILUM
(INTRODUCTION.)
It is A.D. 320, six years after the vindication of Felix of Aptunga, and another trial is proceeding. Time has amply brought her revenge. Now the accusation is no longer against the consecrator of Caecilian the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, but against Silvanus the Donatist Bishop of Cirta, the consecrator of Majorinus, who had been intruded into Caecilian's Chair. In this trial it is conclusively proved that Silvanus and his abettors had been guilty not merely of Betrayal----the sin falsely alleged against Felix and Caecilian, as a pretext for abandoning communion with Caecilian----but also of theft and simony under peculiarly disgraceful circumstances.
St. Optatus, in his description of the commencement of the Donatist schism, has mentioned the name of the Deacon Nundinarius, the editor of the Acts of the Bishops who, in the year 303, met at Cirta to elect a successor to the recently deceased Bishop of that city.1 When the citizens of Cirta heard that Silvanus had been chosen to be their chief Pastor----Silvanus, a man of bad reputation, who was well known to them as a Traditor ---- they cried out 'Traditor est, alius fiat. Purum et integrum civem nostrum volumus.' The clergy also protested against this election, but Silvanus was supported by a noisy mob of the lowest |347 rabble, and consecrated Bishop by the notorious Secundus of Tigisis. One of the first acts of Silvanus after his consecration was to ordain a certain Victor. This Victor, in order to be made a priest, paid a large sum of money to Silvanus, which Silvanus on his part promptly distributed amongst Secundus and the other Bishops who had taken part in his own consecration. (Such was the character of the shameless men, who were so soon, for their own purposes, to precipitate the Donatist schism by their consecration of Majorinus in opposition to Caecilian.)
Now these facts were well known to Nundinarius the Deacon. It was therefore an evil hour for Silvanus, leading him into much trouble, when, for some reason unknown to us, he violently quarrelled with Nundinarius. Other guilty Donatist Bishops, especially the terrible Purpurius 2 and a certain Fortis, were greatly alarmed when the news of this quarrel reached their ears, and wrote to Silvanus, and to their party in Cirta, that it was imperative that a reconciliation should be effected between Silvanus and Nundinarius. Means must be found to hush the matter up, lest worse things befall them. Evidently it would be too deplorable if it were to be publicly proved that they had been themselves guilty of crimes far more shameful than anything with which they falsely reproached the Catholic Bishops. But it was all to no purpose. Nundinarius was, in the end (though he seems to have wavered for a while), not to be appeased. Catholics called out for a public investigation. It was granted, and followed in due course before Zenophilus.
Throughout the proceedings Nundinarius proved the case against Silvanus with merciless precision. There was first the evidence of an inhabitant of Cirta----a certain Victor, a grammarian. As this Victor tried at first to screen Silvanus, there were read aloud municipal Acts recorded during the persecution when Munatius Felix was |348 Curator. From these it became clear that Silvanus had indeed been a Betrayer, and Victor had to admit this, though he tried to save himself by denying that he was present when it all happened. Then the compromising and discreditable letters were read, from which it was seen how much Purpurius and Fortis dreaded exposure. No doubt they were afraid that Nundinarius might denounce them, as already he had denounced Silvanus in a libellus of accusation, which had been addressed to all the clergy and elders of Cirta, and was read in full before Zenophilus. Furthermore, witnesses were produced who told the old story of the events that took place at the consecration of Silvanus, which proved him to have been guilty of Betrayal and Simony. It was also shown that he and Purpurius, as well as other Donatists, had been guilty of thefts from the Temple of Serapis. Further evidence was given which proved that the Numidian Bishops (now Donatists) had received money from Lucilla, in order that Majorinus might be consecrated rival Bishop of Carthage in opposition to Caecilian, and that they had kept it all for themselves, though part of it at least was intended by its donor for the poor.
Most of these Proceedings are extant, but the judgement is wanting. It is, however, certain that Silvanus was banished by Zenophilus for Betrayal,3 for robbing the Treasury of vinegar casks, for taking money for Ordination, and for having been himself made Bishop by violence, of all of which crimes he had been proved guilty in the course of these Proceedings. |349
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ZENOPHILUS.
The Commencement of the Proceedings before Zenophilus, by which it becomes clear that Silvanus, who with others consecrated Majorinus, the Predecessor of Donatus, was a Betrayer.4
In the consulship of Constantine Maximus Augustus and Constantine the younger the most noble Caesar, on the thirteenth of December, (Sextus of Thamagudi being the secretary,) 5 after Victor the Grammarian had been brought in and sworn,6 Nundinarius the deacon also being present, Zenophilus, a most noble man of consular rank,7 said:
'What is your name?'
He answered:
'Victor.'
Zenophilus said:
'What is your station in life?'
Victor said:
'I am a lecturer in the literature of Rome, a Latin grammarian.' |350
Zenophilus said:
'What is your rank?'
Victor said:
'My father was a decurion of Cirta. My grandfather was a soldier. He had seen service at court.8 For our family is of Mauritanian blood.' 9
Zenophilus said:
'Be mindful of your honour and character, and tell me with simplicity----what was the cause of the dissension amongst Christians?'
Victor said:
'I do not know the origin of the dissension. I am one of the Christian people. However, when I lived at Carthage and the Bishop Secundus 10 had at length arrived there, they are said to have discovered that Caecilian had been wrongfully 11 made a Bishop, by whom I know not; and they set up another in opposition. From that time forward the dissension at Carthage began, but I cannot know its origin fully, for our city always has one church,12 and if dissension there was, we know nothing about it.' |351
Zenophilus said:
'Are you in communion with Silvanus?'
Victor answered:
'I am.'
Zenophilus said:
'Why then have you passed over that man 13 whose innocence has been cleared 14?' And added: 'Besides, it is stated that you know something else with the fullest certainty----that Silvanus is a Betrayer. Own to this.'
Victor replied:
'This I know not.'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius the Deacon:
'Victor says that he does not know that Silvanus is a Betrayer.' |352
Nundinarius the deacon said:
'He knows quite well, for 15 he himself gave up the codices.'
Victor answered:
'I had fled from that storm----and if I lie, let me perish. When we suffered the inrush of sudden persecution, we fled to Mount Bellona.16 I remained there with Mars the deacon. Victor the priest was there also. When this Mars was ordered to give up all the books, he said that he had not got them. Then Victor gave up the names of all the lectors. They came to my house in my absence. The magistrates went in and carried off my codices. When I got back, I found that the codices had been taken away.'
Nundinarius the deacon said:
'But at the public investigation you answered that you gave up the codices. Why deny things that can be proved?'
Zenophilus said to Victor:
'Acknowledge frankly, that you may not be questioned with greater severity.' 17
Nundinarius the deacon said:
'Let the Acts be read.'
Zenophilus said:
'Let them be read.'
Nundinarius then gave them, and the notary read aloud:
'In the consulate of Diocletian the Eighth, and Maximinian the Seventh, on the nineteenth of May, from the Acts of |353 Munatius Felix the perpetual flamen, the guardian of the colony at Cirta.
'When they came to the house in which the Christians were accustomed to assemble, Felix the flamen and guardian of the state said to Paul the Bishop:
"Bring out the Scriptures of the Law,18 and anything else that you may have here, as has been commanded, that you may obey the order."
'Paul the Bishop said:
"The lectors have the Scriptures. But we surrender what we have here."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Paul the Bishop:
"Show us the lectors or send to them."
'Paul the Bishop said:
"You all know them."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said:
"We do not know them."
'Paul the Bishop said:
"The public officers know them----that is Edusius and Junius, the notaries."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said:
"Let the matter of the lectors stand over. They will be pointed out by the public officers. Do you surrender what you have."
'In the presence of Paul the Bishop (who remained seated), of Montanus and Victor of Deusatelium, and Memorius priests, Mars and Helius the deacons, Marcuclius, Catullinus, Silvanus and Carosus the subdeacons standing by with Januarius, Meraclus, Fructuosus, Migginis, Saturninus, Victor and the rest of the grave-diggers,19 Victor of Aufidus made this brief inventory against them. |354
'Two golden chalices, also six silver chalices, six silver pots,20 a silver chafing vessel,21 seven silver lamps, two torches,22 seven short brass candlesticks with their lamps, also eleven brass candlesticks with their chains, eighty-two women's garments, thirty-eight veils,23 sixteen men's garments, thirteen pair of men's shoes, forty-seven pair of women's shoes, eighteen pattens for the country.' 24
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Marcuclius, Silvanus and Carosus the grave-diggers:
"Bring forth whatever you have."
'Silvanus and Carosus said:
"All that was here we have thrown out."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Marcuclius, Silvanus and Carosus:
"Your answer is set down in the Acts." 25
'After the cupboards in the bookcases had been found to be empty,26 Silvanus brought forth a silver casket 27 and a silver candlestick, for he said that he had found them behind a jug.28
'Victor of Aufidus said to Silvanus:
"Had you not found these things, you were a dead man." 29 |355
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Silvanus:
"Search more carefully, lest anything else should have been left behind."
'Silvanus said:
"Nothing has been left behind. This is all----what we have thrown out." 30
'And when the dining-room 31 was opened, there were found in it four casks 32 and six jugs.33
'Felix the perpetual flamen and life-guardian of the state said:
"Bring forth whatever Scriptures you have, that we may obey the precepts and commands of the Emperors."
'Catullinus brought forth one very large codex.
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Marcuclius and Silvanus:
"Why have you given us only one codex? Bring forth the Scriptures which you have."
'Catullinus and Marcuclius said:
"We have no more, for we are sub-deacons, but the lectors have the codices."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Marcuclius and Catullinus:
"Show us the lectors."
'Marcuclius and Catullinus said:
"We do not know where they live." |356
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Catullinus and Marcuclius:
"If you do not know where they are living, tell us their names."
'Catullinus and Marcuclius said:
"We are not Traitors,34 behold we are here. Order us to be killed."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said:
"Let them be taken into custody."
'And when they came to the house of Eugenius, Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Eugenius:
"Bring forth the Scriptures which you have, that you may obey the decree."
'And he brought forth four codices.
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Silvanus and Carosus:
"Show us the other lectors."
'Silvanus and Carosus said:
"The Bishop has already told you that the notaries Edusius and Junius know them all. Let them point out their houses to you."
'Edusius and Junius said:
"We will point them out to you, my lord."
'And when they came to the house of Felix, the worker in marbles, he brought forth five codices. And when they came to the house of Victorinus, he brought forth eight codices. And when they came to the house of Projectus, he brought forth five large and two small codices.
'And when they came to the house of Victor the Grammarian, Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to him: |357
"Bring forth whatever Scriptures you have, that you may obey the decree."
'Victor the Grammarian brought forth two codices, and four quinions.35 Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Victor:
"Bring forth the Scriptures. You have more."
'Victor the Grammarian said:
"If I had more, I would have given them."
'And when they came to the house of Euticius of Caesarea, Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Euticius:
"Bring forth the Scriptures which you have, that you may obey the decree."
'Euticius said:
"I have none."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Euticius:
"Your statement is set down in the Acts."
'And when they came to the house of Coddeo, his wife brought forth six codices.
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state then said:
"Look and see whether you have not got more. Bring them forth." |358
'The woman said: "I have no more."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Bos the public official 36:
"Go in and search whether she has not any more."
'The public official said:
"I have searched and have not found anything else."
'Felix the perpetual flamen and guardian of the state said to Victorinus, Silvanus and Carosus:
"If anything has been kept back, the danger is yours." '
After these things had been read, Zenophilus said to Victor:
'Now confess without more ado.'
Victor answered:
'I was not there.'
Nundinarius the deacon said:
'We have seen letters to Bishops written 37 by Fortis.'
And he read out a copy of the accusation delivered to the Bishops 38 by Nundinarius the deacon.39
'Christ is witness and His Angels, that they with whom you have been in communion have been Betrayers----that is |359 to say, Silvanus of Cirta is a Betrayer, and a thief of the goods of the poor----a thing which all of you Bishops, priests, deacons, elders, know to be true concerning the four hundred pieces of money,40 that were given by the noble woman Lucilla,41 for the sake of winch you conspired together that Majorinus might be made Bishop, whence came the schism. For Victor the fuller gave twenty pieces of money,42 to be made priest, in your presence and in that of the people, as Christ knows and His angels.'
And a copy of a letter 43 was read aloud:
'Purpurius,44 the Bishop, to his fellow Bishop Silvanus----Health in the Lord! Nundinarius the deacon, our son, has come to me and has begged of me to send this letter of supplication to your Holiness, that, if it be possible, there may be peace between you and him. For I wish this to be done in writing by you, if you are willing, in order that no one may know what is going on between us, so that I may alone be concerned with you in this present matter, and may bring to a conclusion 45 the dissension between you. For he has handed to me a petition written by his hand concerning the affair, on account of which, by your command, he was degraded.46 |360
It is not right 47 for a father to chastise a son against the truth, and I know that the things which were written in the bill of accusation that was handed to me are true. Search for a remedy by which this ill-will may be extinguished before the flame burst forth which it may not be possible afterwards to extinguish without the spiritual shedding of blood. Call together your fellow clerics and the elders of the people who belong to the Church,48 and let them carefully inquire what are these dissensions of yours, that whatever is done may be done according to the precepts of the Faith. You shall not decline to the right hand nor to the left. Be not willing to lend your ear to evil teachers who refuse peace. You slay us all... [and, in another hand] Fare you well.'
And a copy of another letter:
'Purpurius the Bishop to the Clerics and Elders of Cirta----eternal health in the Lord! Moses cried out to the whole assembly of the children of Israel and told them what the Lord commanded to be done. Nothing was to be done without the advice of the Elders. So do you too, my beloved, whom I know to have all heavenly and spiritual wisdom, search out with all your strength what is the nature of this dissension and bring [men] to peace. For Nundinarius the deacon says that you have knowledge of all the circumstances from which this dissension has arisen between our well-beloved Silvanus and himself. For he has handed me a petition in which all these things have been written. And he said that you too are acquainted with them. I know that no one can overhear.49 Do you search out a satisfactory remedy that this thing may be extinguished without danger to your soul, for fear lest when |361 you respect persons you should unawares find yourself before the Judge.50 Judge just judgement between the parties in accordance with your gravity and justice. Be careful not to decline either to the right hand or to the left. There is question of a matter which belongs to God 51 who searcheth the thoughts of every man. Be careful that no one knows the story of this conspiracy. What is contained in the bill of accusation is true.52 It is not good, for the Lord says "Out of thy mouth thou shalt be condemned and out of thy mouth shalt thou be justified." 53 '
This also was read out:
'Fortis to our well-beloved brother Silvanus, eternal health in the Lord! Our son Nundinarius the deacon has come to me and related the things which have taken place between you and him, through the intervention of the Evil One, who wishes to turn aside the souls of the just from the way of truth. When I heard these things I fainted in my spirit that such a dissension had come between you----that a priest of God should arrive at that...54 which is not expedient for us to be done. Now therefore beseech him that you may have, as is possible, the peace of the Lord, the Saviour Christ, with him. Let us not come into a public court and be condemned by the Gentiles. For it has been written "Take heed lest, whilst you bite and accuse one another, you be devoured one by another." 55 Therefore I beseech the Lord that this scandal may be removed from our midst, so that this business, which concerns God, may be carried through with the giving of thanks,56 as the Lord says "My peace I give unto you, My |362 peace I leave to you." 57 What peace can there be, where there is dissension and where there are rivalries? For when I was roasted by the soldiers, 58 and set apart, and had come to that pass 59 with such foul treatment,60 I commended my soul to God and forgave you,61 for God sees the minds of men, and [how, just like you, I was led into the deed you know of 62]. But God has delivered us and we serve Him together with you. Therefore even as we have been forgiven, so be you two reconciled to peace, that you may be able to celebrate the peace of Easter 63 with joy in the Name of Christ. Let no one know about it....' 64
There was also read out:
'Fortis to the brethren and sons, to the clergy and seniors, eternal health in the Lord! Your deacon, Nundinarius, has come to me and told me of the things that have been done against you, which surely ought to have been adjusted by you in such a way that you should not have arrived at so great a |363 pitch of madness that men should be degraded 65 for telling the truth----a thing which both you and we know, even as you have related to us. And it is written "Is there not any wise man amongst you who can judge between brethren? But does brother go to law with brother----and this amongst the unbelievers?" 66----just as you now strive in judgement.67 Have things then come to this pass, that we should give such an example to the Gentiles, so that they who have believed in God through us, should themselves speak evil of us, when we come before the public? Therefore, that it may not come to this, do you who are spiritual see to it that no one should know, so that we may keep Easter with peace,68 and do you exhort them to be reconciled to Peace, and that there may be no dissension, lest, should things be made public, you too commence to be in danger (if this should occur), and afterwards blame yourselves. You especially will take care, you, Possessor, Donatius the priest,69 and Valerius and Victor, each of you,70 who know all that was done 71----take care 72 that you be at peace one with another.'
Another letter was also read out:
'Sabinus to his brother Silvanus,73 eternal health in the Lord! Nundinarius your son has come to us----not only to |364 me but also to our brother Fortis, bringing a serious 74 complaint. I am surprised at your lordship,75 that you have acted thus with your son, whom you brought up and ordained. For if an earthly building has been erected, is not something heavenly added to it, which is built by the hand of a priest? 76 However, we ought not to be surprised at you, for the Scripture says "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and I will reject the prudence of the prudent," 77 and again it says "Men have loved the darkness rather than the light," 78 just as you are doing.79 It should be enough for you to know all the facts. Our brother Fortis has written to you about this. Now I would ask of your charity, my very kind brother, to fulfil the saying of the prophet Isaiah: "Cast evil forth from your souls, and come let us dispute together, saith the Lord." And again, "Cast forth wickedness from your midst." 80 So do you now act after this manner.81 Overcome and avert the plot of those who have been unwilling that there should be peace between you and your son. No! let your son Nundinarius keep Easter in peace with you,82 that the matter which is already known to all of us may not became public as well. I would beg of you, my very kind brother, to fulfil the petition of my mediocrity. Let no one know about it.'
Also another letter was read aloud: 83
'Sabinus to his brother Fortis, eternal health in the Lord! How great is your charity according to the witness of all your colleagues, I know very well 84; but that you have had a special |365 friendship with Silvanus,85 according to the will of God, who has said "Some I love above my soul," 86 I know too. Wherefore I have not hesitated to send you these writings, because I caused yours concerning Nundinarius to be given to him. If we act with diligence God's affair always goes vigorously.87 Do not put forward an excuse. For business presses upon us during these days, and urges us without delay to see to these things before the most solemn Feast of Easter, that through you there may be brought about a peace full of fatness,88 and we may be found worthy co-heirs of Christ, who has said "My peace I give unto you, My peace I leave to you." And once again I beseech you to do as I ask.' [And in another hand] 'I pray that you have good health in the Lord and are mindful of us. Fare you well. But I entreat you let no one know about it.'
After these documents had been read,89 Zenophilus said:
'From the Acts and letters which have been read aloud, it is clear that Silvanus is a Betrayer.'
And he said to Victor:
'Frankly confess whether you know that he betrayed anything.'
Victor said:
'He did betray, but not in my presence.'
Zenophilus said:
'What office did Silvanus hold at the time amongst the clergy?'
Victor answered:
'The persecution broke out when Paul was Bishop; Silvanus was then a sub-deacon.' |366
Nundinarius the deacon replied:
'When he came here, as he said to be made Bishop, the people answered "Let it be another,90 hear us, O God." '
Zenophilus said to Victor:
'Did the people cry out "Silvanus is a Betrayer"?'
Victor said:
'I myself fought against his being made Bishop.'
Zenophilus said:
'So you did know that he was a Betrayer! Confess to this.'
Victor answered:
'He was a Betrayer.'
Nundinarius the deacon said:
'You seniors cried out "Hear us, O God! We want our fellow-citizen. This man is a Betrayer." '
Zenophilus said to Victor:
'So you cried out with the people that Silvanus was a Betrayer and ought not to be made Bishop?'
Victor said:
'I did cry out, and so did the people. For we wanted our fellow-citizen, a man of integrity.'
Zenophilus said:
'For what reason did you deem him unworthy?'
Victor said:
'We wanted one who was a man of integrity and our fellow-citizen. For I knew that for this reason we should have to go to the Emperor's Court, if the office were given to such as he.' |367
Then when Victor of Samsuricum and Saturninus the grave-diggers had been brought in and sworn, Zenophilus said:
'What is your name?'
Saturninus said:
'Saturninus.'
Zenophilus said:
'What is your station in life?'
Saturninus said:
'I am a grave-digger.'
Zenophilus said:
'Do you know that Silvanus is a Betrayer?'
Saturninus said:
'I know that he gave up a silver lamp.'
Zenophilus said to Saturninus:
'What else?'
Saturninus said:
'I do not know of anything else, excepting that he took the lamp from behind a tun.'
And after Saturninus had been ordered down, Zenophilus said to the one who remained standing:
'And you, what is your name?'
He answered:
'Victor of Samsuricum.'
Zenophilus said:
'What is your station in life?' |368
Victor said:
'I am an artisan.'
Zenophilus said:
'Who gave up the silver table 91?'
Victor answered:
'I did not see----what I know I will tell you.'
Zenophilus said to Victor:
'Although it has now become certain from the replies of those whom we have already questioned, nevertheless, do you tell us whether Silvanus is a Betrayer.'
Victor said:
'When it was demanded a second time how it was that he dismissed this matter 92 ----that we should be led to Carthage, I heard from the mouth of the Bishop himself: "There were given to me a silver lamp and a silver casket,93 and these I gave up." '
Zenophilus said to Victor of Samsuricum:
'From whom did you hear that?'
Victor said:
'From Silvanus the Bishop.'
Zenophilus said to Victor: |369
'Did you hear from himself that he had been a Betrayer?'
Victor said:
'I heard him say that he gave up these things with his own hands.'
Zenophilus said:
'Where did you hear that?'
Victor said:
'In the basilica.'
Zenophilus said:
'At Cirta 94?'
Victor said:
'He began there his address to the people with these words: "On what ground do they say that I am a Betrayer? Is it because of the lamp and the casket 95?"'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'What else is there about which you think that we should question these men?'
Nundinarius said:
'About the casks belonging to the imperial treasury.96 Who took them away?'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'What casks?' |370
Nundinarius said:
'They were in the temple of Serapis, and Purpurius the Bishop took them away. The vinegar that they contained was taken away by Silvanus the Bishop, Dontius the priest, and Lucianus.'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'Do these men who are before us know that this was done?'
Nundinarius answered:
'Yes.'
Saturninus the deacon said:
'Our fathers told us that they were taken away.'
Zenophilus said:
'By whom----as it is alleged----were they taken away?'
Saturninus said:
'By Purpurius the Bishop, and the vinegar by Silvanus and Dontius and Superius the priests, and Lucianus the deacon.'
Nundinarius said:
'Did Victor give twenty pieces of money and was he made a priest?'
Saturninus said:
'Yes.'
And when he had said this, Zenophilus said to Saturninus:
'To whom did he give the money?'
Saturninus said:
'To Silvanus the Bishop.' |371
Zenophilus said to Saturninus:
'Then he gave twenty pieces of money as a bribe to Silvanus the Bishop, that he might be made a priest?'
Saturninus said:
'Yes.'
Zenophilus said to Saturninus:
'Was the money laid before Silvanus?'
Saturninus said:
'It was laid before the Episcopal Chair.'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'By whom was the money taken away?'
Nundinarius said:
'The Bishops divided it among themselves.'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'Do you wish Donatus to be called?'
Nundinarius said:
'By all means let him come, for the people cried out about him two days after the Peace 97: "Hear us, O God, we wish for our fellow-citizen." '
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'Is it certain the people cried out this?'
He answered:
'Yes.'
Zenophilus said to Saturninus:
'Did they cry out that Silvanus was a Betrayer?' |372
Saturninus said:
'Yes.'
Nundinarius said:
'When he was made Bishop, we did not communicate with him because it was said that he was a Betrayer.'
Saturninus said:
'What he says is true.'
Nundinarius said:
'I saw Mutus the worker in the sand-quarries 98 carry him on his shoulders.99 '
Zenophilus said to Saturninus:
'Did it happen in this way?'
Saturninus said:
'Yes, in this way.'
Zenophilus said:
'Is everything that Nundinarius says true----how Silvanus was made Bishop by the quarry-men?'
Saturninus said:
'It is all true.'
Nundinarius said:
'Common women were there.'
Zenophilus said to Saturninus:
'Did the quarry-men chair him?' |373
Saturninus said:
'They and the populace carried him; the citizens were shut up in the Martyrs' Hall.' 100
Nundinarius the Deacon said:
'Were the people of God there?'
Saturninus said:
'They were shut up in the big shed.' 101
Zenophilus said:
'Is it certain that everything which Nundinarius says is true?'
Saturninus said:
'It is all true.'
Zenophilus said:
'And what do you say?'
Victor said:
'All is true, my Lord.'
Nundinarius said:
'Purpurius the Bishop took away a hundred pieces of money.'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'Of whom in your opinion ought we to ask questions about the four hundred pieces of money?'
Nundinarius said:
'Let Lucianus the Deacon be brought forward, for he knows everything.' |374
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'Do these men know about it?'
Nundinarius said:
'No.'
Zenophilus said:
'Let Lucianus be brought forward.'
Nundinarius said:
'They do know that the four hundred pieces of silver were received, but they do not know that the Bishops shared them.'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius 102 and to Victor:
'Do you know that the money was received from Lucilla?'
Saturninus and Victor said:
'We do know it.'
Zenophilus said:
'Did not the poor get it?'
They said:
'No one got anything.'
Zenophilus said to Saturninus and Victor:
'Was nothing taken away from the temple of Serapis?'
Saturninus and Victor said:
'Purpurius took away the casks, and Silvanus the Bishop, and Dontius and Superius the priests, and Lucianus the deacon, took away the vinegar.' |375
Zenophilus said:
'By the answers of Victor the Grammarian and of Victor of Samsuricum and of Saturninus, it has been made clear that all the statements of Nundinarius are true. Let them be dismissed, and go their way.'
Zenophilus said:
'Who else is there that you think ought to be questioned?'
Nundinarius said:
'Castus the deacon, that he may tell us whether Silvanus is not a Betrayer, for he ordained him.'
And when Castus the deacon had been called in and sworn, Zenophilus said:
'What is your name?'
He answered:
'Castus.'
Zenophilus said to Castus:
'What is your state of life?'
Castus said:
'I have no dignity.'
Zenophilus said to Castus:
'Although the charges of Nundinarius have now been admitted to be true, through the evidence of Victor the Grammarian, as well as through that of Victor of Samsuricum and of Saturninus, nevertheless, do you also tell us whether Silvanus is a Betrayer?'
Castus answered:
'He said that he found a lamp behind a tun.' |376
Zenophilus said to Castus:
'Tell us also about the casks taken from the temple of Serapis and the vinegar.' 103
Castus answered:
'Purpurius the Bishop took away the casks.'
Zenophilus said:
'Who took the vinegar?'
Castus answered that Silvanus the Bishop and Dontius and Superius the priests took the vinegar out of the temple.
Zenophilus said to Castus:
'Tell us how many pieces of money Victor gave to be made priest.'
Castus said:
'He offered, my lord, a little money-bag,104 but what it held I know not.'
Zenophilus said to Castus:
'To whom was the bag given?'
Castus said:
'He took it with him to the big shed.'
Zenophilus said to Castus:
'Was not the money divided among the people?'
Castus answered:
'As far as I saw, it was not given to them.' |377
Zenophilus said to Castus:
'Did not the poor people 105 get any of the money which Lucilla had given?'
Castus said:
'I did not see anybody get anything.'
Zenophilus said to Castus:
'Where then did the money go?'
Castus said:
'I do not know.'
Nundinarius said:
'Surely you either heard or saw it, if it was said to the poor: "Lucilla, out of her substance, makes you also a present"?'
Castus said:
'I did not see anyone get anything.'
Zenophilus said:
'The evidence of Castus is quite clear, that he has no knowledge that the money which Lucilla gave was distributed among the people. So let him be dismissed.'
And when Crescentianus the subdeacon was called in and sworn, Zenophilus said:
'What is your name?'
He answered:
'Crescentianus.'
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'Tell us frankly, as the rest have done, whether you know that Silvanus is a Betrayer.' |378
Crescentianus said:
'The clerics who were called before me have related everything.'
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'What have they related?'
Crescentianus said:
'They related that he was a Betrayer.'
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'Did they say that he was a Betrayer? And,' he added, 'Who said it?'
Crescentianus said:
'Those who lived with him among the people said that he had once betrayed.'
Zenophilus said:
'Did they say this of Silvanus?'
Crescentianus said:
'Yes.'
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'Were you there when he was made Bishop?'
Crescentianus said:
'I was present with the people, but shut up in the big shed.'
Nundinarius the deacon said:
'The country people and quarry-men 106 made him Bishop.' |379
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'Is there no doubt that it was Mutus the quarry-man who carried him?'
He said:
'There is no doubt about it.'
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'Is it within your knowledge that casks were taken away from the temple of Serapis?'
Crescentianus said:
'Several persons used to say that Bishop Purpurius himself took the casks and the vinegar, which came to our senior Bishop Silvanus,107 and the sons of Aelion said so.'
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'What did you hear?'
Crescentianus said that the vinegar had been taken away by the senior Bishop Silvanus,108 and by Dontius and Superius the priests and Lucian the deacon.
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'Did the people get any of the four hundred pieces of money, the gift of Lucilla?'
Crescentianus said:
'No one to my knowledge had any of it, nor do I know who spent the money.' |380
Nundinarius said:
'Did no old women ever get any of it?'
Crescentianus said:
'No.'
Zenophilus said:
'It is certain that whenever any gift of this kind is made, all the populace receive their part of it in public'
Crescentianus said:
'I neither heard nor saw that he gave any.'
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'None then of the four hundred pieces of money were given to the people?'
Crescentianus said:
'None----otherwise surely some small trifle 109 would have come to us.'
Zenophilus said:
'Where then was the money taken?'
Crescentianus said:
'I do not know. No one got anything.'
Nundinarius said:
'How much money did Victor give to be made priest?'
Crescentianus said:
'I saw that he brought baskets with money in them.'
Zenophilus said to Crescentianus:
'To whom were the baskets given?' |381
Crescentianus said:
'To Silvanus the Bishop.'
Zenophilus said:
'Were they given to Silvanus?'
Crescentianus said:
'Yes, to Silvanus.'
Zenophilus said:
'Was nothing given to the people?'
He answered:
'Nothing. We too must have received something if the distribution had been made in the usual manner.'
Zenophilus said to Nundinarius:
'What else is there that you think should be asked of Crescentianus?'
Nundinarius said:
'His evidence is the very thing.110 Since Crescentianus the subdeacon has given his evidence frankly about everything, let him be dismissed.'
Then when Januarius the subdeacon was brought in and sworn, Zenophilus said:
'What is your name?'
He answered:
(What followed in the manuscript is lost.)
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 Cf. Opt. i, 13, 14.
2. 1 Cf. Opt. i, 13: 'Homicida Purpurius Limatensis' etc.
3. 1 St. Augustine writes thus of Silvanus (con. Cresc. iii, 30): 'Qui cum Traditor fuisset, permanere etiam haereticus voluit, ut falsum honorem in parte Donati haberet, qui habere in Catholica nullum posset tam manifestos Traditionis suae gestis publico iudicio referatis.'
4. 1 Du Pin's heading.
5. 2 There is evidently something wanting here in the MS. scribente has been suggested. Also excipiente.
6. 3 inducto et applicito. Cf. Exod. xxii, 8: 'si latet fur, dominus domus applicabitur ad deos, et iurabit quod non extenderit manum in rem proximi sui.'
7. 4 vir clarissimus consularis. These words are always repeated after Zenophilus in the text. We shall omit them henceforth in the translation, as the repetition in English would be merely wearisome.
8. 1 in comitatu. Comitatus is the regular name for the Court of the Emperor. There are several instances in the fourth and fifth centuries of Canons of Carthage enacted against Bishops going ad comitatum----i.e. to curry favour at Ravenna.
9. 2 Victor was evidently in the Moorish Guard.
10. 3 Of Tigisis. St. Augustine often mentions him, speaking of him as Primate of Numidia, and telling us that he presided at the Council of Cirta.
11. 4 non recte.
12. 5 quoniam semper civitas nostra unam Ecclesiam habet. There was at this time only one Bishop at Cirta. But at the time of the first Conference of Carthage there were two Bishops there, Fortunatus sometimes called Fortunatianus (the Catholic) and Petilianus (the Donatist)----both of whose names figure amongst the eighteen elected Actores. We find that Petilianus complained that another Catholic Bishop named Delphinus (who was too ill to attend the Conference) was living 'in the middle of his Diocese.' St. Augustine tells us (Ep. cxxxix) that this Delphinus had been sent to Numidia by his fellow-Bishops on account of the needs of the Church. At the Conference of Carthage there was a passage of arms between Fortunatus and Petilianus. When the latter heard the name of the former read aloud, he cried out 'Ipse est persecutor Ecclesiae in eadem civitate ubi ego Episcopus sum.' To which Fortunatus was not slow to retort 'In eadem civitate ab haereticis omnia altaria confracta sunt' (Gesta Coll. Carthag. diei i, lxv; cxxxviii, cxxxix) ----so that there was not always harmony at Cirta.
13. 1 intermisso eo. This has been taken as referring to Caecilian. But these proceedings were not at Carthage, but in Numidia, so that eo probably should be understood of Felix of Aptunga.
14. 2 cuius innocentia purgata est. For purgata Masson reads probata ----but wrongly (cf. Coll. tert. Carthag. cap. dlxxi: 'Donatistarum prosecutio, qua dicunt praesentem Felicem debuisse purgari'; and cap. dlxiv: 'Prosecutio Catholicorum, maioris esse innocentiae documentum, quod absens purgatus est Felix'). St. Augustine also uses purgare in this sense (cf, Ep. clxii and Contra Cresconium Grammaticum iii, lxi).
15. 1 nam. So Ziwsa. The MS. has non. Masson reads num.
16. 2 Near Cirta.
17. 3 i.e. that you may not be put to the torture.
18. 1 Legis (sc. Catholicae). Cf. Acta Purgationis Felicis, p. 333.
19. 2 fossoribus. The fossores or grave-diggers were recognised Christian officials.
20. 1 urceola.
21. 2 cucumellum.
22. 3 cereofala.
23. 4 mafortea.
24. 5 coplas rusticanas.
25. 6 responsio vestra actis haeret.
26. 7 posteaquam in bibliothecis inventa sunt armaria inania. So the MSS. St. Augustine, however, referring to the passage, reads 'Posteaquam apertum est in bibliothecam' (con. Cresc. iii, 29) and again 'Posteaquam perventum est ad bibliothecam' (ibid. iv, 56). From these two passages Masson made up his reading, accepted by Du Pin, Posteaquam perventum est in bibliothecam. But, as Baluzius points out, the old reading may well stand, for bibliotheca here probably means bookcase. Thus Possidius in his life of St. Augustine (chapter xxxi) writes: 'Una cum bibliothecis libros.'
27. 8 capitulata. St. Augustine twice gives us the word 'capitulata' (Ep. clxv; con. Cresc. iii. 29); but once (con. Cresc. iv, 56) for. capitulatam he substitutes capsulam. Capsa is a box (e.g. for MS. rolls).
28. 9 post orcam. St. Augustine quoting this passage (con. Cresc. iii, 29) reads arcam.
29. 10 St. Augustine mentions this in three places (Ep. clxvii; contra Cresc. iii, 29, and iv, 56).
30. 1 quod hic fuit, totum hoc eiecimus. A colloquialism for 'Hoc quod eiecimus totum est.'
31. 2 triclinium. It is interesting to see that there was a dining-room attached to the church.
32. 3 dolia.
33. 4 orcae.
34. 1 Proditores, as contrasted with Traditores. They said that they might 'betray' (tradere) books, but they were no traitors to give up (prodere) their fellow-men.
35. 1 quiniones. Quinio, i.e. a gathering of five leaves. Most MSS. are formed of quaternions, i.e. of four leaves doubled, the smooth face of one to smooth face of the other, hair face to hair face. Usually the outside is hair face. In quinions and ternions it was necessary to have them alternately hair and smooth face outside. (The codices may have been of papyrus; but they are almost sure to have been of parchment, as papyrus was dearer and very brittle. Codices came into frequent use in the course of the third century, and paper rolls quickly became unusual. The old ones soon disappeared, as from eighty to a hundred years was a long life for a roll.)
36. 1 Bovi servo publico.
37. 2 epistulas Episcoporum ( = letters belonging to Bishops) facias a Forte.
38. 3 legit exemplar libelli traditi Episcopis a Nundinario diacono. The words exemplar libelli traditi Episcopis are wanting in the MS., no doubt through the carelessness of a copyist. They have been supplied from St. Augustine (con. Cresc. iii, 29). The MS. for legit has legitur, and it is thus printed by Ziwsa. Libellus is often used of a petition (e.g. those of heretics to Popes, or of Catholics to Popes against heretics), but it also often means a bill of accusation, as here.
39. 4 i.e. by himself.
40. 1 de quadringentis follibus. Ducange tells us that follis was 'genus monetae, apud Byzantinos potissimum.' He does not specify its relative value.
41. 2 Cf. Optatus i, 16; cf. S. Aug. Ep. clxii; con. Parmen. i, 3.
42. 3 folles viginti.
43. 4 exemplum epistulae.
44. 5 Purpurius of Limata in Numidia. St. Optatus accused him (i, 13), on the strength of the Acts of the Council of Cirta, of having murdered his sister's sons. These Acts have been preserved by St. Augustine (contra Cresconium iii, 27), where we read as follows: 'Secundus said to Purpurius of Limata: "It is said that you killed the two sons of your sister at Milevis." Purpurius answered him: "Do you think that I am terrified by you, like the rest?... I did kill them, and I kill those who act against me. So do not provoke me to say more!"' (Vide p. 418.)
45. 6 amputem.
46. 7 lapidatus. So St. Augustine understands it. But may it not perhaps be understood literally of stoning? Silvanus, no doubt, like Purpurius himself, was capable of anything.
47. 1 verum. Cf. Livy (Book xxxii): 'Ceterum et sociorum audiri postulata verum esse.'
48. 2 ecclesiasticos viros, id est men who belong to the Church, not heretics or schismatics. Purpurius means 'those who belong to our faction,' which he called the Church.
49. 3 ego scio quia auris non est, i.e. I write this to you all, because you know it already. I know there is no ear listening----no danger of the thing leaking out further. Du Pin, however, suggests sileo for scio.
50. 1 Cf. John vii, 24.
51. 2 Dei res agitur.
52. 3 vera sunt. This is the emendation of Du Pin for the vestra sunt of the MS., which Ziwsa preserves. 'Vestra' might mean 'The things in the Libellus are for you alone----tell nobody.' (Cf. supra Ego scio----I know that there is no eavesdropper.) But in the preceding letter of Purpurius, we have a parallel passage: 'Et scio, quia vera sunt.'
53. 4 Matt. xii, 37.
54. 5 Something evidently is missing here.
55. 6 Gal. iii, 15.
56. 7 ut possit res Dei cum gratiarum actione celebrari, cf. 'Dei res agitur' (supra).
57. 1 John xiv, 27.
58. 2 nam cum ego a milite essem ass.... separatus. In the MS. four letters are wanting. Dom John Chapman suggests that they arc us et (assus et), and I have translated this.
59. 3 et in illo venissem. This probably is corrupt. Ziwsa remarks 'Hic locus perobscurus medelam eludere videtur.' The sense seems sufficiently clear. Fortis came to the same pass as Silvanus, and gave up the books. In illo venit. He will not name the deed. Then he begged God's pardon and himself forgave Silvanus.
60. 4 cum iniuria tali. Fortis had been tortured, and at last had given way----so he says----if we are to believe him.
61. 5 et remisi tibi. He then forgave Silvanus, as he himself hoped to be forgiven.
62. 6 eorum, sive a te ad illos perductus sum. This is hopelessly corrupt. We seem to want something, like quomodo, sicut et tu, ad illud perductus sum; and so I have translated it, placing, however, the passage in square brackets.
63. 7 et vos reconciliamini pace, ut... possimus cum gaudio pacem celebrare. Pacem, that is the Peace of Easter. It is a play upon words, unless indeed for Pacem we should read Pascha, as below.
64. 8 There is here a lacuna of nine lines, at the end of which doubtless there were the usual introductory words for a new letter: Item alia recitata.
65. 1 lapidarentur. [Cf. n. 7, p. 359.]
66. 2 1 Cor. vi. 5, 6.
67. 3 vos nunc in iudicio contenditis. Ziwsa reads cum in iudicia non intenditis----that is 'when you do not give your minds to judgement.'
68. 4 ut cum Pace Pascha celebremus (cf. supra 'cum gaudio Pacem [Pascha (?)] celebrare').
69. 5 dabitis [operam] quamplurime, tu possessor Donati Presbyter. It is printed in this way by both Du Pin and Ziwsa. But Possessor must be here the proper name of a Bishop (cf. the famous eighth century African Bishop, whose letter to Pope Hormisdas, about Scythian monks, is well known).
70. 6 singuli.
71. 7 qui omnia scitis actum. Ziwsa reads acta for actum.
72. 8 date operam. Date takes up dabitis above----an anacoluthon.
73. 9 fratri Silvano Sabinus. These words are not found in Ziwsa, nor are they in the MS. They were added by Baluzius, who writes 'certa est haec restitutio.' He says that Sabinus was a Numidian Bishop.
74. 1 The MS. has a play upon words, ad fratrem nostrum Fortem, fortem et gravem querelam referens. Ziwsa, however, (following Deutsch) omits the second fortem.
75. 2 Gravitati tuae.
76. 3 Si enim aedificium terrae structum sit, non additur quid caeleste, quod per manum sacerdotis aedificatur?
77. 4 1 Cor. i, 19.
78. 5 John iii, 19.
79. 6 sicuti et tu facis.
80. 7 Cf. Is. i, 16, 18.
81. 8 sic et tu fac.
82. 9 in pace tecum Pascha celebret.
83. 10 There is here a lacuna in the MS.
84. 11 certus sum peculiariter; It is thus punctuated by Ziwsa, but it seems to me that the semi-colon should rather be placed after sum, and that peculiariter belongs to coluisse in the next sentence.
85. 1 Silvanum te coluisse.
86. 2 Cf. Jer. xxxi, 3; 1 John iv, 9,
87. 3 impetu.
88. 4 ut per te fiat pinguissima pax.
89. 5 There is another lacuna here in the MS,
90. 1 We shall soon see that they wanted Donatus.
91. 1 tabulam argenteam.
92. 2 secundo petato quomodo hoc dimisit, ut duceremur ad Carthaginem. I have translated this sentence making Silvanus the subject of dimisit; in this case hoc dimisit = 'dismissed this matter' (i.e. escaped the penalty). But the magistrate may be the subject----' how it was that the magistrate discharged the matter----that is, that we should be led' etc. For petato Voelter (Der Ursprung des Donatismus, Freiburg 1883, p. 56) reads placito.
93. 3 capitulata.
94. 1 apud Constantinam.
95. 2 capitulata.
96. 3 de cupis fisci. We shall see that the casks were of vinegar. Fiscus denoted the imperial revenue, as opposed to the aerarium, the Senate's treasury,
97. 1 post Pacem ---- 'after the Peace' = after the cessation of persecution, when it was possible to elect a new Bishop.
98. 1 harenarius. Harenaria (less correctly arenaria) is a sand-pit, or a catacomb in sand, like those which lead into the Roman catacombs.
99. 2 tulit eum in collo.
100. 1 in area martyrum = 'Court of the Martyrs,' probably the atrium of a Church of the Martyrs.
101. 2 in casa maiore. A penthouse roof probably ran round the court, with pillars. The largest side would be the casa maior.
102. 1 Nundinario in MS. But this clearly is an error. It should be Saturnino.
103. 1 de cup as de fano at aceto (we may note the use of de with accusative and ablative in the same sentence).
104. 2 saccellum: hence the English word satchel.
105. 1 populus minutus = the people in 'reduced' circumstances, literally 'reduced people.'
106. 1 campeses et harenarii. Campeses for campenses.
107. 1 ad senem nostrum Silvanum. 'Senex' meant the senior Bishop of an African province, who was ipso facto Primate (as Secundus was of Numidia), except, of course, in Proconsularis, where Carthage had primacy. It appears that Silvanus was now senior Bishop of Numidia, unless senex is only an honorific title in the subdeacon's mouth ---- 'our venerable Silvanus.'
108. 2 a sene Silvano.
109. 1 aliqua partiuncula.
110. 1 ipsud est
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: optatus_11_appendices.htm
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Appendices 3-16. pp. 382-431.
Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Appendices 3-16. pp. 382-431.
APPENDIX III. CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS AELAFIO.
INTRODUCTION
In this letter Constantine sends orders to his Vicar in Africa that Caecilian and certain other Bishops (both Catholic and Donatist) should be directed to proceed, with some of their clergy, to Aries, where a Council was to be held (as he explains) once more publicly to vindicate the character of Caecilian. The date is 314.
This letter may be compared with another letter sent by Constantine to Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse, and preserved for us by Eusebius (x, 5). In both these letters August 1 is fixed as the date for the opening of the Council at Arles; in both we find a reference to the Council which had been already held at Rome under Miltiades. Indeed the similarity between them is so striking that it has been suggested that the letter to Aelafius is a forgery and has been copied from that to Chrestus. But Mgr. Duchesne has shown (op. cit. p. 32) that this is quite impossible, since the letter to Chrestus was unknown in Africa, at the time when the letter to Aelafius was placed in the collection used by Optatus. The only edition of Eusebius known to St. Augustine, for example, was the version of Rufinus, where Book Ten (containing the letter to Chrestus) is wanting.
It has also been urged as an argument against the authenticity of the Letter to Aelafius that the Bishops are herein ordered to adopt a most improbable itinerary. They were directed to follow the coast of Mauritania, |383 thence to pass into Spain, and then to travel to Arles by land; whereas it has been pointed out that it would have been far simpler and cheaper to embark at Carthage, or Hippo, and go straight to Marseilles by sea. But here again Mgr. Duchesne has observed, with irrefutable force, that if the Letter to Aelafius be not genuine, it must have been composed by an African of the fourth century. During the course of that century there is no reason to suppose that there was any change of routes. And (to quote the words of Duchesne):
'The Africans who were the contemporaries of St. Optatus knew how people went from their own country into Gaul. No one of them, had he forged such a letter as this, would ever have dreamed of placing within it an impossible itinerary.'
On the other hand we can nowadays know but little of the circumstances which may well have caused the itinerary described in this letter to have been chosen for the journey of the Bishops to Gaul. So we may safely conclude, with Duchesne, that as to the authenticity of the letter there is no room for genuine doubt. |384
CONSTANTINE THE EMPEROR TO AELAFIUS 1
Already some time back, since it was brought to my knowledge that many persons in our dominion of Africa had begun to separate from one another with mad fury, and had brought purposeless accusations against each other about the keeping of the most holy Catholic Law, I thought it well, in order to settle this quarrel, that Caecilian the Bishop of Carthage, against whom especially they all often petitioned me, should go to the City of Rome, and that some of those who had deemed fit to bring certain charges against him, should appear as well. I also ordered some Bishops from the Gauls to proceed to our above-mentioned City of Rome, that, by the integrity of their lives and praiseworthy manner of living, together with seven Bishops of the same Communion, and the Bishop 2 of the City of Rome, and their assessors, they might give due attention to the questions which had been raised. Now they brought to my knowledge, by the written Acts of their meeting, all that had been done in |385 their presence, affirming also by word of mouth that their judgement was based upon equity, and declaring that not Caecilian, but those who brought charges against him, were guilty----so that, after giving their judgement, they forbade the latter to go back to Africa.3 Wherefore, in consequence of all this I once hoped that, in accordance with the probable issue of events, a fitting end had been made to all the seditions and contentions of every kind which had been suddenly called into being by the other party. But after I had read your letters, which you had deemed it your duty to send to Nicasius and the rest, about the crafty pretext of these men, I recognised clearly that they would not place before their eyes either considerations of their own salvation, or (what is of more importance) the reverence which is due to Almighty God----for they are persisting in a line of action which not merely leads to their shame and disgrace, but also gives an opportunity of detraction to those who are known to turn their minds away from the keeping of the most holy Catholic Law. I write thus because----and this is a thing which it is well that you should know----some have come from these men, asserting that the above-mentioned Caecilian is deemed not to be worthy of the worship of our most holy religion,4 and in answer to my reply that they were making an empty boast (since the affair had been terminated in the City of Rome by competent men of the highest character, who were Bishops), they thought fit to answer with persistent obstinacy that the whole case had not been heard, but that these Bishops had shut themselves up somewhere and given the judgement as was most convenient to themselves.5 Wherefore, since I perceived that these numerous and important affairs were being pertinaciously delayed by discussions, so that it appeared |386 that no end could be made of them without both Caecilian and three of those who are making a schism against him coming to the town of Arles, for the judgement of those who are opposed to Caecilian, and are bound to accept him as Bishop,6 I have deemed it well to impose upon your care to provide, as soon as you receive this letter of mine, that the above-mentioned Caecilian with some of those whom he himself shall choose----and also some from the provinces of Byzacium, Tripolis, the Numidias and the Mauritanias, and each of the provinces, (and these must bring a certain number of their clergy 7 whom they shall choose)----and also some of those who have made a schism against Caecilian (public conveyance being provided 8 through Africa and Mauritania) shall travel thence by a short course to Spain. In the same way 9 you shall provide in Spain each Bishop with a single right of conveyance 10 so that they may all arrive at the above-mentioned place 11 |387 by August 1; furthermore you will be pleased to convey to them without delay that it is their duty to provide, before they depart, for suitable discipline in their absence, in order that no sedition or contention of disputing parties may arise----a thing which would be the greatest disgrace.12 As to the rest,13 after the matter has been fully inquired into, let it be brought to an end. For when they shall all have come together, those things which are now known to be subjects of contention should with reason receive a timely conclusion,14 and be forthwith finished and arranged. I confess to your Lordship, since I am well aware that you also are a worshipper of the most High God, that I consider it by no means right that contentions and altercations of this kind should be hidden from me, by which, perchance, God may be moved not only against the human race, but also against me myself, to whose care, by His heavenly Decree, He has entrusted the direction of all human affairs, and may in His wrath provide 15 otherwise than heretofore. For then shall I be able to remain truly and most fully without anxiety, and may always hope for all most prosperous and excellent things from the ever-ready kindness of the most powerful God, when I shall know that all, bound together in brotherly concord, adore the most holy God with the worship of the Catholic religion, that is His due. |388
APPENDIX IV. EPISTOLA CONCILII ARELATENSIS AD SILVESTRUM PAPAM, A.D. 314
INTRODUCTION
The authenticity of this letter has never been contested. It is to be found, though under a slightly different form, in the collection of Canons of Merovingian Gaul, where it has been derived, not from African sources, but from the Archives of the Church of Arles.
In all probability a letter was also sent from the Council, announcing its decisions, to the Church of Carthage. But if so, this letter has been lost.
In the same way the Council of Sardica, at the conclusion of its labours, sent two letters (both extant), one to the Pope, the second to the Church of Alexandria. We also possess a letter from the Council of Nicaea to Alexandria; the letter from Nicaea to the Pope has shared the same fate as the letter from Arles to Carthage. That there was such a letter can hardly be doubted. As Duchesne writes (p. 15):
'Il n'est guère douteux que les légats de Silvestre au Concile de Nicée n'aient rapporté une lettre de cette assemblée, accompagnant, comme pour le Concile d'Arles, l'envoi des Canons disciplinaires.' |389
Letter of the Council of Arles to Pope Silvester.
To the most beloved Pope Silvester: Marinus, Acratius, Natalis, Theodore, Proterius, Vocius, Verus, Probatius, Caecilian, Faustinus, Surgentius, Gregory, Reticius, Ambitausus, Termatius, Merocles, Pardus, Adelfius, Hibernius, Fortunatus, Aristasius, Lampadius, Vitalis, Maternus, Liberius, Gregory, Crescens, Avitianus, Dafnus, Orantalis, Quintasius, Victor, Epictetus, eternal health in the Lord!
Being united by the common tie of charity, and by that unity which is the bond of our mother, the Catholic Church, we have been brought to the City of Arles by the wish of the most pious Emperor, and we salute thee with the reverence which is thy due,16 most glorious Pope. Here we have suffered from, troublesome men, dangerous to our law and tradition----men of undisciplined mind,17 whom both the authority of our God, which is with us,18 and our tradition and the rule of truth reject, because 19 they neither have reasonableness in their argument, nor any moderation in their accusations, nor was their manner of proof to the point.20 Therefore by the Judgement of God and of Mother Church, who knows and approves her own, they have been either condemned or rejected.21 |390 And would, most beloved Brother, that you had deemed it well to be present at this great spectacle. We believe surely that in that case a more severe sentence would have been passed against them; and our assembly would have exulted with a greater joy, had you passed Judgement together with us. But since you were by no means able to leave that region, where the Apostles daily sit, and their blood without ceasing bears witness to the glory of God, it did not seem to us that by reason of your absence,22 most well-beloved Brother, we ought to deal exclusively with those matters, on account of which we had been summoned, but we judged that we also should take counsel on our own affairs; because, as the countries from which we come are different, so events of various kinds will happen which we think that we ought to watch and regulate.23 Accordingly we thought well in the presence of the Holy Spirit and His Angels that from among the various matters which occurred to each of us,24 we should make some decrees to provide for the present state of tranquillity. We also agreed to write first to you,25 who hold [the government of] the greater dioceses,26 that by |391 you especially they should be brought to the knowledge of all.27 What it is that we have determined on, we have appended to this writing of our insignificance. But in the first place, we were bound to discuss a matter that concerned the usefulness of our life. Now since 28 one died and rose again for many, the same season should be observed with a religious mind by all at the same time, lest divisions or dissensions might arise in so great a service of devotion. We judge, therefore, that the Pasch of the Lord should be observed throughout the world upon the same day.
Also, concerning those who have been ordained clerics in any places whatsoever, we have decreed that they remain fixed in the same places. Concerning those too 29 who throw down their arms in time of peace,30 we have decreed that they should be kept from communion. Concerning the wandering agitators who belong to the Faithful, we have decreed that, as long as they continue their agitation, they be debarred from communion.
Concerning the strolling players we have decreed that, as long as they act, they be debarred from communion. Concerning those [heretics] 31 who are weighed down by illness and wish to believe,32 we have decreed that hands be laid upon them. Concerning magistrates who belong to the Faithful and are appointed to office, we have determined that, when they are promoted, they should receive ecclesiastical letters of communion, but in such a way that in whatever place they may be living, the Bishop of that place shall have a heed to them, and if they begin to act against discipline, they be then excluded from communion. We have decreed similarly with regard to those who wish |392 to hold state offices. Moreover, with regard to the Africans,33 inasmuch as they use their own law of rebaptising, we have decreed that if any heretic comes to the Church, he should be questioned concerning the Creed, and if it be found that he has been baptised in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, hands shall be laid upon him and no more.34 But if, on being questioned as to the Creed, he does not give the Trinity in answer, then let him rightly be baptised, and the rest, etc.35
Then giving over,36 he commanded all to return to their homes. Amen. |393
APPENDIX V. EPISTOLA CONSTANTINI IMPERATORIS AD EPISCOPOS CATHOLICOS POST SYNODUM ARELATENSE SCRIPTA A.D. 314 circa finem.
INTRODUCTION
Two objections, both of them sufficiently flimsy, have been brought against the authenticity of this letter, from which St. Optatus quotes twice (i, 23, 25, cf. pp. 44, 49), though, as we have seen, he was mistaken as to its date.
It has been urged that the indignation of Constantine at an appeal having been made to him from the decision of the Bishops is overdone, and it has been represented that the piety of its expressions is strange as emanating from an Emperor in an official document. To the first objection we may reply that Constantine might well be shocked. As Emperor, he could have no right to settle the purely ecclesiastical question who was the legitimate Bishop of Carthage, though in this capacity he considered it his duty to provide for the ecclesiastical trial of such matters as they arose, and deemed himself bound to enforce Catholic law and discipline (when it had been duly determined) throughout his dominions; as a Christian, he was still in the lowest rank, a catechumen. Small wonder then if he was scandalised, and expressed his scornful anger, at the behaviour of the Donatists in his regard. As for the piety of the tone of this letter, Duchesne observes that Constantine's letter to Chrestus of Syracuse, concerning the authenticity of which no one doubts, is equally full of pious expressions. Besides, Constantine seems to |394 have been fond of preaching to his subjects on occasion. 'Il a toujours beaucoup sermonné ses sujets. Sa vie écrite par Eusèbe et les autres documents que l'on a de son activité oratoire en ce genre, même certaines lois du code théodosien, nous édifient suffisamment là-dessus.' (Op. cit. p. 39.)
Moreover, this letter may perhaps have been touched up by an ecclesiastical secretary, of whom Constantine had several in his household. One of them, Hosius, the celebrated Bishop of Cordova, was certainly closely involved in these African controversies (cf. Eusebius, E.H. x, 6). However this may be, there is no doubt that Constantine felt the bad conduct of the Donatists very deeply. Whatever we may think as to the form of this letter, its substance is certainly his. Expressions may have been placed upon his lips, or made to flow from his pen. But this happens not seldom to personages of high estate Whatever was written in an official document, such as the one before us, he adopted and made his own. |395
Letter of Constantine to the Catholic Bishops.
Constantine Augustus, to his dearest brothers, the Catholic Bishops, Health! The everlasting and worshipful, the incomprehensible kindness of our God by no means allows the weakness of men to wander for too long a time in the darkness. Nor does it suffer the perverse wills of some to come to such a pass as not to give them anew by its most splendid light a saving passage, opening the way so that they may be converted to the rule of justice. I have indeed experienced this by many examples. I can also describe it from myself. For in me of old there were things that were far from right, nor did I think that the power of God saw anything of what I carried amongst the secrets of my heart. Surely this ought to have brought me a just retribution, flowing over with all evils. But Almighty God, who sitteth in the watchtower of Heaven,37 hath bestowed upon me gifts which I deserved not. Of a truth, those things which of His Heavenly kindness He has granted to me, His servant, can neither be told nor counted. On this account, O most holy Bishops of Christ the Saviour, my dearest brothers, I indeed rejoice; yes, in a special way do I rejoice, that at length, after you have held a most impartial inquiry, you have recalled to a better hope and fortune those whom the wickedness of the devil seemed by his wretched persuasion to have turned away from the most noble light of the Catholic Law. Oh, truly triumphant Providence of Christ the Saviour, to come to the rescue of those who, already falling away from the truth, and in a certain manner taking up arms against it, had joined themselves to the Gentiles! For, if even now they will consent with |396 pure 38 faith to make their obedience to the most holy Law, they will be able to understand how great a provision has been made for them by the Will of God. And this, my most holy brothers, I hoped might be found even in those in whom the greatest hardness of heart has been engendered. But your right judgement has not been of any avail to them, nor has the merciful God made an entrance into their dispositions. In truth, not undeservedly has the mercy of Christ departed far from those men, in whom it is as clear as the sun of noon-day,39 that they are of such a character, as to be seen to be shut off even from the care of Heaven, since so great a madness still holds them captive, and with unbelievable arrogance they persuade themselves of things which cannot lawfully be either spoken or heard----departing from the right judgement that was given, from which, as through the provision of Heaven I have learnt 40 they are appealing to my judgement----Oh, what force has the wickedness which even yet is persevering in their breasts!
How often have they been crushed already by myself in a reply, which, by their most shameless approaches to me, they have deservedly brought upon themselves. Surely, if they had kept this before their eyes, they would never have ventured on this appeal of theirs. They ask judgement from me, who am myself waiting for the judgement of Christ.41 For I declare----as is true----that the judgement of Bishops ought to be looked upon as if the Lord Himself were sitting in Judgement.42 For it is not lawful for them 43 to think or to judge in any other way, |397 excepting as they have been taught by the teaching of Christ.44 Why then, as I have said with truth, do wicked men seek the devil's services? They search after worldly things, deserting those which are heavenly.45 Oh, mad daring of their rage! They have made an appeal, as is done in the lawsuits of the pagans.46 For pagans are accustomed sometimes to escape from the lower courts where justice may be obtained speedily, and through the authority of higher tribunals to have recourse to an appeal. What of those shirkers of the law 47 who refuse the judgement of Heaven, and have thought fit to ask for mine? 48 Do they thus think of Christ the Saviour? Behold, they are now 'Betrayers.' Behold, without any need for disputatious examination, of their own accord they have themselves betrayed their wicked deeds. How can they, who have leapt savagely upon God Himself, feel as men should feel?
But, my dearest Brothers, although this wickedness has been discovered in them, nevertheless do you, who follow the way 49 of the Lord the Saviour, show patience, and still give them a choice to choose what they may think well. And if you see that they persevere in the same courses, do you go your way, and return to your own Sees, and remember me, that our Saviour may always have mercy on me. But I have directed my men to bring these wicked deceivers of religion to my court that they may live there, and there survey for themselves what is worse than death.50 I have also sent a suitable letter |398 to the prefect who is my viceroy in Africa, enjoining him, that, as often as he finds any instances of this madness, he is to send the guilty, forthwith, to my court, lest any longer, beneath so great a shining of our God, such things be done by them, as may provoke the greatest anger of the Heavenly Providence.
May Almighty God keep you safe, my dearest Brothers, through the ages, in answer to my prayers and yours. |399
APPENDIX VI. EPISTOLA CONSTANTINI IMPERATORIS AD EPISCOPOS PARTIS DONATI A.D. 315
INTRODUCTION
St. Augustine informs us (Ep. xliii, 20) that, in accordance with what we read in this letter, Constantine, after the Council of Arles, commanded representatives of both Catholics and Donatists to appear before him at Rome. The Donatists complied, but on the appointed day Caecilian failed to arrive. Constantine thereupon put off his judgement until a later date and directed that the Donatists should be conducted under a safeguard to Milan. Some of them, however, contrived to escape before Caecilian arrived at Milan----to be vindicated a third time from the charges which had been so persistently brought against his good name. |400
CONSTANTINE AUGUSTUS TO THE DONATIST BISHOPS.
A few days ago I determined that, in accordance with your demand, you should go back to Africa, so that there the whole case, which you think lies against Caecilian, should be tried by friends of mine whom I had chosen, and reach a fitting conclusion. However, whilst I was thinking it over for a long time, and duly turning the matter over in my mind, I deemed it best, rather than this----since I know that some of your party are full of turbulence and obstinately refuse to regard the right judgement and the statement of the complete truth, and that for this reason it would perhaps happen, that if the case were tried in Africa it would be determined, not as is fitting, and as the demands of truth require, but that through your exceedingly great obstinacy something might easily result which would both be displeasing to God in Heaven, and also would be exceedingly detrimental to my good reputation, which I desire always to preserve undiminished----that Caecilian should preferably come here, as was first settled. Thus, as I have said, I have determined, and I believe that, in compliance with my letter, he will soon arrive. But I promise you, that if, in his presence, you prove by your evidence anything against him concerning even one accusation or evil deed, I will regard this the same as though all your charges were seen to be proved.
May Almighty God grant us perpetual safety! |401
APPENDIX VII. EXEMPLUM EPISTOLAE PRAEFECTORUM PRAETORIO AD CELSUM VICARIUM, QUA REMITTUNTUR IN AFRICAM DONATISTAE QUI IN GALLIAS VENERANT PROPTER CAUSSAM CAECILIANI. A.D. 315
INTRODUCTION
Du Pin dates this letter 316; but (though Ziwsa follows him in printing it after the succeeding letter Perseverare Menalium) this must be a mistake. The letter itself concludes thus:
'Hilarus Princeps optulit IV Kal. Maias, Triberos' 51
It is addressed to Celsus who had by April 316 given place to Eumelius as Vicar of Africa. It was therefore written in 315. It carries into execution Constantine's permission, of which we have just read in the preceding letter, to the Donatist Bishops to return to Africa after the Council of Arles. Of itself it has no intrinsic importance, but is of some interest in consequence of its close connection with the document given by Optatus (i, 23), containing the names of the obscure signatories of the famous appeal to Constantine. Optatus records the names of Lucianus, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito and Fidentius. These all reappear in the document before us, excepting Dignus, who perhaps had died at Arles. |402
PETRONIUS ANNIANUS AND JULIANUS TO DOMITIUS CELSUS THE VICAR OF AFRICA.
Since Lucian, Capito, Fidentius, Nasutius the Bishops, and Mammarius the priest, who in accordance with the divine precept of the Lord Constantine Maximus, the unconquered, always august, had gone to Gaul with other men of their Law,52 were commanded by his Majesty to proceed to their own homes, we have, my brother, in compliance with the command of the Eternity of our most clement Lord, ordered for them a service of post-horses, with suitable provisions,53 so far as the port of Arles, from which they may set sail for Africa, a fact which it is desirable that your Carefulness54 should learn from this our letter.
We pray, my Brother, that the best of good fortune may always attend you.
Given at Trêves on April 28, by Hilary, the Magistrate. |403
APPENDIX VIII. EPISTOLA CONSTANTINI IMPERATORIS
AD CELSUM VICARIUM AFRICAE. A.D. 315 OR 316
INTRODUCTION
This letter was written by Constantino during the interval that elapsed between the appearance of the Donatists at Rome and the judgement at Milan. It betrays considerable irritation even against Caecilian, due no doubt to the fact that he had failed to obey the Emperor's summons (given in a letter no longer extant) to Rome. Constantine in this letter expresses a new determination----which he failed to carry out----to go himself to Africa and investigate the conditions on the spot. Since Constantine mentions in this letter the 'flight' of some of the Donatists as having already taken place, it was not written before September 315, when the Emperor left Rome; on the other hand it must have been written before Celsus was succeeded as Vicar of Africa by Eumelius early in 316. We are thus enabled to fix its date, as having been written in the autumn of 315 or the winter of 315-316. |404
TO CELSUS, THE VICAR OF AFRICA:
The latest despatches from your Lordship have informed me how Menalius,55 a man whom madness long ago took hold of, and the others who have departed from the truth of God, and given themselves over to a most shameful error, persevere in their course. You tell me in your letter, my well-beloved Brother, that you have obeyed my order with regard to the seditious in accordance with their deserts, and have placed a check upon the tumult which they were preparing. And now that they were contemplating wicked deeds has become manifest from the fact that, when I had determined to inquire most fully between them and Caecilian, concerning the various charges which they brought against him, they did their best to withdraw from my presence by taking to flight.56 By this most disgraceful deed they acknowledged that they were hastening to return to the things which they both had done previously and are now persisting in doing. But (since it is certain that no one ever gains an unmixed advantage from his own misdeeds, even though punishment may be delayed for a little while), I have thought well to command your Lordship that in the meantime you should leave them alone,57 and understand that we must temporise with them.58
But after you have read this letter, you should make it plain both to Caecilian and to them, that when by the Divine Goodness I come to Africa, I shall render it most |405 clear to all, both to Caecilian, and to those who are acting against him, by reading a perfectly plain judgement, as to what and what kind 59 of worship is to be given to the Supreme God, and with what manner of service He is pleased. Also, by diligent examination, I shall acquaint myself to the full with the things which at the present time some persons fancy they can keep dark through the allurements 60 of their ignorant minds, and shall drag them into the light. Those same persons who now stir up the people in such a war as to bring it about that the supreme God is not worshipped with the veneration that is His due, I shall destroy and dash in pieces.61 And since it is sufficiently clear that no one may hope to obtain the honours of a martyr with that kind [of Martyrdom] 62 which is seen to be foreign to the truth of religion, and is altogether unbecoming, I shall without any delay cause those men whom I shall ascertain to have acted against that which is right and against religion itself, and whom I shall discover to have been guilty of violence 63 in their worship, to undergo the destruction which they have deserved by their madness and reckless obstinacy.
Wherefore, let them also know for certain what they ought to do to secure full credence after they have invoked their own salvation,64 since I am going most diligently to search into the things which concern not merely the |406 people, but also those clerics who are in the first places, and shall pass judgement in accordance with that which is most clearly in the interests of truth and religion. I shall also make these persons see what worship and what kind of worship is to be given to the Divinity, for by no means do I believe that I can in any way escape the greatest guilt otherwise than by refusing to close my eyes to that which is wicked. What can be done by me more in accordance with my constant practice,65 and the very office of a Prince, than, after having driven away errors and destroyed all rash opinions, to bring it about that all men should show forth true religion and simplicity in concord, and to render to Almighty God the worship which is His due? |407
APPENDIX IX. EPISTOLA CONSTANTINI IMPERATORIS AD EPISCOPOS
ET PLEBEM AFRICAE, UT DONATISTAS TOLERENT. A.D. 321
INTRODUCTION
This letter speaks for itself. It seems to be contemporaneous with the Rescript of Verinus (May 5, 321). Its object is to inform the Catholics of Africa that the Government had changed its plan of dealing with the recalcitrant Donatists. Rigorous measures were to be abandoned, and toleration granted, in the hope of attaining good results in the end. With regard to this new determination Duchesne writes as follows (op. cit. p. 28):
'This toleration, in face of the fanaticism, of the audacity and the violence of the schismatics, was in reality an abandonment. Without doubt the Emperor exhorts the Catholic Bishops to endure with patience the wrongs inflicted upon them by the Donatists; he also makes reparation, up to a certain point, for the material damage caused by these sectaries, but this does not make it less true that he tolerates them. In thus granting them toleration, he goes back upon his much more decided attitude anterior to the Rescript of 321 and allows the judgement to fall into abeyance, which he had himself given against Donatus and in favour of Caecilian.' |408
Letter of Constantine on Toleration to be granted to the Donatists.
Constantine Augustus to all the Bishops in Africa and to the people of the Catholic Church. You know right well that, as Faith required, so far as Prudence permitted, as much as a single-minded intention 66 could prevail, I have endeavoured by every effort of kindly government to secure that, in accordance with the prescriptions of our law, the Peace of the most holy Brotherhood,67 whose grace the supreme God has poured into the hearts of His servants, should, through complete concord, be preserved secure. 'But whereas the provisions that we have made have not prevailed to subdue the obstinate violence of crime, which has been implanted in the breasts of certain men----few though they be----and whereas some favour is still shown to this wickedness of theirs, so that they would not on any account suffer a place in which they were proud to have sinned68 to be extorted from them, we must see to it, that as all this evil affects a few, it may be, through the mercy of Almighty God, mitigated for the people. For we ought to hope for a remedy, from that source to which all good desires and deeds are referred.69 But, until the Heavenly medicine shows itself, our designs must be moderated so far as to act with patience, and whatever in their insolence they attempt or carry out, in accordance with their habitual wantonness----all this we must endure with the strength which comes from tranquillity. In no way let wrong be returned to wrong, |409 for it is the mark of a fool to snatch at that vengeance which we ought to leave to God, especially since our faith ought to lead us to trust that whatever we may endure from the madness of men of this kind, will avail before God for the grace of martyrdom. For what is it, to overcome in this world in the Name of God, excepting to endure with an unshaken heart the untamed savagery of men who harass the people of the Law of Peace? But, if you will give yourselves loyally to this affair, you will speedily bring it about that, by the favour of God on high, these men, who are making themselves the standard-bearers of this most miserable strife, may all come to recognise, as their laws 70 or customs 71 fall into decay,72 that they ought not, through the persuasion of a few, to give themselves over to perish in everlasting death,73 when they might, through the grace of repentance, be made whole again, having corrected their errors, for everlasting life.
Fare you well, by your common prayer, for ever, by God's favour, dearest brethren.74 |410
APPENDIX X. RESCRIPTUM CONSTANTINI AD EPISCOPOS NUMIDAS UBI HAERETICI
TULERUNT BASILICAS A CATHOLICIS UT AD ALIAM BASILICAM FACIENDAM
SIBI LOCUM VEL DOMUM EIS DENT. A.D. 330
INTRODUCTION
In this Rescript Constantine provides that, as the Donatists refused to give back to Catholics their basilicas----amongst which was one that he had himself built for their use----the Donatists should, lest worse things befall, be left in undisturbed possession of their ill-gotten goods, and that a new Church should be built, again at his expense, to provide for the religious needs of Catholics. He also states that he had ordered that certain exemptions, relative to the curia and munera personalia, of which the Donatists had succeeded by their intrigues in depriving Catholic clerics of lower degree, should be restored to them, according to a custom which was already ancient.
Duchesne has shown (op. cit. pp. 28, 29) that certain passages in this letter are in even verbal accord with the prescriptions of Constantine in his letter to the Consular of Numidia still preserved in a law of the Theodosian Code.
He prints them as follows in parallel columns: |411
Letter to the Numidian Bishops. Theodosian Code, xvi,ii.75
Ad consularem quoque scribi mandavi Numidiae ut ipse in eiusdem ecclesiae fabricatione in omnibus sanctimoniam vestram iuvaret. Lectores etiam Ecclesiae Catholicae et hypodiacones, reliquos quoque [qui] instinctu memoratorum quibusdam pro moribus ad munera vel ad decurionatum vocati sunt, iuxta sta[tu]tum legis meae1 ad nullum munus statui evocandos. Sed et eos qui ducti sunt haereticorum instinctu iussimus protinus molestis perfunctionibus absolvi.
Data non. febr., Serdica. Imp. Constantinus Valentino consulari Numidiae.Lectores divinorum apicum et hypodiaconi ceterique clerici qui per iniuriam haereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt absolvantur; et de cetero ad similitudinem Orientis minime ad curias devocentur sed immunitate plenissima potiantur.
Data non. febr., Serdica.
Constantine evidently was as good as his word. He dated, and no doubt despatched, his letters on the same day to the Numidian Bishops and his Prefect in Africa. Would that Princes had always thus faithfully kept their promises to the Church. |412
Rescript of Constantine to the Bishops of Numidia.
Constantine the supreme Victor and always triumphant Emperor, to Zenuzius, Gallicus, Victorinus, Sperantius, Januarius, Felix, Crescentius, Pontius, Victor, Babbertius, Donatus, Bishops.
Since this is certainly the Will of the Supreme God, who is the Author of this world and its Father, (through whose goodness we enjoy life, look up to heaven, and rejoice in the society of our fellow-men), that the whole human race should agree together and be joined in a certain affectionate union by, as it were, a mutual embrace, it is not doubtful that heresies and schism have come from the devil, who is the head of wickedness. Therefore, there is no room to doubt that whatever heretics do, is done through his prompting who has taken possession of their senses, minds and thoughts. For, when he has reduced men of this character beneath his power, he rules them in every sort of fashion. And what good thing can be done by a man who is insane, unbelieving, irreligious, profane, opposed to God, an enemy of the Holy Church, who (departing from God, the Holy, the True, the Just, the Supreme, and the Lord of all, from Him who has given us life and preserved us in this world----having bestowed upon us breath for the life which we enjoy, and willed us to have, that which is His own 76 ----and has made all things perfect by His Will) runs on the downward path to the side of the devil? But, inasmuch as the soul which has once been possessed by the Evil One----for it must needs do the works of its teacher----does those things which are opposed to equity and justice, it follows that they who have been possessed by the devil yield themselves to his falsehood and wickedness. Moreover, |413 it is not to be wondered at 77 that the wicked depart from the good, for thus has it been rightly laid down in the proverb, 'Like flock with like together.' 78 It must needs be that those who have been stained with the evil of an impious mind should depart from our fellowship. For, as Scripture says, the wicked man brings forth wicked things from a wicked treasure,79 but the good man brings forth good from good. But since (as we have said) heretics and schismatics, who, deserting good and following after evil, do the things that are displeasing to God, are proved to cling to the devil, who is their father, most rightly and wisely has your Gravity 80 acted in accordance with the holy precepts of the Faith, by abstaining from contending with their perversity, and giving them the use of that which they claim for themselves, though they have no right to it, and it does not belong to them, lest----so great is their wicked and shameless perversity----they might even break out into tumults, and stir up men like themselves at their crowded meetings, and thus a state of sedition might be produced, which could not be allayed. For their criminal purpose always requires them to do the works of the devil. Therefore, since the Bishops of God overcome them, together with their father himself,81 by patience, let those who are the worshippers of the Supreme God obtain glory for themselves, but these others condemnation and condign punishments. In fact, may the Judgement of the Supreme God become the more imposing and appear 82 the more just from this, that He bears with them in calmness, and His patience condemns all the deeds which have come from them, enduring them for a while, for God indeed has declared that He is the Avenger of all. So when vengeance is reserved to God, the enemy is punished the more severely. And |414 I have now been informed that you, the servants of God, have done this willingly, and I have rejoiced that you demand no punishment upon the impious and wicked, the sacrilegious and profane, the perfidious and irreligious, upon those who displease God and are the enemies of the Church, but rather ask that they should be pardoned. This is to know God truly and thoroughly, this is to walk in the way of His Commandments, this is to believe with happiness, this is to think with truth, this is to understand that when the enemies of the Church are spared in this world, the greater punishment is laid up against them for hereafter.
I have learnt by the receipt of the letter of your Wisdom and Dignity, that the heretics or schismatics, with their accustomed wickedness, determined to seize the basilicas belonging to the Catholic Church, which I had ordered to be built in the City of Constantine,83 and that, though they had been often warned, both by us and by our judges at our command, to give up what was not theirs, they have refused to do so, but that you, imitating the Patience of the most high God, with a calm mind relinquish to their wickedness what is yours, and ask instead for another site for yourselves in exchange, namely the Custom House. This petition of yours I gladly welcomed, according to my custom, and straightway sent a suitable letter to the accountant,84 commanding him to see that our Custom House should be passed over, with all its rights, to the ownership of the Catholic Church. I have given you this with ready liberality, and have ordered it to be at once delivered to you. I have also commanded a basilica to be built on that spot at the Imperial expense, and have directed letters to be written to the Consular of Numidia,85 |415 telling him to be of assistance to your Holiness in all things which concern the building of this Church. I have also decreed, in accordance with my Statute law, that the lectors and subdeacons 86 of the Catholic Church, and any others who, by the command of the above-mentioned, have been summoned in consequence of their fitness, to public offices, or to the decurionship, should be free from all public obligations 87; also we have provided that those who at the instigation of heretics had been summoned, should forthwith be set free from disagreeable duties.88 For the rest I have also ordered that the law which I have made concerning Catholic ecclesiastics be observed. All these things have been written out at length, as this letter testifies, in order that they may be made known to your patience. And indeed, oh that the heretics or schismatics would at length provide for their own salvation, and that, having wiped away the darkness from their eyes, they would open them to the vision of true light, and that they would depart from the devil, and, however late, would flee to God, who is One and True, and the Judge of all mankind. But, since it is clear that they are remaining in their malice, and wish to die in their crimes, our warning and former careful exhortation is enough for them. For if they had been willing to obey our commands, they would have been freed from all evil. Let us, however, my Brothers, follow after the things that are ours, let us walk in the way of the Commandments, let us by good actions keep the Divine Precepts, let us free our life from errors and with the help of the mercy of God, let us direct it along the right path.
Given on February 5 at Sardica.
DEO GRATIAS. |416
APPENDIX XI. ACTA CONCILII CIRTENSIS. A.D. 305
INTRODUCTION
This document seems to have been joined in the Appendix to the Gesta apud Zenophilum. Its substance was given by St. Optatus (i, 14) who added:
'Sicut scripta Nundinarii tunc diaconi testantur et vetustas membranarum testimonium perhibet, quas dubitantibus proferre poterimus; harum namque plenitudinem rerum in novissima parte istorum libellorum ad implendam fidem adiunximus.'
It was produced by Catholics at the Conference of Carthage (Coll. iii, 351-355, 387-400; 408-432, 452-470; Brev. Coll. iii, xv, xvii). St. Augustine quotes it in several passages (con. Cresc. iii, 26, 27; Ep. xliii, 3; c. Litt. Petil. i, 21; de unico Baptismo xvii; ad Donat. post coll. xiv (Cirtense concilium, si tamen concilium dicendum est, in quo vix undecim vel duodecim Episcopi fuerunt); con. Gaud. i, 47 &c). I give a translation of the document as it is to be found almost in its entirety in con. Cresc, iii, 27. |417
ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CIRTA
When Diocletian was Consul for the eighth and Maximinian for the seventh time, on March 4, after Secundus, Bishop of Tigisis and Primate, had taken his seat in the house of Urbanus Donatus,89 he said:
'Let us first see that all are duly qualified to act, and thus we shall be able to consecrate a Bishop.'
Secundus said to Donatus of Mascula:
'It is alleged that you have been guilty of Betrayal.'
Donatus replied:
'You know how Florus searched for me to make me offer incense, and God did not deliver me into his hands, my brother; but since God has pardoned me, so do you too leave me to God.'
Secundus said:
'What then are we to do about the Martyrs? They have been crowned because they did not "betray."'
Donatus said:
'Send me to God. Before Him I will render my account.'
Secundus said:
'Come to one side.'
Secundus said to Marinus of the Waters of Tibilis:
'It is alleged that you too were guilty of Betrayal.'
Marinus answered:
'I did give papers to Pollus. My codices are safe.'
Secundus said:
'Stand on one side.'
Secundus said to Donatus of Calama:
'It is alleged that you were guilty of Betrayal.'
Donatus answered:
'I gave them medical treatises.' |418
Secundus said:
'Stand on one side.'
And in another place:
Secundus said to Victor of Rustica:
'It is alleged that you "betrayed" four Gospels.'
Victor answered:
'Valentianus was Curator. He forced me to throw them into the fire. I knew that they were lost. Pardon me this fault and God will also pardon me.'
Secundus said:
'Stand on one side.'
And in another place:
Secundus said to Purpurius of Limata:
'It is alleged that you killed at Milevis the two sons of your sister.'
Purpurius answered:
'Do you think that I am frightened of you, like the rest? What have you done, who were forced by the Curator and the soldiers to give up the Scriptures? How did you come to be set free by them, unless you surrendered something, or ordered it to be surrendered? For they did not let you go at random. Yes, I did kill, and I intend now to kill those who act against me. So do not now provoke me to say anything more. You know that I interfere with nobody's affairs.'
Secundus the Less said to Secundus his uncle:
'Do you hear what he is saying against you? He is ready to leave, and make a schism; and not only he, but also all those who are accused by you. I know that they intend to abandon you, and pronounce sentence against you. You will then remain alone, a heretic. So what business is it of yours what any one has done? He has to render an account to God.'
Secundus said to Felix of Rotarium, [to Nabor] of Centurio and Victor of Garba:
'What do you think?' |419
They answered:
'They have God, to whom they must render their account.'
Secundus said:
'You know and God knows. Sit down.'
And they all answered:
'Thanks be to God.' |420
APPENDIX XII. RELATIO ANULINI PROCONSULIS AD IMPERATOREM. A.D. 313
INTRODUCTION
We have here a report of the Pro-Consul Anulinus to Constantine, informing him that he had duly sent his letter to Caecilian, but that a few days afterwards he had been approached by a deputation, followed by a crowd of people, requesting him to transmit two documents----one sealed, the other open----to the Emperor (cf. Opt. i, 22).
This document was produced in its entirety by the Catholics at the Carthage Conference (Gesta Coll. Carthag. diei iii, ccxv-ccxx, cccxvi, cf. Brev. iii, 8, 24). It has also been reproduced by St. Augustine (Ep. lxxxviii, 2, from which source I have made my translation) and is often mentioned by him (con. Crescon. iii, 67; De Un. Bapt. 28; Ep. lxxxix, 3; cxxviii, 2; cxxiv, 9, &c). |421
Report of Anulinus to the Emperor.
My duty 90 has caused me, amongst the acts of my insignificance,91 to send your Majesty's heavenly letter, 92 after I had received and venerated it,93 to Caecilian and his subordinate clerics 94; at the same time I exhorted them that----now that Unity has been effected with general consent, since through the condescension of your Majesty their liberty was seen to be in every respect completely secure, and the Catholic Church was protected----they should apply themselves to the service of their holy Law and to the things of God, with due reverence. But a few days afterwards I was approached by certain persons, followed by a great throng of the populace, who held that Caecilian must be opposed, and presented me in my official capacity 95 with two documents, one bound in leather and sealed, the other a libellus unsealed, and demanded with insistence that I should send them to the sacred and venerable Court of your Highness. This my littleness has been careful to do (preserving Caecilian in his position), and I have forwarded their Acts, that your Majesty may be in a position to determine everything. I have sent the two libelli, of which the one bound in leather has been endorsed Libellus Ecclesiae Catholicae criminum Caeciliani traditus a parte Maiovini.96 Also the one without a seal together with that in leather. Given on the fifteenth of April at Carthage when Constantine Augustus was for the third time Consul. |422
APPENDIX XIII. EPISTOLA CONSTANTINI AD MELCHIADEM. A.D. 313
INTRODUCTION
In this letter Constantinc calls upon Pope Melchiades (or Miltiades) to judge the question lately raised in Africa between Caecilian and his accusers. The Emperor encloses for the Pope's information the two documents which (as we have just read) he had lately received from Anulinus (cf. Optatus, i, 22; Augustine, Ep. xliii, 5; Ep. xciii, 13; de Unit. xviii; con. Crescon. iii, 61). This letter has been preserved for us by Eusebius (H.E. x, 5) E0peidh_ toiou~toi. It was produced by the Catholics at the Conference in 411 (Coll. iii, 319; Brev. iii, 12). |423
Letter of the Emperor Constantine in which he provides for the
case concerning Caecilian to be judged at Rome.
Constantine Augustus to Miltiades Bishop of Rome and to Marcus.97 Whereas several documents 98 have been sent to me from Anulinus, the most illustrious ProConsul of Africa, in which it is shown that Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage, has been accused on many grounds by certain of his fellow-Bishops 99 in Africa----since it appears to me a very grievous 100 thing that in those Provinces which Divine Providence has freely committed to my fidelity, where there is a vast population, the multitude (as it were divided into twain) are found to be deteriorating, and the Bishops, amongst others, are at variance----I have resolved that this Caecilian with ten of the Bishops who accuse him and ten others whom he himself may choose to aid in his defence, shall sail to Rome; that there in your presence and in the presence of Reticius, Maternus and Marinus your fellow-Bishops, whom I have ordered to hasten to Rome for this purpose, this case may be determined in the manner which you know to be in agreement with the most holy Law.101 Moreover, that you may derive the fullest knowledge of all this business, I have added copies of the documents which were sent me by Anulinus, to my letters to your above-mentioned fellow-Bishops. After you have perused these your Gravity 102 |424 will carefully consider in what way this controversy may be most accurately investigated and justly decided. And it will not have escaped your careful observation that so great is my reverence for the most holy Catholic Church that I am absolutely unwilling that any schism or dissension should be left in any place by you.103 My most esteemed one,104 may the Divinity of the Most High God preserve you for many years. |425
APPENDIX XIV. CONSTANTINI EPISTOLA AD PROBIANUM, QUA
INGENTIUM AD COMITATUM MITTI IUBET. A.D. 315
INTRODUCTION
This letter was produced by the Donatists at the Conference in 411 (Coll. Carthag. Diei iii, dlvi, dlviii; Brev. iii, 41, 42). St. Augustine gives us the complete text (con. Crescon. iii, lxx. Cf. Ep. lxxxviii, 4; ad Donat. 19). |426
Letter of the Emperor Constantine to Probianus the Pro-Consul of Africa.
The Emperors Constantine Maximus and Valerius Licinius Caesars to Probianus the Pro-Consul of Africa.
Your predecessor Aelianus at a time when he was discharging the duties of that most worthy man, Verus our Vicar, in consequence of his ill-health, thought well (and with reason), amongst other matters, to investigate and determine the business----that is, the charges----brought by envy against Caecilian, a Bishop of the Catholic Church. For after he had secured the presence of Superius the centurion, and Caecilianus the Magistrate of Aptunga, and Saturninus 105 who was formerly Curator, and Calidius 106 the younger Curator, and Solon a public official of that city, he gave them a fair hearing----so that when it was alleged as an objection against Caecilian that he had been raised to the Episcopate by Felix, who was accused of the Betrayal and burning of the Divine Scriptures, the innocence of Felix was proved. Finally, when Maximus charged Ingentius, a decurion of Ziqua, with having falsified a letter of Caecilianus formerly Duovir, we have learned from the Acts of the Proceedings that this Ingentius was prepared for torture, and was only saved by his statement that he was a decurion of Ziqua.107 Wherefore it is our will that you should despatch this Ingentius, under suitable escort, to my Court of Constantine Augustus,108 so that it may be made quite clear, in the presence and hearing of those who are concerned with this affair, and for some time past have been incessantly appealing to me, that it is to no purpose that they show their malice against Caecilian |427 the Bishop and have been pleased to bestir themselves against him with violence. So will it be brought to pass that these disputes having ceased, as is right, the people may without any dissension serve their religion 109 with the reverence that is its due. |428
APPENDIX XV. A.D. 312
We have here a letter of the Emperor Constantine to the Pro-Consul Anulinus, commanding that restitution should be made of their property to the Catholic churches. It has been preserved by Eusebius (H.E. x, 5). |429
An Imperial Decree
Hail, Anulinus, most highly esteemed by us! After this manner is our benevolence, that we will that those things which by just title belong to others should not only remain unmolested, but also, when necessary, be restored, most esteemed Anulinus! Wherefore we decree that, so soon as you have received this letter, if any of those things which belong to the Catholic Church of the Christians, in the several cities or other places, are held by Decurions or by any others, these you shall cause immediately to be restored to their churches. For we have determined that whatever these same churches formerly possessed shall be restored in accordance with justice. When therefore your Fidelity 110 has understood that this decree of our orders is most clear, you will make haste to see that everything, whether gardens or houses, or whatever else belongs to these churches, be restored to them as soon as may be possible----that we may learn that you have attended to, and most carefully carried into execution, this our decree. Farewell, my most esteemed and beloved Anulinus. |430
APPENDIX XVI. A.D. 312 OR 313
Letter of the Emperor Constantine to the Pro-Consul Anulinus, concerning the Immunity of Clerics belonging to the Catholic Church at Carthage, where Caecilian was Bishop.
This letter has been preserved by Eusebius (H.E. x, 7). |431
A Copy of a Letter of the Emperor Constantine, in which he orders that all those holding office in the Churches should be exempt from all Civil Duties.
Hail, Anulinus, most highly esteemed by us! Whereas from many incidents it is abundantly clear that whenever the religion, by which the supreme reverence due to the Divine Majesty is guarded, has been held in contempt, the greatest perils have overtaken the State, and whereas this religion, when it has been duly accepted and protected, has, through the goodness of God, conferred the highest prosperity on the Roman name and has given their chief benefits to all human affairs----We have resolved that those men, who with due piety and careful observance of this Law, have given their service to the divine worship, should receive the recompence for their labours, O most esteemed Anulinus!
Wherefore it is our will that those men called Clerics, who within the Province entrusted to your care serve this most holy religion in the Catholic Church, over which Caecilian presides, shall be held totally exempt from all public offices, to the end that they may not, through some mistake or sacrilegious deviation, be drawn away from the service which is due to God Most High; but may be free to serve their own Law without any disturbance. For through their showing supreme reverence to God, the very greatest advantage will accrue to the Commonwealth. Farewell, my most esteemed and beloved Anulinus!
[Footnotes have been moved to the end and renumbered]
1. 1 Aelafio. We do not meet this name elsewhere. It is almost certainly an error of the copyists. Du Pin (without giving any reason for his choice) suggests Ablavio. Mgr. Duchesne, however, (p. 61) with, his usual acumen, identifies this Aelafius of the corrupt Ms. with the Aelius Paulinus of whom we have read at the beginning of the Acta Purgationis Felicis (cf. Opt. i, 27). For the recipient of this letter evidently was Constantine's Vicar in Africa, and no one else could be charged with the public conveyance of Bishops of Numidia, Byzacium, and Mauritania. Now Patritius was Vicar from the end of 312 to the beginning of 313 (cf. S. Aug. con. Cresc. iii, 81 etc.), Verus was Vicar in February 315. Shortly before Verus, Aelius Paulinus. It is therefore in all probability his name which is hidden beneath the group of letters Aelafius. The following then is the succession of Vicars of Africa in the early years of Constantine. (1) Patritius, (2) Aelius Paulinus=Aelafius, (3) Verus, (4) Domitius Celsus, (5) Eumelius, (6) Verinus.
2. 2 Episcopus. The MS. reads episcopi----of course this is a mistake.
3. 1 Cf. Opt. i, 26 (n. 4, p. 29).
4. 2 minus dignus idem Caecilianus cultu sanctissimae religionis habeatur.
5. 3 Cf. p. 328, n. 1.
6. 1 consensumque debent = they owe him their approval as Bishop.
7. 2 aliquantos ex suis.
8. 3 data evectione publica.
9. 4 nihilominus ( = huiusmodi, in the same way).
10. 5 his in singulis Episcopis singulas tractorias tribuas. In his History of the Conference at Carthage, a.D. 411 (reprinted by Du Pin in his Optatus), Balduinus writes as follows: 'Nolo hoc loco praeterire quod ipse Augustinus in Lib. post Collat. cap. 24 ait Donatistas a Primate suo per Tractoriam fuisse evocatos. Tractoria verbum est iuris nostri, sicuti et in eadem prope significatione, Evectio, quo etiam verbo utitur Augustinus lib. 5 Confess. Significat autem libellum vel diploma ut missis aut evocatis detur viaticum de publico, et ut uti possint cursu publico. Exstat lib. xii. Cod. Titul. de Tract. ubi Interpres praeterea refert quoddam fragmentum cuiusdam edicti Constantini facientis memoriam Tractoriarum et Evectionis publicae dandae Donatistis propter caussam Caeciliani.' Constantine gave the same right of public conveyances to the Bishops for Nicaea, and his successors did the same for all the great Councils of the Church----they had the Bishops conveyed at the public cost in the regular imperial post-chaises. So this letter of Constantine with regard to the Council of Arles is rendered more interesting from the fact that thereby he set the example for future Emperors.
11. 6 Arles.
12. 1 Above is a translation of a sentence twenty lines long in the Latin, with several anacolutha.
13. 2 de cetero, an emendation for the de secreto of the MS., which cannot be translated.
14. 3 quaeque non inmerito finem debent accipere maturum. This can only be translated by leaving out quaeque, which has probably slipped into the MS.
15. 4 decernat. The MS. reads decernet.
16. 1 merita reverentia salutamus.
17. 2 The Editors read graves ac perniciosos legi nostrae atque traditioni effrenatae mentis homines pertulimus. Ziwsa for graves ac perniciosos reads gravem ac perniciosam, for legi, traditioni, he reads legis, traditionis, and supplies iniuriam et between traditionis and effrenatae.
18. 3 Dei nostri praesens auctoritas.
19. 4 ita respuit, ut.
20. 5 ut nulla in iis ant dicendi ratio subsisteret aut accusandi modus ullus aut probatio conveniret.
21. 6 aut damnati sunt aut repulsi.
22. 1 tamen.
23. 2 observare.
24. 3 The MS. has ex his qui singulos quos monebat. Du Pin observes that there must be a lacuna between quos and monebat. Ziwsa changes quos to quosque and monebat to movebant. This I have translated in the text.
25. 4 The MS. reads antequam ante a te. This is manifestly corrupt. Ziwsa reads antea ad te scribi.
26. 5 qui maiores dioeceseos tenes (so the MS. Hefele, History of the Councils, i. 204, note 2, suggests that the word gubernacula had fallen out. In this case maiores should be maioris). The editors read maiores dioeceses. Dioecesis is a province of the Empire (cf. 'mirifica expectatio est Asiae nostrarum dioecesium ' Cic.). Antioch, for example, was the capital of the dioecesis Oriens, and the Bishop or Patriarch of Antioch had jurisdiction over that vast province. The context shows that the Pope is over all these 'greater provinces,' so that he can intimate the decision to the whole East and West.
27. 1 per te potissimum omnibus insinuari.
28. 2 Reading, with Ziwsa, quia for the qui of the MS.
29. 3 Reading with the editors de his etiam for de his agitur of the MS.
30. 4 qui arma proiiciunt in pace.
31. 5 de his. The MS. has de his agitur.
32. 6 credere. So Ziwsa. The MS. has recedere.
33. 1 The MS. has de Africa. The editors read de Afris.
34. 2 manus tantum ei imponatur.
35. 3 etcetera. The text of the letter is here broken off, and the interruption is marked by an etcetera.
36. 4 tunc taedians iussit omnes ad sedes suas redire----amen. Taedians, literally, 'being sick of the affair.' This is clearly no longer in the epistolary but narrative style. It evidently means to say that Constantine was now weary of the whole thing, and sent all those who had assisted at the Council back to their homes. Duchesne argues (op. cit. p. 10) that this 'débris de phrase' proves clearly that there was, besides the documents in the dossier, a running commentary, which held them together ('un récit qui les reliat'). He says that no doubt there was originally to be found in this place a statement (after the letter had been finished) as to the protests raised by the Donatists against the decision of the Council, of the Emperor's useless efforts for peace, and that he then grew tired of it all. If so, the last line of this document alone remains to tell the tale.
37. 1 in caeli specula residens. This is Ziwsa's emendation. The MS. has secula. Du Pin suggests per saecula.
38. 1 mera ( = unmingled, pure). Du Pin suggests vera.
39. 2 manifesta luce claret.
40. 3 comperi (i.e. by your letter to me from Arles).
41. 4 meum iudicium postulant, qui ipse iudicium Christi expecto. Famous words. Cf. Optatus i, 23.
42. 5 dico enim, ut se veritas habet, sacerdotum iudicium ita debet haberi, ac si Dominus residens iudicet.
43. 6 i.e. the Bishops.
44. 1 nisi quod Christi magisterio stint edocti.
45. 2 perquirunt saecularia, relinquentes caelestia.
46. 3 Cf. Optatus i, 25.
47. 4 detractores legis.
48. 5 The pagans appealed from the lower courts to the higher, the Donatists from the higher to the lower, from the ecclesiastical to the civil, from the judgement of Heaven (of Bishops) to that of earth (the Emperor's).
49. 6 viam (cf. Acts ix, 2).
50. 7 ibi sibi mortem peius pervideant. For mortem we must read morte.
51. 1 Duchesne writes (op. cit. p. 24): 'Triberos, et non Triberis, comme dans les éditions.'
52. 1 Legis eius, i.e. Donatism, as contrasted with Lex Catholica.
53. 2 angarialem his cum annonaria conpetentia... dedimus.
54. 3 Sollertiam tuam.
55. 1 eum Menalium. Probably the Menalius mentioned by Optatus (i, 13) as having been present at the Council of Cirta.
56. 2 The MS. has praesentia mea susceptam fugam subtrahere. This seems impossible to translate, even though, with Ziwsa, we read praesentiae meae. If, with Du Pin, we read suscepta fuga se subtrahere, the sense becomes clear.
57. 3 eosdem omittas.
58. 4 dissimulandum super ipsos cognoscas.
59. 1 quae et qualis.
60. 2 inlecebris. The editors read in latebris.
61. 3 perdam atque discutiam.
62. 4 posse beatitudines martyris eo genere conquirere. Duchesne paraphrases thus (op. cit. p. 37): 'Il ne reculera pas devant la rigueur, et ceux qui s'en trouveront mal ne devront pas s'attendre à ce qu'on les regarde comme des martyres.'
63. 5 The MS. reads violentiae; Ziwsa reads violentes.
64. 6 ad plenissimam fidem salute etiam teste invocata. The sense seems to be that the clerics were to invoke their own salvation as witness to their fullest fidelity or truthfulness. 'As they hoped for salvation,' this was to be the Christian formula, as distinguished from the old appeal to heathen deities, in confirmation of evidence.
65. 1 pro institute meo.
66. 1 pur it as.
67. 2 Pax illa sanctissimae fraternitatis. (The Catholic Church.)
68. 3 i.e. the basilicas, in which they were proud (gauderent) to have sinned by their schism.
69. 4 quo omnia bona vota et facta referuntur. Quo is an emendation for cum of the MS.
70. 1 institutes.
71. 2 moribus.
72. 3 languescentibus.
73. 4 leto. The MS. has laeto.
74. 5 Valete voto communi per saecula, iubente Deo, fratres carissimi.
75. 1 Cod. Theod. xvi, ii, 1,2; cf. Eusebius, H.E. x, 7.
76. 1 qui nos id quod suum esse voluit. These last words are clearly corrupt, I have translated, emending esse to est habere.
77. 1 mirandum est. The MS. has miratum est.
78. 2 Cf. Cicero, Cato m. 3, 7.
79. 3 Cf. Matthew vii, 17, 18.
80. 4 Gravitas vestra.
81. 5 cum ipso suo patre (i.e. the devil).
82. 6 ex hoc quippe maius existat. For existat Du Pin reads exstat.
83. 1 In Constantino, civitate. Cirta had only recently received its new name.
84. 2 rationalem.
85. 3 ad Consularem Numidiae. Consularis is one who has been consul; consequently 'consularis Numidiae': = governor of Numidia, as he was not technically 'proconsul' but prefect.
86. 1 hypodiacones.
87. 2 Cf. Appendix xvi, p. 430.
88. 3 molestis perfunctionibus absolvi.
89. 1 Cf. Optatus i, 14: 'Quia basilicae necdum fuerunt restitutae, in domum Urbani Carisi consederunt.'
90. 1 devotio mea.
91. 2 parvitatis meae.
92. 3 scripta caelestia. This letter has been preserved by Eusebius (x, 7). I subjoin a translation (Appendix xvi).
93. 4 accepta atque adorata.
94. 5 his qui sub eodem agunt, quique clerici appellantur. This is taken from Constantine's own 'heavenly letter.'
95. 6 obtuleruni dicationi meae. Cf. Edictum Marcellini (Migne, P.L. ix. 819, 820): 'epistulis ad meam dicationem currentibus,' and 'qui dicationi meae de publicis praestolantur officiis.'
96. 7 Cf. p. 43, n. 3.
97. 1 καὶ Μάρκῳ. Baronius suspected that the text was here corrupt and suggested ἱεράρχῃ. But Marcus was probably a priest in Rome high in the counsels of Miltiades----very likely the Marcus who succeeded Silvester as Pope (Opt. ii, 3). Μάρκῳ may, however, be a mistake for Μεροκλεί, the Bishop of Milan, who was present at the Roman Council (Opt. i, 23).
98. 2 χάρται, called chartae in Coll. Carthag. (diei iii, cccvi).
99. 3 κολλήγων αὐτοῦ.
100. 4 βαρὺ σφόδρα.
101. 5 i.e. of the Catholic Church; cf. p. 333, n. 2:
102. 6 ἡὑμετέρα στεῤῥότης.
103. 1 ἔν τινι τόμῳ ὑμᾶς καταλιπεῖν.
104. 2 τιμιώτατε.
105. 1 The Claudius (or Calidius) Saturianus of Optatus (i, 27).
106. 2 The Calidius Gratianus of Optatus (id.).
107. 3 Cf. p. 343.
108. 4 ad comitatum meum Constantini Augusti.
109. 1 religioni propriae cum debita veneratione deserviat.
110. 1 ἡ καθοσίωσις ἡ σή.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_four_discourses_00_intro.htm
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Preface. pp.i-viii.
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Preface. pp.i-viii.
FOUR DISCOURSES OF CHRYSOSTOM.
CHIEFLY ON THE PARABLE OF
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.
TRANSLATED BY
F. ALLEN, B.A.
LONDON:
LONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER.
1869.
EDINBURGH:
PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY,
PAUL'S WORK.
PREFACE.
Of the Christian Fathers, none have gained such fame, and few have left remains so voluminous as Chrysostom. In the melancholy narrative of Gibbon, two Christian champions are presented as men of real power and vigour of mind. The historian pauses to detail their acts and estimate their influence, but his admiration seems rather spontaneously and involuntarily shown, than formally expressed. These two men are Athanasius and John Chrysostom. The one is the man of unyielding polemical skill, of undaunted courage and astounding energy. The latter possesses in a remarkable degree, that which the former lacked or repressed, imaginative genius. As an orator, Chrysostom must have been as pre-eminent as Athanasius was as a polemical champion. "They [the critics of succeeding times] unanimously attribute to the Christian orator the free command of an elegant and copious language, the judgment to conceal the advantages which he derived from the knowledge of rhetoric and philosophy, an inexhaustible fund of metaphors and similitudes, of |iv ideas and images to vary and illustrate the most familiar topics, the happy art of engaging the passions in the service of virtue, and of exposing the folly as well as the turpitude of vice, almost with the truth and spirit of a dramatic representation." 1 As a writer, too, the same historian, though speaking of the Letters only, which are of far less value than his Essays and Commentaries, (speaking of his last days in exile) says, "The respectful attention of the Christian world was fixed on a desert spot among the mountains of Taurus. From that solitude the Archbishop, whose active mind was invigorated by misfortunes, maintained a strict and frequent correspondence with the most distant provinces." And, in a footnote, "Two hundred and forty two of the epistles of Chrysostom are still extant. They are addressed to a variety of persons, and show a firmness of mind much superior to that of Cicero in his exile."
The orator must always fail to leave any worthy memorial of his genius. As might have been expected, the best remains of Chrysostom are those of his works which were not orally delivered, or which may be supposed to have been at least committed to writing by himself. The Sermons must of necessity be inadequately represented. And since the genius of Chrysostom worked chiefly by these oral discourses, it follows that his remains are weakest in that point in which the man himself was |v strongest. There are, however, traces even in the Sermons of the power that originated them.
The name of scarcely any other writer of antiquity has, after his death, been attached to so many spurious compositions as this great name. The Benedictine editor (Montfaucon) appends some of these. The reason for their rejection is usually founded, not on external evidence, but on the inferiority of the matter contained in them, (Multa peregrinitatem olent. Peregrinitatis notas deprehendimus, &c.) Writings by hands more able, but not more scrupulous, may have retained the borrowed name by means of their vigour.
There are, however, as has been remarked, many traces, even in the oral Discourses, of their original power. Those now submitted to the reader contain many things which the translator ventures to hope may be deemed worth attention or even remembering. The series in the Paris edition consists of seven Discourses. Of these, the first four only are here translated. The fifth is an integral part of the series, but contains different subjects, the parable having been completed in the fourth. The sixth and seventh, though partly on the parable, were delivered at another period, and repeat in some degree the earlier ones.
It would not be difficult to call up in imagination the crowded cathedral at Antioch, with the audience in rapt attention to the already most famous orator of the time, and the voice and manner of a man absolutely on fire |vi with emotion. The "Send Lazarus," 2 (Πέμψον Λάζαρον) repeated after measured intervals of thundering denunciation, would pierce the ear like a real cry of despair; or would seem like the monotonous recurring toll at the execution of some criminal.
No attempt can be made here to estimate worthily the character of Chrysostom, or to give an account of his life and times. It should, however, be suggested that he was an Oriental. Consideration should be taken of the state of society in his day, and of the open and vigorous and mutual hostility of Christians, Jews, and Pagans, in immediate juxtaposition in a magnificent city like Antioch or Constantinople. Allusions occur in these Discourses to customs belonging to the past. In Discourses ii. and iv. (pp. 45 and 93) it is implied that a criminal tried for capital offences was not permitted to see his judge. Poverty then was dependent absolutely on direct charity. This fact (and the well-known customs of the East about stranger guests) adds force to the remarks about hospitality in Discourse ii.
Applause in religious assemblies was then commonly and loudly uttered. In his Sermons on Genesis (see No. vii.) this custom is alluded to: "Yesterday ye shouted aloud and testified your pleasure," (χθὲς μέγα ἀνακεκράγετε, δηλοῦντες τὴν ἡδονήν.) In the second of these Discourses, (3,) the silence of the assembly is remarked upon as unusual. |vii
Chrysostom was himself strongly imbued with the ascetic notions of his age, and with the prevalent ideas about the superior sanctity of unmarried life.
He lived before the prominent development of the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Though speaking freely about the benefit of good works, he, nevertheless, manifests the Christian inner consciousness of the inefficacy of these or of mere penitence as a means of salvation. "If thou art grieved and humbly penitent, thy penitence is in a manner accompanied by salvation, (ἔχει τινὰ σωτηρίαν)----not through the essential nature of penitence, but through the kindness of the Lord." (Discourse vi. in the Paris edition.)
These considerations may be useful in estimating the extant works of Chrysostom. It is believed that the Discourses now translated have not hitherto been rendered into English. Our countryman Savile, in the beginning of the 17th century, published a splendid edition of the complete works of Chrysostom, in Greek. His notes (in Latin) are declared by Montfaucon to be of those then written the best.3 The able translation in the "Library of the Fathers" gives other works of Chrysostom. The fact, however, that those volumes form part of a large series renders the diffusion of even those of Chrysostom's writings less extensive than might otherwise be. |viii
It is hoped that this separate publication of another work of Chrysostom may increase the tendency now existing to read more generally the remains of Christian Antiquity, and the writings of the great instructors of the Church, of which Christ is the Head.
"Μεθ̕ οὗ τῷ Πατρὶ ἅμα τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, δόξα, τιμὴ, κράτος, νῦν καὶ ἀὲι, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν."
F. A.
DERBY, November 1868.
[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]
1. * Gibbon, "Decline and Fall," ch. xxxii.
2. * In Discourse vi. (Paris Edition.)
3. * "Caeteris omnibus praestant Henrici Savilii notae, si sagacitatem spectes, si criticam artem, si caetera omnia." (Montf. Preface to the Benedictine Edition.)
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_four_discourses_01_discourse .htm
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 1. pp.1-37.
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 1. pp.1-37.
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
DISCOURSE I.
A HOMILY DELIVERED AT ANTIOCH ON THE SECOND DAY OF THE MONTH.
CONCERNING DRUNKARDS AND FREQUENTERS OF TAVERNS, AND FESTAL PROCESSIONS IN THE STREETS----A TEACHER OUGHT NOT TO DESPAIR OF HIS DISCIPLES EVEN 'WHILE THEY DISREGARD HIS WORDS----ALSO, CONCERNING LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN.
1. Yesterday, on the festival of Satan, ye celebrated a spiritual feast, receiving with all favour the word we addressed to you; spending a great portion of the day in thus drinking in that rapture which is full of sobriety, and rejoicing in company with St Paul. In this way ye gained a twofold benefit, since ye were both separate from the disorderly throng of feasters, and rejoiced in a spiritual and decorous manner. Ye also partook of that cup, not overflowing with unmixed wine, but filled with spiritual instruction. While others were following the festive companies of the evil one, ye, by your presence in this place, prepared yourselves as instruments of spiritual music, and surrendered your souls to the Divine Spirit that He might influence them, and breathe His own grace into your hearts. Thus ye gave forth a melody of perfect harmony, pleasing not only to men but also to the heavenly powers. |2
Let us, therefore, to-day, take up arms against inebriety, and expose the folly of a drunken and dissolute life. Let us oppose those who live in intemperance; not that we may shame them, but that we may put them beyond the reach of shame; not that we may blame them, but reform them; not that we may hold them up to contempt, but that we may turn them from all dishonourable exposure, and snatch them from the grasp of the tempter. For he who lives daily in excess of wine and luxury and. gluttony is under the very tyranny of the devil. And oh that something better may result from our words! Should they, however, continue in the same course after our warning, we shall not on that account cease from giving right counsel. For the springs, even if no one drink of them, continue to flow; and fountains, though no one should use their water, still burst forth; and rivers, though no man profit by them, still run on. So then, also, it is right that the preacher, even if no one attend to his voice, should fulfil all his duty.
For also in His love to man, a law is given by God to those who are entrusted with the ministry of the word, never to cease to discharge the duties of their office nor to be silent, whether the people have regard to their voice, or whether they neglect it. Jeremiah, therefore, having declared many threatenings to the Jews and warnings of future evils, was mocked by those who heard his voice, and was ridiculed all the day long. From human infirmity, feeling unable to endure scoffs and reviling, he at one time endeavoured to escape from his ministry. Hear him speak concerning this when he says: "I am in derision daily; then I said, I will not make mention of |3 Him, nor speak any more in the name of the Lord. But His word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay," (Jer. xx. 7, 9.) This it is which he says;---- "I was desirous to escape from prophesying, since the Jews did not listen to me; and all the while I was desiring this, the influence of the Holy Spirit penetrated like fire into my inmost soul, consuming all my inward parts and my bones, and devouring me, so that I could not endure the burning." If, therefore, he, when he was laughed at and derided each day; when he desired to be silent, underwent such punishment; of what forgiveness can we be worthy, who never at any time are treated thus, if we faint on account of the slowness of some, and cease from instructing them, and especially when there are so many who are attentive!
2. I do not say these things to console or to comfort myself, for I have made up my mind, as long as I breathe, and as long as it shall seem good to God that I remain in this present life, to fulfil this ministry, and, whether any one attends or not, to do the work allotted to me. But since there are some who weaken the hands of many, and who, besides that they bring forward nothing useful for our present life, and relax the zeal of others, by derision and ridicule, saying: "Cease counselling; leave off warning; they do not attend to you: you have no fellow-feeling with them;"----since there are those who say such things,----purposing to expel this wicked and morose idea, this satanic counsel, from the minds of many, I address you thus at length. I know that such things were said even yesterday by many who, when they saw certain |4 people spending time in taverns, said, laughing and deriding: "Are these fully persuaded? These are they who never enter a tavern! Have they all arrived at wisdom?" What dost thou say, O man? Is it this that we undertook to do, to enclose all in the net in one day? For if ten only were persuaded----if only five,----if even one,----is not this sufficient to console us? For my part I can even go beyond this. Suppose that none were persuaded by our words, although it is impossible that the word spoken to so many hearers can be fruitless----suppose, however, even this,----still the word would not be without profit.
For, if they did enter a tavern, they did not enter it with such shamelessness as was their wont; but even at the festive table they often thought of our words----of the rebuke,----of the blame; which, when they remembered, they would be ashamed----they would inwardly blush. Neither, though acting in their usual way, did they do so with their usual recklessness. And this is the beginning of salvation, and of the best kind of change----namely, the being in any degree ashamed----the disapproving in some measure of that which was being done. Besides this, another and not smaller gain accrues to us from this our work. What then is it? It is the making those who are already wise more careful. It is the persuading them by the word spoken that they are of all men the best advised, since they are not led away with the multitude. I did not restore the sick to health? But I strengthened those that were well. The word did not lead any away from their sin? But it made more steadfast those who were living virtuously. |5
To these reasons I will add a third. I have not persuaded to-day? But I shall persuade, perhaps, to-morrow. Or even if not to-morrow, I may after to-morrow, or even the day following. He who to-day heard and rejected the word, perhaps will hear and obey to-morrow; he who spurns the word to-day and to-morrow, perhaps in a few more days will attend to that which is spoken. For even the fisherman often casts his net the whole day in vain; and in the evening, when he is about to depart, captures and takes home the fish that had escaped him all the day long. And if, on account of frequent want of success, we were to live in idleness, and cease from all work, our whole life would be brought to nought, and not only spiritual affairs but also temporal would be ruined. For also the husbandman, if on account of the once, or twice, or oft-repeated inclemency of the season, were to abandon his work, we all should perish by famine. Again, it the mariner, on account of the once, or twice, or oft-recurring storms, were to forsake the sea, the ocean would become impassable, and in that way also our life would be quite marred. Thus, going through all employments, if men should act as you urge and advise us to do, all would utterly fail, and the earth would become uninhabitable. All men, therefore, having this in view, if once, or twice, or if often they fail to gain the object of the labour in which they spend their time, still apply themselves to the work again with undiminished alacrity.
3. Knowing, then, all these things, beloved, let us not, I beseech you, speak in this way; let us not say, "What is the need of such discourses? No good results from them." The husbandman once, or twice, or often sowing in the |6 same field, and failing to profit by it, labours again in the same ground, and often recovers in one good year the loss of all his previous time. It often happens that the merchant, suffering from many shipwrecks, does not shun the sea; but prepares his vessel, and hires seamen, and spends money again in the same kind of undertaking, although the future is as uncertain as before. And all who are accustomed to engage in any occupation whatever act in the same way as the husbandman and the merchant. If then they show such zeal in the affairs of this life, although the result is doubtful, shall we, because when we speak we are not listened to, immediately desist? What excuse shall we have? Besides, in their misfortunes, there is no one to console them for their loss, no one who, if the sea engulf the ship, will remove the poverty caused by the wreck. If the rain flood the field and cause the seed to perish, the husbandman must of necessity return home with empty hands. But with us, who preach and warn men, the case is not so. For when thou sowest the seed, and the hearer receives it not, and does not bring forth the fruit of obedience, thou hast the reward of thy intent, laid up with God; and thou wilt receive the same recompense whether the hearer obey or disobey; for thou hast performed all thy duty.
We are not responsible for not convincing those who hear, but only for giving them counsel. It is ours to warn; to give heed to the warning is theirs. And just as, if they do many good deeds without our giving any exhortation, all the gain would be theirs only, since we did not counsel them; so, if they give no heed when we warn, all the punishment falls on them; against us there is no |7 accusation, but rather a great reward from God awaits us, since we have discharged our duty. We are commanded only to give the money to the exchangers,1 that is, to speak and to give counsel. Speak, therefore, and warn thy brother. He listens not? Still thou hast thy reward prepared. Only always act thus, and never give up as long as life lasts, until you succeed in producing conversion. Let the termination of your giving counsel be the reception of your warning.
The Tempter continually goes to and fro to baffle our salvation, while he himself gains nothing, but rather is to the last degree a loser by his zeal; but still so maddened is he, that he often attempts impossible things, and attacks not only those whom he expects to cause utterly to stumble or fall, but also those who in all probability will escape his snares. Therefore, when he heard Job praised by that God who knows all secrets, he thought to be able to overcome, nor did he in his guile cease trying every method and every device in order to cause the man to fall. The Spirit of all evil and wickedness did not shrink from the attempt, though God had ascribed such grace to that just man. Are not we then ashamed? Tell me, do we not blush if, while the Enemy never despairs of accomplishing our ruin, but always expects it, we despair of the salvation of our brethren? In fact, Satan ought, before the attempt, to have abstained from the contest, for it was God himself who testified to the virtue of the righteous man. Still he did not desist, but because of his mad hatred of us, he, even after the favourable testimony of God himself, hoped to deceive that just man. In our case |8 there is no such circumstance to cause us to despair, and still we desist! The devil, also, although forbidden by God, does not cease from fighting against us; but thou, whilst God enjoins and incites thee to the recovery of the fallen, dost fly from the work! The tempter heard God saying: A just man, true, God-fearing, and abstaining from every evil work, and that there was none like him on the earth; yet after such strong and high testimony in favour of Job, he persevered, and said: "Shall I not at length, by the continuousness and greatness of the evils brought upon him, be able to circumvent him, and overthrow this great pillar?"
4. What forgiveness, therefore, will there be for us, if (while we undergo such fury of the wicked one against ourselves) we do not bring to bear even the smallest part of this zeal for the salvation of our brethren, even while in these matters we have God for our helper! For when thou seest thy brother wicked and morose and giving no heed to thee, say thus within thyself: "Shall I not some time or other bo able to persuade him." Thus also St Paul commanded us to do: "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God per-adventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth," (2 Tim. ii. 24, 25.) Dost thou not observe how often fathers, when in despair about their children, sit down weeping, bewailing, embracing them, trying everything in their power until the last breath? This do thou also for thy brother. Although parents by their lamentations and tears can neither remove sickness nor avert approaching death, yet thou, in the case of a soul |9 even when given up, mayest through perseverance and assiduity, by lamentation and tears, bring about recovery and restoration. Hast thou given counsel and failed to convince? Then weep, and make frequent efforts; groan deeply, that, shamed by thy constancy, he may turn to seek salvation. What can I do alone? For I singly am not able to be present with you all every day, nor am I sufficient to convince such a multitude. But ye, if ye be minded to care for the salvation of each other, and every one to take in hand one of our neglected brethren----ye would quickly further the edification of us all.
And what need is there to speak of those who, after repeated warnings, have come to their right mind? It behoves us not to abandon or neglect even those who are diseased incurably, even if we foresee clearly that, after having had the benefit of our zeal and good counsel, they will not at all profit by it. And if this that I say seem to you unreasonable, suffer me to confirm it by things which Christ himself said and did. For we men being ignorant of the future, cannot therefore be certain, as to the hearers, whether they will be persuaded or whether they will disbelieve that which we say; but Christ, knowing both one and the other perfectly, did not cease instructing the disobedient even to the end.
Thus, knowing that Judas would not be turned aside from his treachery, Christ did not desist from trying to turn him from his faithlessness, by counsel, by warnings, by kind treatment, by threatening, by every kind of instruction, and by continually checking him by His words as by a rein. This He did to teach us that, although we know beforehand that the brethren will not be persuaded, |10 we must do all in our power, since the reward of our admonition is sure. Mark also how assiduously and wisely the Lord restrained Judas when He said, "One of you shall betray me," (Matt. xxvi. 21;) and again, "I speak not of you all. I know whom I have chosen," (John xiii. 18;) and again, "One of you is a devil," (John vi. 70.) He preferred to put them all in an agony of doubt rather than reveal the traitor or make him the more shameless by open reproof. For that these sayings produced trouble and dread in the others, although conscious in themselves of no evil, hear them each with earnest striving say, "Lord, is it I?" (Matt. xxvi. 22.)
Not only by words did He instruct him, but also by acts. For while Christ often and fully manifested., His love to man,----cleansing the lepers, casting out devils, healing the sick, raising the dead, restoring the paralytic, and doing good to all; on the other hand, He punished no one, and constantly said, "I came not to judge the world, but to save the world," (John xii. 47.) But that Judas should not think that Christ knew only how to bless and not to punish, Christ teaches him also this very thing, namely, that He was able to punish and inflict penalties on sinners.
5. Behold, then, how wisely and appropriately He teaches him this thing; and notice that He does not consent to punish or inflict a penalty on any human being. And why? In order that the disciple might learn His power to punish. For, had He punished any man, He would have seemed to have acted contrary to His own declaration when He said, "I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." On the other hand, had He exhibited no |11 power of chastisement, the disciple would have remained in error, not learning from His deeds His power of inflicting punishment. How then did it come to pass?
In order that the disciple should be made to fear, and not become worse for lack of reverence, nor himself undergo punishment and penalty, Christ displayed this His power on the fig-tree, saying, "Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward," (Matt. xxi. 3 9,) and, by His mere word, caused it instantly to wither. In this way, without causing harm to any man, Pie himself showed His might, though it was only a tree that bore the infliction. And the disciple, if he had attended to this instance of punishment, would have reaped profit from it. Still, however, even thus he was not corrected. And Christ, foreseeing even this, not only did this thing, but afterwards wrought a much greater wonder. For when the Jews came against Him, armed with swords and staves, He caused them all to become blind; this being shown by His saying, "Whom seek ye?" Since Judas had said again and again, "What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you?" (Matt. xxvi. 15,) the Lord, wishing to prove to the Jews, and to let Judas also know, that He went of His own accord to His sufferings, and that all these events were in His own power;----that He was not overpowered by the wickedness of another, He said, when the traitor with all his companions stood still, "Whom seek ye?" Judas did not know Him whom he came to betray, for his eyes were blinded. Nor was this all, but Christ by His word caused them all to fall backward to the ground. And since even this did not render them less cruel, nor cause the wretched man to desist from his treachery,----for he was still |12 incorrigible,----Christ even now did not give up His kindness and regard; but mark how movingly He deals with this mind devoid of shame, and how He speaks words which ought to melt a heart of stone. For when Judas advances to kiss Him, what does Christ say? "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" (Luke xxii. 48.) Art thou not ashamed of the manner in which thou betrayest Me? This Christ said to touch him, and bring his former intimacy to remembrance. But while the Lord acted and spoke thus, the betrayer did not change for the better----not on account of the weakness of Him from whom the counsel came, but the worthlessness of him to whom it came. And Christ, although He foresaw all these things, did not cease, from the beginning to the close of the scene, to do all that was consistent with His own character.
Since we know all these things, we ought to teach and to love, constantly and fully, those of our brethren who are negligent, even though we do not gain the object of our counsel. For if, knowing such a result, the Lord exhibited such solicitude for him who would profit nothing by the warning, what allowance can be made for us, when, not knowing the result, we are thus careless about the salvation of our neighbour,----when we desist after the second or third warning? Besides all these things that we have said, let us take into consideration our own case, since God addresses us day after day, by the prophets, by the apostles, and day after day we are disobedient; and still He does not cease to reason with and to call upon those who are always obstinate and inattentive. Paul also cries aloud, using these words: "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did |13 beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God," (2 Cor. v. 20.) If one may say a strange thing, he who foresees that the recipient of his counsel will in some degree be persuaded by it, and thus gives his advice, is not worthy of such praise as he who, oftentimes speaking and counselling, fails, but notwithstanding does not cease. For, in the first case, the hope of convincing stimulates him to exertion, even though he should be of all men most slothful; but the other, who gives counsel and is neglected, and still does not desist, gives proof of the most ardent and purest love; he is stimulated by no such hope as in the former instance;----only through love towards his brother does he persevere in his anxious care.
But that we ought never to desert the fallen, even when we foresee that they will not be persuaded by us, we have already sufficiently shown. In the rest of this discourse, we must proceed with a charge against those who live in luxury. For as long as this feast lasts, Satan inflicts the wounds of excess on the souls of those who indulge in revels, and it is our duty to apply the healing remedies.
6. Yesterday, we alleged against such feasters the testimony of St Paul, who says, "Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God," (1 Cor. x. 31.) To-day, we shall show them the Lord of Paul not only advising or counselling to abstain from luxury, but also punishing and inflicting penalties on one who lived in luxury; for the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, and of the things which befell them, proves nothing less than this. And rather than that our |14 consideration of this subject should be superficial, I will read to you the parable from the commencement. "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores," (Luke xvi. 19-21.)
Now for what reason did the Lord speak to them in parables? Why also did He explain some of these, and leave others unexplained? And what indeed is a parable? These, and other questions of this nature, we will reserve until another opportunity, so as not to digress from the argument now claiming our attention.
One thing, however, we will ask: Which of the evangelists has delivered to us this parable as spoken by Christ? Which then is it? It is St Luke only. For it is also necessary to know that, of the things which are related, some are related by all four; some, as by special information, by one only. And why? In order that the reading of the other Gospels might be necessary, and that their agreement with each other might be made manifest. For if they all delivered all the events, we should not examine them all with such care, since one only would be sufficient to inform us about everything. If, again, all spoke of different events, we should fail to discover their agreement. On this account they all wrote many things in common, while at the same time each received and delivered matters peculiar to himself.
To return, however, to Christ's teaching in the parable. |15 It is this: A certain man, it is said, living in great wickedness, was rich; and he experienced no ill fortune, but all good things flowed to him as from a perennial fountain. For that nothing undesirable happened to him----no cause of trouble----none of the ills of human life ----is implied when it is said, that "he fared sumptuously every day." And that he lived wickedly is clear from the end allotted to him, and even before his end, from the neglect which he displayed in the case of the poor man; for that he felt pity neither for the poor man at his gate nor for any other, he himself showed. For if he had no pity on the man continually laid at his gate, and placed before his eyes, whom every day, once or twice, or oftentimes, as he went in and out, he was obliged to see;----for the man was not placed in a by-way, nor in a hidden and narrow place, but in a spot where the rich man, in his continual coming-in and going-out, was obliged, even if unwilling, to look upon him;----if, therefore, the rich man did not pity him lying there in such suffering, and living in such distress,----yea, rather, all his life long in misery because of sickness, and that of the most grievous kind,----would he ever have been moved with compassion towards any of the afflicted whom he might casually meet? For though on one occasion the rich man passed him by, it was likely that he would manifest some feeling the next day; and if even then he disregarded the poor man, still on the third day, or the fourth, or even after that, he might be expected in some way to be moved to compassion, even if he were more cruel than the wild beasts. But he had no feeling: he was more severe and harsh than that judge who neither |16 feared God nor regarded man. For the judge, though so cruel and stern, was moved by the perseverance of the widow to be gracious and listen to her petition; but this man could not even thus be induced to give aid to the poor man, notwithstanding that his petition was not like that of the widow, but much easier and fairer. For she requested aid against her enemies, while this poor man was entreating that his hunger might be allayed, and that he should not be allowed to perish. The widow also caused trouble by her entreaties; but this man, though often in the day seen by the rich man, only lay without speaking: and this circumstance was quite sufficient to soften a heart harder than stone. When we are urged, we frequently feel annoyed; but when we see those who need our help remaining in perfect silence and saying not a word, and though always failing to gain their object, not bearing it hardly, but. only appearing before us in silence, even though we are more unfeeling than the very stones, we are shamed and moved by such exceeding humility. There is also another circumstance of not less weight, namely, that the very appearance of the poor man was pitiable, since he was emaciated by hunger and long sickness. Yet none of these things influenced that cruel man.
First, then, there was this vice of cruelty and inhumanity in a degree that could not be exceeded. For it is not the same thing for one living in poverty not to assist those who are in need, as for one who enjoys such luxury to neglect others who are wasting away through hunger. Again, it is not the same thing for one to pass by a poor man when he sees him once or twice, as to see him every day |17 without being moved by the oft-recurring sight to pity and benevolence. Again, it is not the same thing for one who is in difficulties and anxiety, and troubled in soul, not to help his neighbour, as for one enjoying such good fortune and unbroken prosperity, to neglect others who are perishing from hunger, and to shut up his bowels of compassion, and not rather, for the very sake of his own happiness, to become more benevolent. For know this of a truth, that unless we are the most cruel of all men, we are, by our very nature, apt, by our own prosperity, to be rendered milder and more gentle. But this rich man did not grow better on account of his prosperity, but remained ill-natured; or rather had, deep in his disposition, cruelty and inhumanity greater than that of a beast of the field.
Still it came to pass that a man living in wickedness and inhumanity enjoyed every kind of good fortune, and a just and virtuous man lingered in the greatest ills. For that Lazarus was a just man is made plain, as in the other case, by his end, and even before his end, by his patience and poverty. Do you not, indeed, seem to see these things present before our eyes? The ship of the rich man was laden with merchandise, and sailed with a fair wind. But do not marvel; for it was borne on to shipwreck, since he was not willing to bestow its burden wisely. Would you that I should give another proof of his wickedness? It is his living in luxury every day without fear. For this in truth is the height of wickedness; and not only now, (in this dispensation,) when we are required to show such moderation, but even in the beginning, under the old covenant, when there was no |18 revelation of the need of this self-control. For hear what the prophet says: "Woe to them that come to an evil day, that come near, and that make a Sabbath of lies," (Amos vi. 3, LXX.)
The Jews suppose that the Sabbath was given to them for the sake of ease. But this is not the object of it; but it was in order that, separating themselves from, worldly affairs, they might bestow all that leisure on spiritual things. For that the Sabbath was not for the sake of idleness, but for spiritual work, is clear from its very circumstances. The priest, on that day, does a double portion of work, a single sacrifice being offered each common day, while on that day he is commanded to offer a double sacrifice. And if the Sabbath were for the sake of idleness, the priest before all others ought to be idle. Since therefore the Jews, separating themselves from worldly things, devoted not themselves to spiritual things, to temperance, and gentleness, and hearing the divine word, but did the very opposite, feasting, drinking, indulging in excess and luxury; on this account it is, that the prophet condemns them. For he says, "Woe to them that come to an evil day," and, in continuation, "that make a Sabbath of lies." He shows by that which follows how their Sabbath became unprofitable. How then did they make it unprofitable? By their working wickedness, living in luxury, drinking, and doing numberless other base and vile acts. And that this charge is true, hear what follows; for he intimates that which I am affirming, by that which he immediately adds, saying: "That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the |19 calves out of the midst of the stall; that drink refined wine, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments," (Amos vi. 4, 6.)
Thou didst receive the Sabbath that thou mightest purify thy soul from wickedness; but thou hast increased wickedness. For what can be worse than this effeminacy ----this "sleeping upon beds of ivory?" The other sins, as drinking, covetousness, or prodigality, may be accompanied with some small amount of pleasure; but the sleeping on beds of ivory, what pleasure is there in it? Is more refreshing or sweeter sleep brought to us by the beauty of the couch? Nay, rather this beauty is more burdensome and more troublesome to us, if we reflect upon the matter. For whenever thou dost consider that while thou art sleeping on an ivory couch, another fellow-creature is not even able to enjoy the certainty of having bread to eat, will not conscience condemn thee and rise up to accuse this wrong? And if to sleep on an ivory couch be a reproach, what defence can we make when the bed is also decked with silver? Dost thou wish to know the true beauty of a couch? I will show thee the adornment, not of a couch belonging to one in private life, nor to a soldier, but to a king. Though thou shouldst be of all men the most desirous of honour, be assured that thou couldst not wish to have a couch more becoming than that of this king. It is also not that of an ordinary king, but of a very great king, a king of all kings most kingly, and even to this day magnified in the whole world. I show thee the couch of the blessed David. Of what kind then was it? It was not decked with silver and gold, but everywhere with tears and |20 confessions. And this he himself says, speaking thus: "All the night make I my bed to swim, and water my couch with my tears," (Ps. vi. 6.) Thus with tears was it in all parts adorned as if with pearls.
8. Mark then with me this godly soul. For although by day manifold cares----about the rulers, about the governors, about the tribes, about the different races, about soldiers, about war, about peace, about affairs of state, about household affairs, about things far off, about things near home, distracted and disturbed him, nevertheless, the leisure time which we all give to sleep he spent in confessions and prayers and tears. And this he did not for one night to cease from it the next, not for two or three nights, after intervals of repose; but he was doing this every night; for "every night," said he, "wash I my bed, and water my couch with my tears," (Ps. vi. 6, Prayer-book version,) indicating the abundance of his tears and their continuance. For when all were quiet and at rest, he alone held converse with God; and the eye of Him who never sleepeth was turned towards the man who bewailed and lamented and confessed his indwelling sins. Such a couch as this do thou prepare. For silver ornaments both excite the envy of man and enkindle wrath from above. But such tears as those of David can even extinguish the fire of Gehenna.
Do you wish me to show thee another couch? I mean that of Jacob. He lay on the ground, and a stone was under his head. Therefore also, he saw the symbolical stone,2 and that ladder on which angels were ascending |21 and descending. Couches of this kind let us also have, that we may see such visions. If we lie upon silver, we not only gain no pleasure, but also endure trouble. For whenever thou dost consider that in the severest cold in the middle of the night, while thou art sleeping on thy couch, the poor man lying on chaff in the porticoes of the baths, covered with straw, is trembling, numb with cold, and fainting with hunger, even if thou shouldst be most stony-hearted, be assured that thou wilt condemn thyself for being content that while thou art luxuriating in things superfluous, he is not able to enjoy even the necessaries of life. "No man that warreth," saith the apostle, "entangleth himself with the affairs of this life," (2 Tim. ii. 4.) Thou art a spiritual soldier; but such a soldier does not sleep on an ivory bed, but on the ground; he does not use scented unguents, for this is the habit of sensual and dissolute men----of those who live on the stage, or in indolence; and it is not the odour of ointment that thou shouldst have, but that of virtue. The soul is none the more pure when the body is thus scented. Yea, this fragrance of the body and of the dress may even be a sign of inward corruption and uncleanness. For when Satan makes his approaches to corrupt the soul and fill it with all indolence, then also by means of ointments he impresses upon the body the stains which mark its inner defilement. And just as those who suffer continually from flux and catarrh defile their garments and person, constantly discharging these humours; in the same way the soul denies the body with the evil of this corrupt discharge. What noble or useful deed can be expected from a man scented with myrrh and living effeminately, or |22 rather keeping company with meretricious women, and giving himself up to the company of low actors? Rather let the soul exhale spiritual odours, in order that thou mayest in the greatest degree benefit both thyself and thy associates.
For nothing----nothing is worse than luxury. Hear what Moses again says concerning it: "He is waxen fat, he is grown thick, he is increased, he that is beloved kicked," (Deut. xxxii. 15, LXX.) And he does not say: "he rebelled," but he "kicked," indicating to us his wildness and intractableness. And again, in another place; "When thou hast eaten and art full, beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God," (Deut. viii. 10, 11.) Thus does luxury lead to forgetfulness. Then do thou also, beloved, when thou sittest at table, remember that after the meal thou shouldst pray: and so moderately refresh thyself that thou mayest not through fulness be unable to bend the knee and call upon God. Do you not see beasts of burden, how after feeding, they recommence the journey, they bear loads, they fulfil all the service that falls to their lot? But thou when thou risest from table, art unfit for any work; thou art become useless. How wilt thou avoid being thought less worthy of honour than the very beasts? Wherefore? Because it is then the proper time to be sober and to watch. For the time after meals is the time for thanksgiving; and he who gives thanks should not indulge in excess, but be sober and vigilant. Let us not turn from the table to the couch, but to prayer, that we become not more irrational than the beasts.
9. I am aware that many will condemn that which is said, |23 as leading to a new and strange manner of living. But I the more condemn the evil customs that are now prevalent amongst us. For that when we rise from food, and from the table, we ought to proceed, not to sleep and the couch, but to prayers and the reading of the Holy Scriptures; this is made most clear by Christ. For when He had feasted the innumerable multitude in the wilderness, He did not dismiss them to lie down to sleep, but called them to hear the divine word.3 He did not fill them to repletion, nor allow them to fall into excess; but having satisfied their need, he led them to a spiritual feast. Thus let us also act, and let us accustom ourselves to eat so much only as will sustain our higher life, and not hinder and oppress it. For it was not for this that we were born, and exist----namely, that we should eat and drink; but let us eat for this----namely, that we may live. It was not given us at first to live for the sake of eating, but to eat for the sake of living. But we, as if we had come into the world merely to eat, upon this we spend everything.
In order that this charge against luxury may be corroborated, and come home to those who are living in it, let us return in our discourse to Lazarus. And thus the warning will become clearer, and the counsel more effectual, since you will see those who live in excess instructed and corrected, not by words only, but by acts. The rich man lived in this kind of wickedness, and luxuriated day by day, and was splendidly attired; but he was bringing |24 on himself severer punishment, stirring up a fiercer flame, making his condemnation more complete, and the penalty more inexorable.
But the poor man who was cast at his gate grieved not, nor blasphemed, nor complained. He did not say within himself, as many do, "Why is this so? This man living in wickedness and cruelty and inhumanity enjoys all things even beyond his need, and endures no trouble nor any of the unlooked-for reverses that often happen in human affairs. He enjoys unmixed pleasure, while I have not the opportunity of partaking even of necessary food. To this man, who squanders all his substance on parasites and flatterers and wine----to him all good things flow like a river; while I live as an object to be gazed at ----an object of shame and derision, and am wasting through hunger. Is this Providence? Can it be Justice that overrules human affairs?"
He did not say any of these things, nor had he them in his mind. How is this manifest? From the circumstance that guardian angels surrounded him at his death, and bore him away to Abraham's bosom. Had he been a blasphemer, he would not have gained this glory. Thus also most people wonder at this man merely because of his poverty; but I proceed to show that he endured these ninefold 4 afflictions, not for punishment, but that he might become more glorious. This result accordingly happened.
A dreadful thing, in truth, is poverty, as all who have had experience of it know. For no words can express |25 the trouble which they endure who live in poverty, without knowing the relief of true philosophy. And in the case of Lazarus, there was not only this evil, but bodily 'weakness superadded, and that in the highest degree. Notice how it is shown that both these inflictions reached the highest pitch. That the poverty of Lazarus at that time surpassed all other poverty, is clear, when it is said that he did not obtain the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. And that his weakness had reached the same pitch as his poverty, beyond which it could not go, this also is shown when it is said that the dogs licked his sores.5 He was so feeble as not to be able to drive away the dogs; but he lay like a living corpse, seeing their approach, but powerless to keep them at a distance-To such an extent were his limbs emaciated; so much was he wasted by bodily sickness; so far was he worn down by trials. You see that poverty and weakness in the highest degree, as it were, besieged his body. And if each of these evils by itself is unbearable and dreadful, what adamantine strength must he have who must bear them both united! Many people are often in ill health, but they do not at the same time lack necessary food. Others may live in utter poverty, but they may enjoy |26 health; and the blessing on the one hand may counterbalance the evil on the other; but in the case we are considering, both these evils came together.
Suppose, however, that there may be some alleviation even in weakness and in poverty. But this cannot be, when in such a state of desertion. For if there were no one connected with him or at his home, to pity him, yet he might have met with compassion from some of the beholders, when lying before the public; but in this case the utter lack of helpers increased the afore-mentioned evils. And the being laid at the gate of the rich man added to his distress. If he had been placed in a desert and uninhabited place when he suffered this neglect, he would not have felt such grief; for the fact of there being no one nigh would have led him, even though unwillingly, to submit to these unavoidable evils; but being placed in the midst of so many people carousing and rejoicing, and meeting with not the slightest attention from any of them, made the thought of his own woes more bitter, and the more inflamed his grief. For we are so constituted as not to be so much distressed by evils when all helpers are at a distance, as when helpers who are near are unwilling to stretch out a hand to aid us. This grief, then, this poor man felt. There was no one either to console him by a word, or to comfort him by a kind act; no friend, no neighbour, no relation, no one of those who saw him; not one of all the corrupt household of the rich man.
10. Besides, in addition to these things, it would cause another accession of woe to see another man in such prosperity. Not that he was envious and evil-minded, but |27 because it is the nature of us all to feel our own private misfortunes more acutely when we see others in prosperity. And with respect to the rich man, there was another circumstance which would give Lazarus pain. For, in truth, not only by comparing his own ill-fortune with another's prosperity did he feel the more deeply his own woes, but also by the consideration that another who acted with cruelty and inhumanity was in every respect fortunate; while he himself, with his virtue and meekness, suffered extreme misery; and thus, again, he would feel inconsolable grief. For if the rich man had been just, if he had been gentle, if he had been worthy of admiration, full of all virtue, the thought would not thus have grieved Lazarus. But now, when the rich man was living in wickedness, proceeding to the extreme of evil, displaying such inhumanity, and acting as an enemy, passing him by as shamelessly and pitilessly as though he were a stone; and notwithstanding all this was enjoying such prosperity, consider how likely it would be that this state of things would plunge the soul of the poor man in continual waves of woe! Consider how Lazarus would feel when he saw parasites, flatterers' servants going up and down, coming in and out, as they hastened about, noisy, drinking, dancing, and displaying every form of wantonness. For, just as if he had come for the very purpose of being a witness of another's prosperity, he was laid at his gate, having life only sufficient to make him sensible of his own ills. He suffered, as it were, shipwreck at the very harbour's mouth, and was consumed with thirst at the very edge of the spring.
Shall I add to these yet another woe? It is this,---- |28 that he could nowhere see another Lazarus. We ourselves even though we suffer ten thousand ills, still are able looking at him (Lazarus) to gain effectual comfort and feel great consolation. For to find fellowship in his private ills, whether they be physical or mental, brings great alleviation to the sufferer. Lazarus, however, could not look to any other man suffering the same things as himself; or rather he could not even hear of any one of those going before him, who had endured such things. This of itself was enough to becloud his mind. And, besides this, we have to mention another thing:----that he was unable to console himself with any hope of the resurrection, 6 but thought that present things are bounded by the present existence, for he lived under the old dispensation, (πρὸ τῆς χάριτος.) And if even now, in these days, after such a revelation of God's character, and the blessed hope of the resurrection, and the knowledge of the punishment laid up for sinners, and the good things prepared for the righteous, many men are so feeble-minded and weak as not even to be confirmed by such expectations as these, what would he, in all probability, endure who was without such an anchor of hope? This man could not at any time thus console himself, because the time had not yet arrived when such revelations were vouchsafed to man. And even in addition to this, there was yet another thing, namely, that his character was maligned by foolish men. For the generality of men are accustomed, when they see any in hunger and thirst, or living in great trouble, not to entertain any charitable feeling respecting them, but rather to pass judgment on their life by their |29 misfortunes, and to suppose that they are thus afflicted entirely on account of their wickedness; and they say to each other many things of this kind----foolishly no doubt----but still they say so:----"This man, if he were favourably regarded by God, would not have been suffered to be afflicted with poverty and other woes." In this way it happened to Job and to Paul. To the former they said:----"Hath it not often been said to thee in trouble, The force of thy words who can bear? For if thou didst instruct many, and strengthen the weak hands, and raise up the feeble with thy words, and give power to the tottering knees; yet now trouble has come upon thee, and thou art over-anxious. Is not thy fear the offspring of folly?" 7 (Job iv. 2-6, LXX.) The meaning of these words is this ----"If," they say, "thou hadst acted rightly thou wouldst not have suffered these present ills; but thou art paying the penalty of sins and transgressions."
And this it was especially that wounded the blessed Job.
Again concerning Paul, the barbarians spoke in the same strain; when they saw the viper hanging from his hand, they had no favourable opinion of him, but supposed that he was one of those who dare to commit the greatest crimes. This is plain from that which they said:----"This man though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live," (Acts xxviii. 4.) This same thing frequently disturbs ourselves not a little. But notwithstanding that the waves of trouble, dashing against each other, were so great, the bark of this poor man was not overwhelmed; and though he was placed as it were |30 in a furnace, he preserved his tranquillity as if refreshed with perpetual dew.
11. Nor did he say within himself anything of this kind----as it seems many do say, namely:----"This rich man when he departs this life will undergo punishments and penalties, and then one will have become one again; but if he there be honoured two will have come to nothing." 8 Now, do not many among yourselves use such expressions in the market, or introduce into the church words which belong to the circus or the theatre? I should be ashamed, and blush to utter such words aloud, were it not necessary to say such things in order that you may avoid the unlicensed mirth and shame and harm springing from the use of such expressions. Many frequently laugh when they say these things; but this is the effect of satanical guile, in order to bring corrupt expressions into common use instead of sound words. Such things as these many constantly repeat in the workshop, in the market, in their houses,----things full of utter unbelief and folly----things that are in reality ridiculous and puerile. For to say, "if the wicked when they depart are punished," and not to be fully persuaded in one's own mind that they will in truth be punished, is a mark of unbelief and scepticism. If also it should result, even as it will result, even the very thought that the evil will enjoy the same rewards as the just, is utter folly.
What dost thou mean, tell me, when thou sayest, if the rich man when he departs should receive punishment, "one has become one?" (There is equality.) And how |31 is the saying true? For how many years do you wish that we suppose that he has here enjoyed wealth? Do you wish to suppose a hundred? I, for my part, am willing rather to suppose two hundred, or three hundred, or twice as many; or even, if you wish, a thousand, however impossible it may be. The days of our years, it is said, are eighty years, (alluding to Ps. xc. 10.) Suppose, however, a thousand. But can you, I pray, show me in this world a life that has no end?----one that knows no limit, such as is the life of the just in heaven? Tell me then, if some one in the course of a hundred years, seeing for a single night a dream of prosperity; and, after enjoying in his sleep great luxury, should be punished for a hundred years----would you be able to say of him one has become one, (there is an equal balance,) and place the one night of dreams as a counterpoise to the hundred years? It is impossible to say so. Think, then, in the same way concerning the life to come. For the proportion that the dream of one night has to the hundred years, the same the present life has to the future life; or, rather, the latter proportion is much the less. As a little drop to the fathomless ocean, so is a thousand years to that future glory and bliss. And what can one say more, except that that life has no limit, and knows no end; and that there is as much difference between dreams and realities as there is between our condition in this world and our condition in the next. Besides, even before the future punishment, those who live wickedly are punished now. For do not tell me only of enjoying a sumptuous table, and of being clothed in silken garments, and of being followed by troops of slaves, and of proceeding in state through the public places of |32 resort; but lay open to me the conscience of such a man, and there you shall see within great trouble on account of sins, perpetual dread, tempest, and confusion, and the reason, as in a court of justice, ascending the royal throne of conscience, sitting there as a judge, bringing forward the thoughts as ministers of justice, racking the mind, torturing it on account of sin, and vehemently accusing it; and this state of things is known to no one else, save only God, who sees all that takes place.
Again, he who commits fornication, though he be rich in the highest degree, and though he have no accuser, never ceases inwardly to accuse himself. The pleasure is fleeting, while the pain is lasting; there is fear from all sides and trembling, suspicion, and agony; he fears the by-ways, he trembles at the very shadows, at his own domestics, at those who know his guilt, at those who know it not, at the injured one, at her wronged husband: he goes about bearing with him a keen accuser----his own conscience----being self-condemned, and unable to find the slightest relief. And even on his bed, or at his table, or in the market, or in his house, by day, by night, even in his very dreams he often sees the image of his sin; he lives the life of a Cain, groaning and trembling on the earth; and though no one knows it, he has within himself the unquenchable fire.
This also they who rob and who are covetous suffer; this also does the drunkard suffer, and, in short, every one living in sin.
It is impossible that that tribunal can in any way be influenced. And if we do not follow after virtue, yet we are pained for not following after it; and if we follow |33 vice, as soon as we lose the pleasure that accompanies the sin, we feel the pain. Let us therefore not say concerning those who are prosperous here, and yet do ill, and concerning the just who enjoy felicity in the next world, that "one becomes one" (all is equally balanced,) but that "two come to nothing'' (all the good is on one side.) For, to the just the life here and the life yonder both bring much pleasure; but they who live in wickedness and in luxury are punished both in the life here and the life yonder. For even here they are harassed by the expectation of the coming penalty, as well as by the bad opinion in which they are held by all, and by the fact that by the very sin itself their soul is corrupted; and after their departure thither they endure insupportable penalties.
Again, the just, even if they suffer a thousand ills here, are encouraged by pleasant hopes; they have unmixed, sure, and abiding pleasure; and after these things, innumerable blessings accrue to them, as also we see in the case of Lazarus.
Therefore do not say to me that he was full of sores; but mark this----that he had within him a soul more precious than all gold; or rather, mark not only his soul, but also his body; for bodily perfection consists not in stoutness and vigour, but in being able to bear so many and so great afflictions. For, if one have in his body wounds of this kind, he is not therefore to be despised. But rather, if one have in his soul so many defects, for him we should have no regard;----and such was that rich man, covered with wounds within. And as dogs licked the wounds of the one, so the evil spirits aggravated the sins |34 of the other; as the one starved for lack of food, so the other for lack of virtue.
12. Knowing, therefore, these things, let us act wisely, and let us not say that if God loved such a one, He would not have allowed him to be in poverty. This very thing is the greatest token of love. For "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth," (Heb. xii. 6.) And again, "My son, if thou dost purpose to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for trial, make ready thy heart, and be strong," (Ecclesiasticus ii. 1.) Let us then, beloved, cast these vain imaginations away from us, and these common sayings; for "filthiness and foolish talking and jesting, let it not proceed out of your mouth," (Eph. v. 4.) Let us not say such things; and if we see others speaking thus, let us refute them, let us boldly arise and put a stop to such shameless speech. Tell me, if you should see any robber prowling about the road, lying in wait for those that pass by, and plundering the land, secreting gold and silver in caves and hiding-places, and shutting up in such places a great quantity of booty, gaining from this course of life rich garments and many captives; tell me, should you then think him happy on account of such wealth? Or should you think him miserable on account of the judgment about to overtake him? And even if he should escape this, if he should not be delivered into the hand of justice, nor fall into prison, nor have any accuser, nor come to trial, but eat and drink and enjoy great abundance, still we do not think him happy because of present and visible circumstances; but we think him miserable on account |35 of the things which are to come, and to which we look forward.
In the same way reason with yourself concerning the rich and the avaricious. Robbers lie in wait in the way and plunder travellers, and hide the wealth of others in their own lurking-places----in caves or dens. Do not, therefore, think them happy on account of the present, but miserable on account of the future----on account of the fearful judgment, the inevitable account to be rendered----the outer darkness which will envelop them. Even though robbers often escape the hand of men, yet, notwithstanding though we know this, we deprecate for ourselves such a life as theirs, or even for our enemies we should deprecate such an accursed prosperity. Yet with respect to God such a thing cannot be said. No one can escape His judgment, but all who in any way live in covetousness and rapine will undergo the punishment allotted by Him----that deathless punishment which has no end,----in the same way as also did this rich man.
Taking all this, therefore, into consideration, beloved, think those blessed, not who live in wealth, but in virtue; think those miserable, not those who live in poverty, but in wickedness: let us look not at the present, but at the future; let us examine, not the outward appearance, but the conscience of each man; and following after the virtue and the bliss of right actions, let us, whether we be wealthy or poor, emulate Lazarus. He endured not one, nor two, nor three, but many tests of his goodness. These tests were his poverty, his weakness, his lack of helpers, his suffering these evils in a place where there |36 was at hand the means of complete relief, while no one vouchsafed a word of comfort, his seeing him who disregarded him possessing all that abundance, and not only possessing abundance, but living in wickedness, and suffering no ill; also, his being able to look to no other Lazarus, and his being unable to console himself by the thought of the resurrection. And besides all the aforesaid ills, there was his having to bear an ill-character among many, for the very reason that he was a sufferer. There was, not only for two or three days, but for his whole life, the seeing himself in such circumstances, and the rich man in the very opposite.
What excuse, therefore, shall we have if, while this man bore all these excessive evils with such fortitude, we cannot bear even the half of them? for you are unable----you are unable, I say, to show, or even to name, any man who has borne such numerous and heavy evils. For this cause, therefore, Christ brought them before our notice, in order that whensoever we fall into trouble, seeing in his case the exceeding greatness of his affliction, we may, from his wisdom and patience, gain effectual consolation and comfort; for he is set as a general instructor of the whole world, for all who are suffering any kind of distress; enabling all to look to one who surpassed them all in the exceeding greatness of his woes. For all these things, therefore, let us give thanks unto God----the merciful God; let us reap the benefit of this narrative, continually bearing it in mind, in the assembly, at home, in the market, yea everywhere; and let us diligently gain all the wealth of wisdom contained in this parable, in order that we may |37 without grief pass through evils, and that we may attain the good things in store. Which benefits may we all be enabled to gain, by the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be praise, honour, adoration, now and ever, even to all eternity. Amen.
[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]
1. * Matt. xxv. 27.
2. * Alluding to the stone cut out without hands, (Dan. ii. 34;) or to the corner "stone," (Ps. cxviii. 22.)
3. * Probably Chrysostom would understand the sending away (Mark vi. 45) to be after an address. Time seems to be left after the feeding, (compare Mark vi. 35 with John vi. 16.)
4. * The word ninefold (ἐννέα τὸν ἀριθμόν) is used generally, or indefinitely, as in English, tenfold.
5. * Chrysostom, indeed, as Trench observes (Notes on Parables, xxvi.), sees in this circumstance an evidence of the extreme weakness and helplessness to which disease and hunger had reduced him, (see also chap. xi. of this Discourse, and the Discourse, "Quod Nemo Laeditur nisi a Seipso," Paris ed., tom. iii. par. 2, fol. 471.) But he also alludes, with acceptance, to the other notion, that "medicinal virtue was attributed to the tongue of the dog." (See the sixth Discourse of this series in the Paris edition (of Migne), tom. i. par. 2, fol. 1034: τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ κύνες φιλανθρωπότεροι ἔλειχον αὐτοῦ τὰ τραύματα καὶ τὴν σηπεδόνα περιῄρουν καὶ ἐξεκάθαιρον.
6. * περὶ ἀναστάσεως φιλοσοφεῖν.
7. * ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ.
8. * These are proverbs: the former means---- Things are fairly balanced; all is rightly adjusted: the latter means----Things are unequally adjusted.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_four_discourses_02_discourse .htm
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 2. pp.38-58.
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 2. pp.38-58.
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
DISCOURSE II.
CONCERNING LAZARUS ---- AND THAT THE SOULS OF THOSE THAT DIE A VIOLENT DEATH DO NOT BECOME WANDERING SPIRITS----CONCERNING ALSO FUTURE JUDGMENT, AND CHARITY.
1. I was pleased yesterday to see your right feeling when I entered upon the subject of Lazarus, inasmuch as you approved of the patience of the poor man, and shrank from the cruelty and inhumanity of the rich man. These are no small tokens of a noble mind. For if, though not possessing virtue, we yet praise it, then we may be at all events more able to attain it. In like manner if, though we do not flee from sin, we still blame sin, then we may at all events be able to escape from it. Since, therefore, you received that address with great favour, let me deliver to you those things which still remain.
You then saw Lazarus in the gateway of the rich man; to-day behold him in Abraham's bosom. You saw him then licked by dogs; see him now guarded and tended by angels. You saw him then in poverty; behold him now in affluence. You saw him wanting food; behold him enjoying the greatest plenty. You saw him engaged in the contest; behold him crowned as victor. You saw his labour; behold his reward; behold it, whether you be rich or poor,----if rich, that you may not think highly of wealth apart from virtue,----if poor, that |39 you may not think poverty, in itself, an evil. To both classes this man may afford instruction. If he, living in poverty, did not resent his lot, what excuse will they have who do so in wealth? If, living in want and amid so many ills, he could give thanks, what defence can they make who, while they possess abundance, have no desire to attain to the virtue of thankfulness? Again; those who are poor, and who on that account are vexed and discontented, what excuse can they have, when this man, who lived in continual hunger and poverty, desertion and weakness, and who passed his days hard by the dwelling of a rich man; who was scorned by all, while there was no one else who had suffered the like, to whom he might look, still showed such patience and resignation? Prom him we may learn not to think the rich happy nor the poor miserable. Or rather, to speak the truth, he is not rich who is surrounded by many possessions, but he who does not need many possessions; and he is not poor who possesses nothing, but he who requires many things. We ought to consider this to be the distinction between poverty and wealth. When, therefore, you see any one longing for many things, esteem him of all men the poorest, even though he possess all manner of wealth; again, when you see one who does not wish for many things, judge him to be of all men most affluent, even if he possess nothing. For by the condition of our mind, not by the quantity of our material wealth, should it be our custom to distinguish between poverty and affluence. As also in the case of a man who is always thirsty, we do not say that he is in health, even should he enjoy abundance,----even should |40 he lie beside rivers and streams; for what is the use of this abundance of water while his thirst is unquenched? Thus also we conclude in the case of the rich; we can never think those wealthy who are perpetually desiring and thirsting for other people's possessions, not even if they enjoy a certain kind of abundance. For he who cannot restrain his desires, even if he should be surrounded by every kind of possessions, how can he ever be rich? Those, indeed, who are satisfied with their own property, enjoying what they have, and not casting a covetous eye on the substance of others, even if they be, as to means, of all men the most limited, ought to be regarded as the most affluent. For he who does not desire other people's possessions, but is willing to be satisfied with his own, is the wealthiest of all.
However, with your permission, let us return to the proposed subject. "It came to pass," it is said, "that Lazarus died; and he was carried up by angels," (Luke xvi. 22.) Here, before I proceed, I desire to remove a wrong impression from your minds. For it is a fact that many of the less instructed think that the souls of those who die a violent death become wandering spirits, (demons.)
But this is not so. I repeat it is not so.1 For not the souls of those who die a violent death become demons, but rather the souls of those who live in sin; not that their nature is changed, but that in their desires they imitate the evil nature of demons. Showing this very thing to the Jews, Christ said, "Ye are the children of the devil," (John vii. 44.) He said that they were the children of the devil, not because they were |41 changed into a nature like his, but because they performed actions like his. Wherefore also He adds:---- "For the lusts of your father ye will do." Also John says: "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Do therefore works meet for repentance. And think not to say, We have Abraham for our father" (Matt. iii. 7-9.) The Scripture, therefore, is accustomed to base the laws of relationship, not on natural origin, but on good or evil disposition; and those to whom any one shows similarity of manners and actions, the Scripture declares him to be their son or their brother.
2. But for what object did the evil one introduce this wicked saying? It is because he would strive to undermine the glory of the martyrs. For since these also died a violent death, he did this with the intention of spreading a low estimation of them. This, however, he is unable to effect; they remain in possession of their former glory. But another and more grievous thing he has brought to pass; he has, by these means, persuaded the wizards who do his work to murder many innocent children, expecting them to become wandering spirits, and afterward to be their servants. But these notions are false: I repeat they are false. What then if the demons 2 say, "I am the spirit of such and such a monk"? Neither because of this do I credit the notion, since evil spirits say so to deceive those who listen to them. |42
For this reason St Paul stopped their mouth, even when speaking the truth, in order that they might not, on this pretext, at another time mingle falsehood with the truth, and still be deemed worthy of credit. For when they said, "These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation," (Acts xvi. 17;) being grieved in spirit, he rebuked the sorceress, and commanded the spirits to go out. What evil was there in saying, "These men are the servants of the most high God"? Be that as it may, since many of the more weak-minded cannot always know how to decide aright concerning things spoken by demons, he at once put a stop to any credence in them. "If," he implied, "thou art one of those in dishonour, thou hast no liberty of speaking: be silent, and open not thy mouth; it is not thy office to preach; this is the privilege of the apostles. Why dost thou arrogate to thyself that which is not thine? Be silent! thou art fallen from honour." The same thing also Christ did, when the evil spirits said to Him, "We know Thee who Thou art," (Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 24.) He rebuked them with great severity, teaching us never to listen to spirits, not even when they say what is true. Having learnt this, therefore, let us not trust at all in an evil spirit, even though he speak the truth; let us avoid him and turn away. Sound doctrine and saving truth are to be learned with accuracy, not from evil spirits, but from the Holy Scripture.
To show that it is not true that the soul, when it departs from the body, comes under the dominion of evil spirits, hear what St Paul says: "He that is dead is freed |43 from sin," (Rom. vi. 7,) that is, he no longer sins. For if while the soul dwells in the body, the devil can use no violence against it, it is clear that he cannot when the soul has departed. How is it then, say they, that men sin, if they do not suffer any violence? They sin voluntarily and intentionally, surrendering themselves without compulsion or coercion. And this all those prove who have overcome the evil one's devices. Thus [Satan] was unable to persuade Job to utter any blasphemous word, though he tried a thousand plans. Hence it is manifest that it is in our power either to be influenced or not to be influenced by his counsels; and that we are under no necessity nor tyranny from him. And not only from that which has just been said, but from the parable, it is quite certain that souls when they leave the body do not still linger here, but are forthwith led away. And hear how it is shown: "It came to pass," it is said, "that he died, and was carried away by the angels." Not the souls of the just only, but also those of sinners are led away. This also is clear from the case of another rich man. For when his land brought forth abundantly, he said within himself, "What shall I do? I will pull down my barns and build greater," (Luke xii. 18.) Than this state of mind nothing could be more wretched. He did in truth pull down his barns; for secure storehouses are not built with walls of stone; they are "the mouths of the poor." 3 But this man neglecting these, was busy about stone walls. What, however, did God say to him? "Thou fool, this night shall they require thy soul of thee." Mark also: in one passage it is said that the soul is |44 carried away by angels; in the other, that "they require it;" and in the latter case they lead it away as a prisoner; in the former, they guard and conduct it as a crowned victor. And like as in the arena a combatant, having received many wounds, is drenched with blood; his head being then encircled with a crown, those who stand ready by the spot take him up, and with great applause and praise they bear him home amid shouting and admiration. In this way the angels on that occasion led Lazarus also away. But in the other instance dreadful powers,4 probably sent for that purpose, required the soul. For it is not of its own accord that the soul departs this life; indeed, it is not able. For if when we travel from one city to another we need guides, much more does the soul stand in want of those who can conduct it, when it is separated from the flesh, and is entering upon the future state of existence. For this reason it often rises up and again sinks down into the depth below; it fears and shivers as it is about to put off the flesh. The consciousness of sin ever pierces us, and chiefly at that hour when we are about to be led hence to the account there to be rendered, and to the awful tribunal. Then, if a man has robbed, if he has been covetous, if he has been haughty, if he has unjustly been any one's enemy, if he has committed any other sin whatsoever, all the load of guilt is brought fresh to light, and being placed before the eye causes mental compunction. And as those who live in prison are always in sorrow and pain, and especially on that day when they are to be led forth, and brought to the place where they are to be tried, and |45 placed at the bar, and hear the voice of the judge within;5 as they then are full of fear, and seem no better than dead men, so the soul, though it is much pained at the very moment of the sinful act, is much more afflicted when about to be hurried away.
3. Ye are silent as ye listen to these things. Much rather would I have silence than applause. Applause and praises tend to my own glory; but silence tends to make you wiser. I know that what has been said causes pain, but it brings also great and inexpressible advantage. That rich man, if he had had some one to admonish him of these things, and had not had those flatterers counselling him always with a view to favour, and encouraging him in luxury, would not have come to the place of punishment; 6 he would not have endured those insupportable tortures, he would not afterwards have repented so inconsolably. But since all his associates spoke with a view to favour, they betrayed him to the fire. Oh that we could at all times and constantly act wisely with respect to these things, and speak thus concerning future punishment! "In all thy words," it is said, "remember thy latter end, and thou wilt never sin," (Ecclus. vii. 36.) And again, "Prepare thy work for going forth, and make ready for thy journey," (Prov. xxiv. 27, LXX.) If thou hast defrauded any one of anything, restore it, and say with Zacchaeus "I restore him fourfold," (Luke xix. 8.) If thou hast slandered any, if thou hast been any one's enemy, be reconciled before thou comest before the Judge. Settle every affair here, that thou mayest see that tribunal with untroubled mind. As long as we are here we |46 have good hope, but when we come there, we no longer have it in our power to repent nor to cleanse ourselves from our sins. Wherefore it is necessary to be always ready for our going thither. For what if this evening it should seem good to the Lord to call us? What if He should do so to-morrow? The future is left uncertain, that we may be constantly striving and prepared for departure. Thus then Lazarus was at all times submissive and patient, and therefore he was led away with such honour. The rich man also died and was buried: his soul also was buried in the body as in a tomb, and bore about its sepulchre, the flesh. Having fettered his soul by drinking and gluttony as by a chain, he had thus made it inactive and dead.
Beloved, do not carelessly pass by this word "he was buried;" but let us think of the tables inlaid with silver, the couches, the carpets, the vestments, all the ornaments throughout the house, the unguents, the perfumes, the abundance of wine, the variety of meats, the confections, the cooks, the flatterers, the attendants, the household slaves, and all the rest of the display, all burnt up and come to nought. All is ashes, all cinders and dust, lamentations and mourning; no one any longer able to help him, or to bring back the departing soul. Then was made manifest the real power of gold, and of all the rest of his wealth. From all that crowd of attendants, he departed naked and alone, not being able out of all that abundance to carry anything away; but he went away destitute and deserted. No one of all his servants, no one of his supporters was at hand to rescue him from punishment, but led away from all these, he is alone taken |47 to bear those insupportable penalties. Truly "all flesh is as grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower fadeth; but the word of the Lord abideth for ever," (Isa. xl. 6, 7.) Death came and withered all those things, and seizing the man himself as a captive, led him away downcast, filled with shame, speechless, trembling, afraid; him who had, as in a dream, enjoyed all that luxury. And after this, the rich man became a suppliant of the poor man, and required a supply from the table of him who once was famishing, and who lay at his gate, licked by dogs. Affairs were now reversed. All men now learned which was the rich man and which the poor, and that Lazarus was one of the most wealthy of men, and the rich man one of the most destitute. Just as in a play, certain men enter, wearing masks of kings and generals, and physicians and orators, and sophists and soldiers, being themselves in reality none of these; thus also, with respect to the present life, both poverty and wealth are only masks. As, therefore, when sitting in the theatre, you see one of the players on the stage, having on the mask of a king, you do not think him happy, nor think him really a king; neither would you wish to become like him; but since you know that he is some common man or other----a rope-maker, perhaps, or a worker in brass, or some one else of that sort, you do not think him happy because of his mask and his dress, nor do you judge of his condition in life by these things, but you rather look down upon him because of his insignificance in other respects. Thus in truth also, here in this present life, it is as if we were sitting in a theatre, and looking at the players on the |48 stage. Do not, when you see many abounding in wealth, think that they are in reality wealthy, but dressed up in the semblance of wealth. And as one man, representing on the stage a king or a general, often may prove to be a household servant, or one of those who sell figs or grapes in the market; thus the rich, man may often chance to be the poorest of all. For if you remove his mask and examine his conscience, and enter into his inner mind, you will find there great poverty as to virtue, and ascertain that he is the meanest of men. As also, in the theatre, as evening closes in, and the spectators depart, those who come forth divested of their theatrical ornaments, who seemed to all to be kings and generals, now are seen to be whatever they are in reality; even so with respect to this life, when death comes, and the theatre is deserted, when all, having put off their masks of wealth or of poverty, depart hence, being judged only by their works, they appear, some really rich, some poor; some in honour, some in dishonour. Thus it often happens, that one of those who are here the most wealthy, is there most poor, as it was also in the case of this rich man. For when evening, that is, death, came, and he went out from the theatre of the present life, and put off his mask, he was seen there to be poorest of all, even so poor as not to possess a drop of water, but obliged to beg for this, and not gain the object of his petition. What could be more abject than poverty like this? And hear how having lifted up his eyes, he said to Abraham, "Father, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue," (Luke xvi. 24.) Do you see how great his tribulation is? Him |49 whom he passed by when he was close at hand, he now calls to when far off; him upon whom he often, in going out and coming in, did not bestow a glance, he now, when far off, regards steadfastly.
But why does he now look at him? Very often, perhaps, the rich man had said, "What need have I of piety and goodness? All things flow to me as from a perennial fountain. I enjoy great honour, great prosperity. I suffer no unwished-for casualty. Why should I strive after goodness? This poor man, though he lives in piety and goodness, suffers a thousand ills." Many in these days often say such things. In order, therefore, that these false notions might be completely rooted out, it is shown to the rich man, that for wickedness there is in store punishment, and for righteous toil, a crown and honour. And not only on this account did the rich man then see the poor man, but also that the rich man should endure the same that the poor man had endured, and in a higher degree. As therefore, in the case of the poor man, his being laid at the gate of the rich man, and thus seeing the prosperity of another, had made his affliction much heavier, thus also, in the case of the rich man, it made his pain greater, that he, now lying in the place of punishment,7 also sees the bliss of Lazarus; so that, not only by the very nature of torture, but by the contrast with the other's honour, he should bear more insufferable punishment. And as God, when He drove Adam forth from Paradise, caused him to dwell opposite to Paradise, that the constant sight, ever renewing his grief, might produce in him a sense of his falling away from good; |50 thus also did He place this man within sight of Lazarus, that he might see of what he had deprived himself. "I sent to thee," He might say, "this poor man Lazarus to thy gate, that he might be to thee a teacher of virtue, and an oportunity for the exercise of benevolence. Thou didst overlook the gain; thou wert not willing to use aright this means of salvation. From henceforth find it to be a cause of increased pain and punishment."
We learn from this that all those whom we have de-spitefully treated or wronged will then meet us face to face. Still this man was not in any way wronged by the rich man: for the rich man did not seize any of his property; yet he bestowed not upon him any of his own. And since he did not bestow anything on him, he had the neglected poor man for his accuser. What mercy can he expect who has robbed other men's goods, when he is surrounded by all those whom he has injured! No need is there of witnesses, none of accusers, none of evidences or proofs; but the very deeds themselves, whatsoever we have committed, will then be placed before our own eyes.
Behold, then, it is said, the man and his works. This also is robbery----not to impart our good things to others. Very likely it may seem to you a strange saying; but wonder not at it, for I will, from the Divine Scriptures, bring testimony showing that not only robbery of other men's goods, but also the not imparting our own good things to others,----that this also is robbery, and covetous-ness, and fraud. What then is this testimony? God, rebuking the Jews, speaks thus through the prophet: "The earth has brought forth her fruit, and ye have not brought in the tithes; but the plunder of the poor is in |51 your houses," (Mal. iii. 10.) Since, it is said, ye have not given the customary oblations, ye have robbed the poor. This is said in order to show to the rich that they possess things which belong to the poor, even if their property be gained by inheritance,----in fact, from what source soever their substance be derived. And, again, in another place, it is said, "Do not deprive the poor of life," (Ecclus. iv. 1.) Now, he who deprives, deprives some other man of property. It is said to be deprivation when we retain things taken from others. And in this way, therefore, we are taught that if we do not bestow alms, we shall be treated in the same way as those who have been extortioners. Our Lord's things they are, from whencesoever we may obtain them. And if we distribute to the needy we shall obtain for ourselves great abundance. And for this it is that God has permitted you to possess much,----not that you should spend it in fornication, in drunkenness, in gluttony, in rich clothing, or any other mode of luxury, but that you should distribute it to the needy. And just as if a receiver of taxes, having in charge the king's property, should not distribute it to those for whom it is ordered, but should spend it for his own enjoyment, he would pay the penalty and come to ruin; thus also the rich man is, as it were, a receiver of goods which are destined to be dispensed to the poor----to those of his fellow-servants who are in want. If he then should spend upon himself more than he really needs, he will pay hereafter a heavy penalty. For the things he has are not his own, but are the things of his fellow-servants.
5. Let us then be as sparing of our possessions as we |52 should be of those of other people, that they may become really our own. In what manner, then, can we be as sparing of them as of those of other people? By not expending them on superfluous wants, nor for our own needs only, but by imparting them also to the poor. Even if you are a rich man, if you spend more than you need, you will render an account of the property which has been entrusted to you. This same thing happens in great households. Many in this way entrust their entire property into the hands of dependants; yet those who are thus trusted take care of the things delivered to them, and do not squander the deposit, but distribute to whomsoever and whensoever the master orders. The same thing do you. If you have received more than others, you have received it, not that you only should spend it, but that you should be a good steward of it for the advantage of others.
It is worth while to inquire here, why it was that the rich man beheld Lazarus, not in company with any other of the just, but in the bosom of Abraham? Abraham was hospitable, and that there might be this rebuke of his own inhospitality, therefore it was that the rich man saw Lazarus there. Abraham used to lie in wait for those who passed by, and constrain them to enter his abode; but this rich man neglected even one that lay within his very porch; and while he had such a treasure, such an opportunity of salvation, overlooked it each day, and did not show kindness to the poor man, even with respect to the necessaries of life. But the patriarch was not like this. He was the very opposite. Sitting at the |53 tent-door he captured,8 as it were, all those that passed by, and as a fisher casting his net into the sea, draws up fishes, and draws up also, it may be, sometimes gold or pearls, so also he, a fisher of men, once entertained even angels; and there was this wonderful circumstance, that he did so without knowing it. The same thing also St Paul with much admiration insists on, in these words: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares," (Heb. xiii. 2.) And well does he say unawares, (e laqon.) For if they had knowingly received them with such good-will, they would have done no great or wonderful thing: all the praise depends on the fact that not knowing who they were that passed by, and supposing them to be simply wayfaring men, they with such alacrity invited them to enter. If when you receive some noble and honourable man you display such zeal as this, you do nothing wonderful; for the nobility of the guest obliges even the inhospitable often to show all kindness. It is this that is great and admirable,----that when they are chance guests, wanderers, people of limited means, we receive them with great good-will. Thus also Christ, speaking of those who acted thus, said: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto Me," (Matt. xxv. 45.) And again, "It is not the will of your Father that one of these little ones should perish," (Matt. xviii. 14.) And again, "Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the sea," (Matt. xviii. 6.) And at |54 all times Christ said much on behalf of the poor and lowly.
Since Abraham also was wise in this respect, he did not inquire of travellers as to who they were, or from whence they came, as we do in these days; but he simply received all who passed by. It becomes him that is truly well-disposed not to require an account of a man's past life, but simply to relieve poverty and to satisfy want. The poor man has only one plea----his poverty, and his being in want. Demand from him nothing more; but if he be the most wicked of all, and be in need of necessary food, you ought to satisfy his hunger. Thus did Christ command us to do, when he said, "Be ye like your Father which is in heaven, for He maketh His sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust," (Matt. v. 45.) The merciful man is as a harbour to those who are in need; and the harbour receives all who are escaping shipwreck, and frees them from danger, whether they be evil or good; whatsoever kind of men they be that are in peril, it receives them into its shelter. You also, when you see a man suffering shipwreck on land through poverty, do not sit in judgment on him, nor require explanations, but relieve his distress. Why do you give yourself unnecessary trouble? God frees you from all such anxiety and labour. How many things would many men have said, and how many difficulties would they have caused, if God had commanded us to inquire accurately into a man's life, his antecedents, the things which each man had previously done; and after this, to have pity on him! But now are we free from |55 all this trouble. "Why, then, do we burden ourselves with superfluous cares? To be a judge is one thing, to be merciful is another. Mercy is called by that name for this reason, that it gives even to the unworthy. This again St Paul teaches, when he says, "Be not weary in doing good, indeed to all, but especially unto them that are of the household of faith," (Gal. vi. 10.) If we are concerned and troubled about keeping the unworthy away, it will not be likely that the worthy come within our reach; but if we impart to the unworthy, also the worthy ----even those who are so worthy as to counterbalance all the rest----will assuredly come under our influence. In this way it befell Abraham, of blessed memory, who, not troubling himself nor being inquisitive about these wayfarers, was once privileged to entertain even angels. Him let us zealously imitate, and also his descendant Job. For even he imitated with all diligence the magnanimity of his progenitor, and therefore spoke thus: "My door was open to every traveller," (Job xxxi. 32, LXX.) It was not open to one and. closed to another, but open to all alike.
6. Thus, I beseech you, let us also do, not making a more minute inquiry than is necessary. For the need of the poor man is a sufficient cause of itself; and whosoever with this qualification should at any time come to us, let us not trouble ourselves further; for we do not minister to the character, but to the man: we have pity on him, not on account of his virtue, but on account of his calamity, in order that we also may gain that great mercy from the Lord----that we also, though unworthy, may gain |56 His favour. For if we seek for worthiness in our fellow-servants, and make diligent inquiry, the same also will God do to us; and if we demand explanations from our fellow-servants, we ourselves shall fail to gain favour from above. "With what judgment," it is said,9 "ye judge, ye shall be judged," (Matt. viii. 2.)
But let us again turn our discourse to the subject on hand. Seeing this poor man, therefore, in the bosom of Abraham, the rich man said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus." Why does he not address his words to Lazarus? It seems to me that he was ashamed and daunted, and that he thought that Lazarus would assuredly retain an angry remembrance of the things done to him. He would say within himself, "If I, while I enjoyed such abundance, and without any just complaint against him, neglected this man when he lived in such misery, and did not bestow upon him even the crumbs, much more will he who has been thus neglected, not yield to pity." We do not say this to disparage Lazarus; for he was not at all thus disposed----far from it; but the rich man, fearing such things as this, did not address him, but raised his voice to Abraham, whom he might suppose to be ignorant of what had happened. And now he strove to gain the service of that finger which he had often allowed to be licked by dogs.
What then did Abraham say to him? "Son! thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things," (Luke xvi. 25.) Mark the wisdom----mark the tenderness of the saint! He |57 did not say, "Inhuman and cruel man! full of all wickedness! Having inflicted such evils on this man, dost thou now speak of benevolence, or pity, or compassion! Dost thou not blush! Art thou not ashamed!" But what does he say? "Son," he saith, "thou receivedst thy good things." For it is also written, "Thou shalt not add trouble to an afflicted soul," (Ecclus. iv. 3.) The trouble which he has brought upon himself is sufficient. Besides this, and to the end that you may not suppose that he hinders Lazarus from going to the rich man because of any feeling of revenge for the past, Abraham addresses him as "son," as if he would by this mode of address apologise for himself. "Whatever is in my power," he implies, "I grant to thee; but to leave this place is not now in my power. Thou didst receive thy good things." Why also did he not say "thou hadst" (ἔλαβες), but "thou receivedst" (ἀπέαβες)? Here I perceive a vast sea of thought opening out before us.
Therefore, keeping in mind with all care the things which have been already said, as well those now said as those yesterday, let us safely store them in the mind. By means of that which has been said, make yourselves better prepared to hear that which will be spoken on another occasion, and, if possible, remember all that has been said; and if that be not possible, I beg that, chiefest of all, you will remember constantly that not to share our own riches with the poor is a robbery of the poor, and a depriving them of their livelihood; and that that which we possess is not only our own, but also theirs. If our minds are disposed in accordance with this truth, we shall freely use |58 all our possessions; we shall feed Christ while hungering here, and we shall lay up great treasures there; we shall, be enabled to attain future blessedness, by the grace and favour of our Lord, with whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, honour, might, now and ever, even to all eternity. Amen.
[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]
1. * Οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο, οὐκ ἔστιν.
2. * δαίμονες, in later Greek, usually departed spirits of men: in earlier Greek, guardian spirits, or else inferior deities. Here usually translated wandering spirits.
3. * τῶν πενήτων γαστέρες.
4. * φοβεραί τινες δυνάμεις.
5. * See Introduction, p. vi.
6. † γέεννα.
7. * ἐν τῇ γεέννα.
8. * ἐσαγήνευε.
9. * φησί is the usual word to bring in a quotation, whether of words actually spoken or not.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_four_discourses_03_discourse .htm
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 3. pp.59-89.
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 3. pp.59-89.
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
DISCOURSE III.
CONCERNING LAZARUS---- CONCERNING READING THE SCRIPTURES ---- THE REASON WHY IT IS NOT SAID, "THOU HADST," BUT "THOU RECEIVEDST "----WHY IS IT THAT THE JUST OFTEN FALL INTO TROUBLES, WHILE THE WICKED ESCAPE THEM?
1. The parable about Lazarus has benefited us not a little, both rich and poor, teaching the latter to bear poverty well, and not allowing the former to think highly of their riches; but showing, by the circumstances of the case, that he is of all men to be most pitied who lives in luxury without sharing his wealth with others. Allow me again to take up the same subject; since, also, those who work in mines, wherever they see many grains of gold, there they dig again, and do not cease until they have gathered out all that can be found. Let us, therefore, proceed, and, at the place where we left off yesterday, there again recommence the discourse. It might be possible, indeed, to unfold to you the whole parable in a single day; but we do not strive to be able to depart with the feeling that we have said a great deal, but that you, having received and retained the things spoken, may be able, through this carefulness, to gain a sense of real spiritual benefit. A tender mother about to change the |60 food of her child from milk to more solid diet, if she were at once to give it unmixed wine would injure it, for the child would at once reject the new diet. She feeds it little by little, and thus the new nourishment is received without trouble. In order that you may not feel distaste for the offered food, we do not without preparation pour out to you from the cup of instruction; but distributing the portion over several days, we give an interval of repose from the toil of hearing, that both that which has been said may be firmly fixed in your understanding and in your heart, and that you may receive that which is about to be said with constant and increasing zeal.
Thus I often state several days beforehand the subject about to be considered, in order that, in the intervening time, you may take a book and go through the whole passage; and, noticing what has been stated and what reserved, you may be prepared to hear more intelligently that which is to be said.
This, also, I am ever urging, and shall not cease to urge, that you give attention, not only to the words spoken, but that also, when at home in your house, you exercise yourselves constantly in reading the Divine Scriptures. This, also, I have never ceased to press upon those who come to me privately. Let not any one say to me that these exhortations are vain and irrelevant, for "I am constantly busy in the courts," (suppose him to say;) "I am discharging public duties; I am engaged in some art or handiwork; I have a wife; I am bringing up my children; I have to manage a household; I am full of worldly business; it is not for me to read the Scriptures, but for those who have bid adieu to the |61 world,1 for those who dwell on the summit of the hills;2 those who constantly lead a secluded life." What dost thou say, O man? Is it not for thee to attend to the Scriptures, because thou art involved in numerous cares? It is thy duty even more than theirs, for they do not so much need the aid to be derived from the Holy Scriptures as they do who are engaged in much business. For those who lead a solitary life, who are free from business and from the anxiety arising from business, who have pitched their tent in the wilderness, and have no communion with any one, but who meditate at leisure on wisdom, in that peace that springs from repose----they, like those who lie in the harbour, enjoy abundant security. But ourselves, who, as it were, are tossed in the midst of the sea, cannot avoid many failings, we ever stand in need of the immediate and constant comfort of the Scriptures. They rest far from the strife, and, therefore, escape many wounds; but you stand perpetually in the array of battle, and constantly are liable to be wounded: on this account, you have more need of the healing remedies. For, suppose, a wife provokes, a son causes grief, a slave excites to anger, an enemy plots against us, a friend is envious, a neighbour is insolent, a fellow-soldier causes us to stumble----or often, perhaps, a judge threatens us, poverty pains us, or loss of property causes us trouble, or |62 prosperity puffs us up, or misfortune overthrows us;----there are surrounding us on all sides many causes and occasions of anger, many of anxiety, many of dejection or grief, many of vanity or pride; from all quarters, weapons are pointed at us. Therefore it is that there is need continually of the whole armour of the Scriptures. For, "understand," it says, "that thou passest through the midst of snares, and walkest on the battlements of a city," (Ecclus. ix. 13.) The lusts of the flesh also more grievously afflict those who are engaged in the midst of business. For a noble appearance and beautiful person gain power over us through the eyes; and wicked words, entering by the cars, trouble our thoughts. Often, also, a well-modulated song softens the constancy of the mind. But why do I say these things'? For that which seems to be weaker than all these, even the odour of sweet scents from the meretricious throng with whom we meet, falling upon the senses, entrances us, and, by this chance accident, we are made captive.
2. Many other such things there are that beset our soul; and we have need of the divine remedies that we may heal wounds inflicted, and ward off those which, though not inflicted, would else be received in time to come----thus quenching afar off the darts of Satan, and shielding ourselves by the constant reading of the Divine Scriptures. It is not possible----I say, it is not possible, for any one to be secure without constant supplies of this spiritual instruction.3 Indeed, we may congratulate ourselves,4 if, constantly using this remedy, we ever are able |63 to attain salvation. But when, though each day receiving wounds, we make use of no remedies, what hope can there be of salvation?
Do you not notice that workmen in brass, or goldsmiths, or silversmiths, or those who engage in any art whatsoever, preserve carefully all the instruments of their art; and if hunger come, or poverty afflict them, they prefer to endure anything rather than sell for their maintenance any of the tools which they use. It is frequently the case that many thus choose rather to borrow money to maintain their house and family, than part with the least of the instruments of their art. This they do for the best reasons; for they know that when those are sold, all their skill is rendered of no avail, and the entire groundwork of their gain is gone. If those are left, they may be able, by persevering in the exercise of their skill, in time to pay off their debts; but if they, in the meantime, allow the tools to go to others, there is, for the future, no means by which they can contrive any alleviation of their poverty and hunger. We also ought to judge in the same way. As the instruments of their art are the hammer and anvil and pincers, so the instruments of our work are the apostolic and prophetic books, and all the inspired and profitable Scriptures.5 And as they, by their instruments, shape all the articles they take in hand, so also do we, by our instruments, arm our mind, and strengthen it when relaxed, and renew it when out of condition. Again, artists display their skill in beautiful forms, being unable to change the material of their productions, or to transmute silver into gold, but only to |64 make their figures symmetrical. But it is not so with thee, for thou hast a power beyond theirs----receiving a vessel of wood, thou canst make it gold. And to this St Paul testifies, speaking thus: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work," (2 Tim. ii. 20, 21.) Let us then not neglect the possession of the sacred books, that we receive no fatal injuries. Let us not hoard gold, but lay up, as our treasures, these inspired books. For gold, whenever it becomes abundant, causes trouble to its possessors; but these books, when carefully preserved, afford great benefit to those who possess them. As also where royal arms are stored, though no one should use them, they afford great security to those who dwell there; since neither thieves nor burglars, nor any other evil-doers, dare attack that place. In the same way, where the inspired books are, from thence all satanical influence is banished, and the great consolation of right principles comes to those who live there; yea, even the very sight of these books by itself makes us slower to commit iniquity. Even if we attempt any forbidden thing, and make ourselves unclean, when we return home and see these books, our conscience accuses us more keenly, and we become less likely to fall again into the same sins. Again, if we have been steadfast in our integrity, we gain more benefit, (if we are acquainted with the word;) for as soon as one comes to the gospel, he by a mere look both rectifies his understanding and ceases from all worldly cares. And |65 if careful reading also follows, the soul, as if initiated in sacred mysteries, is thus purified and made better, while holding converse with God through the Scriptures.
"But what," say they, "if we do not understand the things we read?" Even if you do not understand the contents, your sanctification in a high degree results from it. However, it is impossible that all these things should alike be misunderstood; for it was for this reason that the grace of the Holy Spirit ordained that tax-gatherers, and fishermen, and tent-makers, and shepherds, and goatherds, and uninstructed and illiterate men, should compose these books, that no untaught man should be able to make this pretext; in order that the things delivered should be easily comprehended by all----in order that the handicraftsman, the domestic, the widow, yea, the most unlearned of all men, should profit and be benefited by the reading. For it is not for vain-glory, as men of the world, but for the salvation of the hearers, that they composed these writings, who, from the beginning, were endued with the gift of the Holy Ghost.
3. For those without----philosphers, rhetoricians, and annalists, not striving for the common good, but having in view their own renown----if they said anything useful, even this they involved in their usual obscurity, as in a cloud. But the apostles and prophets always did the very opposite; they, as the common instructors of the world, made all that they delivered plain to all men, in order that every one, even unaided, might be able to learn by the mere reading. Thus also the prophet spake before, when he said, "All shall be taught of God," (Isa. liv. 13.) "And they shall no more say, every one to his |66 neighbour, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest," (Jer. xxxi. 34.) St Paul also says, "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, declaring unto you the mystery of God," (1 Cor. ii. 1.) And again, "My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," (1 Cor. ii. 4.) And again, "We speak wisdom," it is said, "but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world that come to nought," (1 Cor. ii. 6.) For to whom is not the gospel plain? Who is it that hears, "Blessed are the meek; blessed are the merciful; blessed are the pure in heart," and such things as these, and needs a teacher in order to understand any of the things spoken?
But (it is asked) are the parts containing the signs and wonders and histories also clear and plain to every one? This is a pretence, and an excuse, and a mere cloak of idleness. You do not understand the contents of the book? But how can you ever understand, while you are not even willing to look carefully? Take the book in your hand. Read the whole history; and, retaining in your mind the easy parts, peruse frequently the doubtful and obscure parts; and if you are unable, by frequent reading, to understand what is said, go to some one wiser; betake yourself to a teacher; confer with him about the things said. Show great eagerness to learn: then, when God sees that you are using such diligence, He will not disregard your perseverance and carefulness; but if no human being can teach you that which you seek to know, He himself will reveal the whole. |67
Remember the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. Being a man of a barbarous nation, occupied with numerous cares, and surrounded on all sides by manifold business, he was unable to understand that which he read. Still, however, as he was seated in the chariot, he was reading. If he showed such diligence on a journey, think how diligent he must have been at home: if while on the road he did not let an opportunity pass without reading, much more must this have been the case when seated in his house; if when he did not fully understand the things he read, he did not cease from reading, much more would he not cease when able to understand. To show that he did not understand the things which he read, hear that which Philip said to him: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" (Acts viii. 30.) Hearing this question he did not show provocation or shame: but confessed his ignorance, and said: "How can I, except some man should guide me?" (ver. 31.) Since therefore, while he had no man to guide him, he was thus reading; for this reason, he quickly received an instructor. God knew his willingness, He acknowledged his zeal, and forthwith sent him a teacher.
But, you say, Philip is not present with us now. Still, the Spirit that moved Philip is present with us. Let us not, beloved, neglect our own salvation! "All these things are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come," (1 Cor. x. 11.) The reading of the Scriptures is a great safeguard against sin; ignorance of the Scriptures is a great precipice and a deep gulf; to know nothing of the Scriptures, is a great betrayal of our salvation. This ignorance is the cause of |68 heresies; this it is that leads to dissolute living; this it is that makes all things confused. It is impossible----I say, it is impossible, that any one should remain unbenefited who engages in persevering and intelligent reading. For see how much one parable has profited us! how much spiritual good it has done us! For many I know well have departed, bearing away abiding profit from the hearing; and if there be some who have not reaped so much benefit, still for that day on which they heard these things, they were rendered in every way better. And it is not a small thing to spend one day in sorrow on account of sin, and in consideration of the higher wisdom, and in affording the soul a little breathing time from wordly cares. If we can effect this at each assembly without intermission, the continued hearing would work for us a great and lasting benefit.
4. Let me then deliver to you the remainder of this parable. What is it that follows? The rich man having said, "Send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue," let us listen to that which Abraham says in reply. "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us from thence," (Luke xvi. 25, 26.) These words are heavy to bear and cause us grief. I know, indeed, that in proportion to the wounds inflicted by conscience, is the benefit received by the wounded mind. For if it were in the next world that these things were said to us, as |69 they were to this rich man, truly should we have to lament, and mourn, and grieve, since time of repentance would no longer have been left us; but since we hear these things here, where it is possible to become wise, and to purge away our sins, and gain great confidence, and, fearing the evils that have befallen others, to repent,----let us give thanks to the good God, who, by the punishment of others, stirs up our sluggishness and wakes us from our slumber. For this reason it is that these things are foretold, in order that we may not suffer the same. If God wished to punish us, He would not have foretold these things; but since He does not wish that we should fall into punishment, for this reason He foretells the punishment, that being made wise by the warning, we may escape experience of such things.
But why does Abraham not say, "Thou hadst" (ἔλαβες) "thy good things," but "thou receivedst" (ἀπέλαβες)? You remember, I dare say, that I said that here a vast and boundless sea of thought is opened before us. For the word (ἀπέλαβες) receivedst suggests and intimates the idea of debt; for any one receives (ἀπολάμβανει) that which is owing to him. If then this rich man was wicked, yea, most wicked, cruel, or inhuman, why is it not said to him," Thou hadst" (ἔλαβες) "thy good things," but "thou receivedst" (ἀπέλαβες), as if it implied things deserved by, or owed to him? What then do we learn from this? That some men, even wicked men, even those who have proceeded to the very extremity of wickedness, may often have done one, or two, or three good things. And that this statement is not mere conjecture is plain, from the following case. For what greater |70 wickedness could exist than that of the unjust judge? What could be more inhuman, what more impious? This man neither feared God nor regarded men, (Luke xviii. 2.) Still, though living in such wickedness, he performed one good act, namely, the having pity on the widow who constantly troubled him; the yielding to grace, and granting her request, and proceeding against those who troubled her. Thus also it happens that a man may be intemperate, and at the same time often merciful; or he may be cruel, but also sober; and if he be both intemperate and cruel, still, often in the business of life, he may do some good deed. And similarly we ought to think of the good. For as the most depraved of men often do some useful thing, so also the zealous and honourable often commit sin in some respect. "For who," it is said, "can boast that he has a clean heart, or who can say that he is free from iniquity?" (Prov. xx. 9.)
Since, therefore, it was likely that the rich man, though he had proceeded to the extreme of iniquity, had done some good work; and that Lazarus, even though he had arrived at the summit of virtue, had committed some sin, mark how the patriarch intimates both these things, when he says, "Thou, in thy lifetime, receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things." That which he says, implies this: "If thou also hast done good, and reward was owing to thee for that, all this reward thou receivedst in that life when thou didst live in luxury and wealthy enjoying great prosperity and success. This man (Lazarus) also, if he did any wrong, has received all the equivalent in poverty and hunger, being oppressed with the most extreme ills. Each of you has arrived here free----this |71 man from his sins, and thou from works of righteousness. Therefore, he has unmixed consolation----thou endurest unmitigated punishment."
Thus when our righteousness is small and slender, and the burden of our sins great and incalculable, and still we enjoy success here, and suffer no ill, we shall depart hence entirely destitute and devoid of that reward of good actions, having "received all our good things in this life." Also, when our works of righteousness are great and numerous, and our transgressions few and slight, and we also suffer some kinds of ill, we are purged from the transgressions here, and we receive there an unmixed recompense of our good acts, prepared for us. Whenever, then, you see any one living in wickedness, and suffering no misfortune, do not think him blessed, but mourn for and bewail him, as being about to undergo his woes there, as did also this rich man. Again, when you see any one striving after virtue, and enduring innumerable trials, consider him blessed; envy him as paying the penalty for all his transgressions here, and about to receive the reward of his constancy prepared for him there; as also it happened in the case of Lazarus.
5. Some men are punished here only; others suffer here no ill, but receive the whole punishment hereafter; others are punished both here and hereafter. Which, then, of these three classes do you esteem fortunate? Without doubt, the first; those who are punished and purged from their sins here. But which class is second in order? You, perhaps, may say, those who suffer nothing in this life, but undergo the whole punishment hereafter. I, however, should say not those, but rather they |72 who are punished in both worlds. For he who in this life pays the penalty, will hereafter feel lighter pains; but he who must undergo the whole infliction hereafter, will have an inexorable doom. Thus this rich man, not being cleansed here from any of his indwelling sins, was so severely punished in the next world as not to be able to procure even a drop of water. Also, with respect to those who sin in this world, but suffer no ill, I pity them by far the most who, together with freedom from punishment, also enjoy here luxury and security. For as the freedom from penalty for sin in this world makes their future punishment more severe, so also when sinners enjoy here great repose and luxury and success, this prosperity becomes to them a means and cause of greater punishment and penalty. While in a state of sin, whenever we, in the course of divine providence, receive honours, these very honours may the more surely cast us into the fire. If, for instance, any one should experience only long-suffering without making the right use of it, he will receive heavier punishment. When, besides long-suffering, he enjoys the highest honours, and, notwithstanding, remains in his wickedness, who can save him from punishment? For, to show that they who here experience long-suffering prepare for themselves unmitigated punishment hereafter, if they do not repent, hear what St Paul says: "Thinkest thou, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent |73 heart treasurest up for thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God," (Rom. ii. 3-5.) Whenever, then, thou seest any men abounding in riches, living in luxury, using precious ointments, surfeiting day by day, having power and great honour and splendour, and, at the same time, living in sin, and suffering no ill; for this very reason chiefly it is that we weep and lament for them, that when sinning, they are not punished. Just as when you see any one afflicted with dropsy, or any other disease, or having sores or wounds in all parts of his body; if, in addition to this, he indulges in drinking and eating, and thus aggravates his malady, you not only do not admire him, nor think him happy on account of his luxury, but, for this very reason, you think him wretched. In the same way, also, we should judge concerning the affairs of the soul. Whenever you see a man living in wickedness, and enjoying great prosperity, and suffering no calamity, on this account lament for him the more, because, being under the power of disease and grievous corruption, he increases his own weakness, becoming worse by luxury and indolence. For punishment is not in itself an evil, but the real evil is sin. The latter separates us from God; the former leads us to God, and mitigates His wrath. How is this shown? Hear the prophet saying, "O priests, comfort ye, comfort ye my people. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem, and say that she has received of the Lord's hand double for her sins," (Isa. xl. 1,2, LXX.) And again: "O Lord our God, give us peace, for thou hast repaid all to us," (Isa. xxvi. 12, LXX.) And in order that you may understand that some are punished here, others hereafter, hear what St Paul |74 saith, reproving those who partake of the mysteries unworthily. For having said, "He who eateth this bread, and drinketh this cup unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," (1 Cor. xi. 27,) he immediately adds, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged; but now we are judged of the Lord and chastened, in order that we should not be condemned with the world," (1 Cor. xi. 30-32.) Do you see how the punishment inflicted here frees from the punishment hereafter? Also with respect to him who had committed fornication, it is said, "Deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. v. 5.) Also from the case of Lazarus this is clear, that if he had committed any ill, having been purged from it here, he departed hence clean. And the same appears from the case of the paralytic man, who, having lived in weakness thirty and eight years, was freed from sin by the length of his affliction. And that it was sin for which he was thus afflicted, hear what Christ said, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee," (John v. 14.) That some are punished here and purified from sin, is therefore shown by these instances.
6. And. that some men, when they do not receive punishment here equivalent to the magnitude of their offences, are punished both here and hereafter, hear what Christ saith concerning the Sodomites. For having said, "Whosoever will not receive you, shake off the dust from your feet," (Luke ix. 5; x. 11,) He proceeds to say, "It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in |75 the day of judgment than for that city," (Luke x. 12.) The expression more tolerable shows this, that they will be punished indeed, but more lightly, since also here they paid the penalty. And that there are some who, in this world suffer no ill, but in the next world endure the full punishment, the case of this rich man teaches us, who there underwent such unmitigated punishment, as not even to enjoy the consolation of a drop of water; for the whole infliction was to be meted out to him there. As therefore, of those who commit sin, they who suffer no ill here, undergo greater punishment hereafter; thus also, of those who live righteously, they who suffer many ills here, enjoy greater honour there. And if there be two sinners, the one punished here, the other not punished; the one who is punished is more fortunate than the one unpunished. Again, if there be two righteous men, of whom one endures more, and the other fewer trials; he that endures the most is the most fortunate, since to each will be rendered according to his work.
What then? Is it not possible, they say, to enjoy ease both here and hereafter? This, O man, is unattainable; it is one of the things impossible. It cannot, it cannot be, that he who here enjoys ease and plenty, and continually indulges in every luxury----who lives a vain and aimless life----can also enjoy honour hereafter. At the same time, if he be not troubled by poverty, he still is troubled by desire, and from this cause suffers restraint----a cause which gives rise to no small amount of trouble, Again, if disease do not afflict him, yet evil passion burns within, and it is no slight pain that springs from wrath; also, if trials be not laid upon him, yet wicked thoughts |76 constantly arise to vex him. It is by no means a trivial matter to restrain lawless desire, to put a stop to vainglorious thoughts, to check insensate pride, to refrain from excess, to live in self-denial. And he who does not accomplish these things, and such as these, can never attain salvation. For that they who live luxuriously are not saved, hear what St Paul says concerning widows, "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth," (1 Tim. v. 6.) And if this is said concerning a widow, much more is it true concerning a man. Again, that it is not possible for one living a dissipated life to reach heaven, even Christ has made quite plain, when He declares, "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it," (Matt. vii. 4.) How is it then that it is said, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light"? (Matt. xi. 30.) For if the way be narrow and confined, how can it again be called light and easy? We answer: The former is true, because of the very nature of trial; the latter, because of the determination of him who endures trial. For it is possible that that which is by nature unendurable, may become light, when we bear it willingly. As, therefore, the apostles, being beaten, returned rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of the Lord, though the nature of such trial always causes tribulation and pain, still the previous determination of those who received the stripes, even overcame the nature of things. With respect to this same thing, St Paul says, "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution," (2 Tim. iii. 12.) So that if man do not persecute, the devil fights against us, and we have need of much |77 philosophy and great perseverance, in order that, with the aid of prayer, we may be sober and watchful,----that we may not covet the possessions of others,----that we may be willing to distribute of our substance to those who are in need,----that we may bid farewell to all self-indulgence, both with respect to dress and with respect to food,----that we may avoid covetousness,----that we may flee drunkenness, and evil-speaking,----that we may have the tongue in subjection,----that we may not utter any unbecoming word, (for "let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you," Eph. iv. 31,)----that we may not speak base or deceitful words. There is no small labour requisite to exhibit perfect observance of all these things. And in order that you may learn how great a thing it is to live wisely, and that it is a work which admits no repose, hear what St Paul saith, "I keep under my body, and bring it unto subjection," (1 Cor. ix. 27.) By these words he intimates the force and great effort which it is needful to put forth in order to render the body obedient in all things. Christ also said to His disciples, "In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world," (John xvii. 33.) This very tribulation, it is said, procures for you rest. The present life is an arena, and he that is to be crowned can have no rest while in the arena, and engaged in contest. Thus also, if any one be desirous to be crowned, he must adopt a hard and laborious mode of life, in order that having toiled here for a short period, he may hereafter enjoy perpetual repose.
7. How many troubles arise each day! How great must that soul be that is not annoyed----that is not |78 vexed, but gives thanks and praise,----that adores Him who ordains that these trials should be endured! How many unexpected things there are,----how many difficulties! And we must restrain evil thoughts, and not suffer the tongue to speak any improper word, as did the blessed Job, who praised God while he endured a multitude of ills.
There are some who, if they meet with any reverse, or are slandered by any one, or if they fall into any bodily malady, any pain in the foot or head, or any other disease, immediately blaspheme. In this way they endure the affliction, but are deprived of the benefit. What doest thou, O man, blaspheming against thy benefactor and Saviour! Dost thou not perceive that thou art on the brink of a precipice, and art casting thyself into an abyss of utter destruction? Nor dost thou, by blaspheming, make thy suffering lighter; but thou dost increase it, and makest thy pain more severe. It is with this intent that the tempter brings against thee a multitude of ills,----that he may lead thee into that abyss; and if he see thee blaspheming, how easily does he increase the anguish and make it greater, that, being afflicted, thou mayest rebel again. But if he see thee bearing it nobly, and in proportion to the increase of the suffering, the more giving thanks to God, he at once desists; since for the future he would attack thee fruitlessly and in vain. Thus also the tempter, as a dog waiting at table, if he see the man who is eating, continually throwing to him some morsel or other from the dishes on the table he waits patiently; but if, having waited once or twice, he should go away without anything, he desists for the future, because he has waited fruitlessly and in vain. Thus also |79 does the evil one constantly attend us with open mouth; and if you should throw to him, as to a dog, a wicked word, snatching it up, he again prepares himself for more; but if you continue thankful, you as it were starve him, and quickly drive him away and make him flee. But, you say, you are not able to be silent when goaded by. pain. Nor do I hinder you from speaking: but instead of blasphemy, give utterance to praise----instead of discontent, to thankfulness.
Make confession to your Master; cry aloud in prayer: thus your suffering will be alleviated, the tempter will be put to flight by thanksgiving, and the aid of God will be brought nigh. Besides, if you blaspheme, you avert the help of God, and cause the tempter to be more powerful against you, and you involve yourself the more in pains; but if you give thanks, you repel the assaults of the evil spirit, and gain for yourself the care of a gracious God.
But, it is said, the tongue often by force of habit lapses into the utterance of some evil word. Whenever, then, you are failing, before the word can gain utterance, close your teeth against it firmly. Better for the tongue to shed a drop of blood now, than that hereafter craving a drop of water it should be unable to gain that comfort: better to endure pain in season, than to undergo ceaseless punishment hereafter. For the tongue of the rich man, when consumed with heat, found no relief.
God has enjoined that you should love your enemies: do you turn away from the God who loves you? He has commanded that you should bless them that despitefully use you, that you should speak well of those that slander you: |80 do you, when in no respect injured, speak evil of your benefactor and patron? Was He not able, you say, to free you from this temptation? Yes, but He permitted it that you might be the more approved. "But, alas!" you say, "I fall! I perish!" Then this is not because of the temptation, but because of your slothfulness. For, tell me, which is the easier, blasphemy or praise? Does not the former cause those who hear it to be your enemies and opponents, and cause yourself to feel dejection, and produce afterward great pain? Does not the latter gain for you the manifold reward of wisdom, and the admiration of all, and procure great reward from God? Why, then, leaving that which is useful, and easy, and agreeable, do you instead follow that which is injurious, and painful, and corrupting? Beside this, if the pressure of trial and poverty caused you to utter blasphemy, it would follow that those who live in poverty would always be blasphemers. But in fact, those who live in poverty----many of them in extreme poverty----are constantly thankful; while others who enjoy wealth and luxury are constantly blasphemers. Thus, it is not the nature of the things, but rather our own state of mind, that causes the one line of conduct or the other.
For this reason, therefore, let us read this parable, in order that we may learn that neither does wealth benefit the slothful man, nor does poverty in any way injure the upright. Yea, what do I say?----poverty!----rather not all the ills that afflict mankind, should they together assail him, can ever overthrow the soul of the godly and wise man, or persuade him to forsake virtue; and of this, Lazarus is an example. So also wealth can never benefit |81 the idle and dissolute man, nor can health, nor continual prosperity, nor any other thing.
8. Let us, therefore, not say that sickness, or poverty, or the presence of danger, obliges us to blaspheme. It is not poverty, but folly,----not sickness, but arrogance,----not the presence of danger, but the absence of piety,----that leads the negligent to blasphemy and every other evil habit.
But for what reason, it is said, are some punished here, and others there, and not all here? For what reason?----because if it were so, we all should perish; for all of us are worthy of punishment. Again, if no one were punished here, the mass of mankind would become more negligent; many would deny the existence of a Providence. For if men say such things even now, when we see many of the wicked enduring punishment, what would they say if this were not so? What bounds would there be to evil? For this reason God punishes some men here, and some He does not punish. He punishes some, removing their wickedness, and making their punishment in the next world lighter, or completely renewing them, and making those who live in wickedness wiser by the punishment of others. Again, some He does not punish, in order that if they should take heed to themselves,----if being touched by the manifestation of God's long-suffering they should repent----that then they may escape both punishment here and the penalty hereafter; but if they should remain hardened and not profit by the forbearance of God, that then they may endure greater inflictions hereafter because of this their exceeding neglect. And if any of those who know these things should say that they who are thus punished are wronged, (being unable to repent,) we might |82 reply thus:----that if God had foreseen that they would repent, He would not have punished them. For if He passes over those whom He knows to be incorrigible, much more would He tolerate in the present life those whom He knows to be benefited by His long-suffering, in order that they may profit by the opportunity of repentance. Since He now deals with them beforehand, He causes their future punishment to be lighter, and by these His dealings,----by the punishment of these, He makes other men more prudent and wise. But wherefore does He not act thus towards all sinners alike? It is in order that by fear arising from the punishment of others, they may be confirmed in wisdom; and giving glory to God, on account of His long-suffering, and feeling shame on account of His clemency, they may depart from iniquity. But, it is said, they do not act so? Notwithstanding after this, God is not the cause of their woe, but their own negligence, since they are careless about using these remedies to ensure their own salvation. And that you may be assured that God acts thus for this reason, mark this:----Pilate on one occasion mingled the blood of some Galileans with the sacrifices, Certain men having hastened to tell this to Christ, He said, "Suppose ye that only these Galileans were sinners? I tell you, Nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish," (Luke xiii. 2, 3.) Again, on another occasion, eighteen men were buried under a fallen tower, and concerning them He said the same. The words, "Think ye that they only were sinners? I say unto you, Nay," teach us that those who escaped alive were worthy of the same fate. The words, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish," teach us |83 that it was allotted to those men to suffer, in order that those who remained alive, made afraid by the calamities happening to others, might repent and become heirs of the kingdom. "What then?" say they; "is another punished that I may become better?" Not so; but another is punished for his own individual iniquity; and this event also becomes a cause of salvation to those who pay heed to it, making them more zealous because of the very fear arising from those calamities. In this same way masters act; when they chastise one slave, they cause the rest to be more careful through fear. Thus, whenever you see any shipwrecked, or buried under a fallen house, or ruined by fire, or drowned in a river, or losing life in any other violent way,----when you also see others who have committed the same things, or even worse, suffering none of these things, do not say in your perplexity, "Why then is it that those who have sinned alike do not suffer the same ills?" but think thus, "One man was permitted to be destroyed or drowned, that his future punishment should be more tolerable to him, or even to make him quite pure;" while another was ordained to suffer no such calamity, in order that being taught by another's punishment he might become more submissive; but should he still remain unchanged, that he, by his own negligence might heap up for himself unmitigated penalties; still of this unendurable punishment God is not the cause.
Again, when you see a just man afflicted, or suffering all the afore-mentioned woes, do not stumble at it; for even to himself the woes are the cause of a brighter reward.
In a word, with respect to all punishment, if it be |84 inflicted on sinners, it lessens the burden of sin; if on the just, it makes the soul more glorious;----and the greatest gain accrues to each of us from affliction, if only we bear it thankfully. For this is the design of punishment.
9. For this reason the history contained in the sacred Scriptures is filled with innumerable examples of this kind. Both just men and unjust are shown to us suffering ills, in order that, whether a man be just or whether he be a sinner, having these examples, he may bear ills well. And wicked men are shown to us not only suffering ills, but also prospering; so that you may not be troubled at their prosperity, since you learn from that which befell this rich man that the tormenting fire awaits them if they repent not. And the Scripture tells us that it is not possible to enjoy repose both here and hereafter; it cannot be.
Therefore it is that just men in this world live a laborious life. But "what," say they, "do you say with respect to Abraham?" Yet who suffered so many ills as he? Was he not obliged to leave his fatherland? Was he not separated from all his relatives? Did he not suffer want in a strange land? Did he not, like a pilgrim, continually change his abode----from Babylon to Mesopotamia, from thence to Palestine, from thence again to Egypt? How can one relate his trouble about his wife, the deadly strife with the barbarians, the carrying captive of the household of his kinsman, the many other troubles like these? And when at length he had the son, did he not suffer the hardest trial of all, being commanded to slay his cherished and beloved one with his own hand? |85 And what shall we say of Isaac, the sacrifice? Was he not vexed perpetually by his neighbours, deprived of his wife, (as his father had been,) and for so long a time bereaved of his child? What, again, shall we say concerning Jacob, who was brought up in his father's house? Did he not endure greater ills than his grandfather? And not to make the discourse too long by going through all these things, hear what he himself says concerning his whole life: "Few and evil have been my days, and I have not attained to the days of my fathers," (Gen. xlvii. 9.) Although he saw his son sitting on a royal throne and possessed of such glory, he did not forget the ills of the past; he had been so afflicted that even in such prosperity he could not be unmindful of the misfortunes that had befallen him. What shall we say about David? How many tragical events happened to him? Did he not also exclaim like Jacob: "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they come to fourscore years, yet is their strength but labour and sorrow"? (Ps. xc. 10.) What with respect to Jeremiah? Did he not, because of overwhelming evils, curse the day of his birth? What shall we say of Moses? Did he not in despair exclaim, "Kill me, if thou thus deal with me"? (Numb. xi. 15.) Elijah also, that heavenly soul----he that shut heaven 6 ----did he not, after working so many wonders, lament before God thus: "Take away my life, for I am not better than my fathers "? (1 Kings xix. 4.) And what need is there to go through each instance? St Paul, taking them [the just] all together, |86 proceeds to speak of them thus: "They wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; of whom the world was not worthy," (Heb. xi. 37, 38.) And, in a word, it is ever necessary that he who would please God and become approved and holy should not lead an easy, free, and dissolute life, but a laborious life, full of hardship and toil. For "no man," it is said, "is crowned except he strive lawfully," (2 Tim. ii. 5;) and in another place, "Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things," (1 Cor. ix. 25.) He abstains from evil words and looks, from base conversation and slander, and from blasphemy and evil speaking. Prom this we learn that, though trial may not come upon us from any external source, it is our duty to exercise ourselves each day in fasting, self-denial, moderate diet, and a plain table, avoiding extravagance in any way. Otherwise we cannot please God. Let not any one repeat the foolish saying, that such and such a one has both the good things of this world and also of the next. It is impossible in the case of rich and luxurious sinners that the saying can be true; but if it be right to say it at all, it should be said of those who are afflicted,----of those who are in distress,----that they have the good of this world and also of the next. For they have good things in the next world as their reward; good things also they have here, being sustained by the hope of the future, and not feeling acutely present ills, because of the anticipation of future good.
But let us hear the following words of the parable: "Besides all this, between us and you there is a great |87 gulf fixed." Well, therefore, spake David, "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him," (Ps. xlix. 7.) No one can redeem even a brother, or a father, or a son. For mark, Abraham addressed the rich man as son; yet had he no power to perform the part of a father. The rich man addressed Abraham as father; * but the paternal aid which a son commonly receives he was unable to gain;----in order that you may learn that neither relationship, nor friendship, nor kind feeling, nor any other existing thing, can procure release for him who is delivered to destruction by his own evil life.
10. I have said these things because it frequently happens that many, when we urge them to take heed to themselves and practise self-denial, are indolent, and turn the warning into ridicule. They say, "Do thou befriend me at that day, and then I shall be confident and have no fear." Another says, "I have a father who was a martyr;" and another, "I have a friend who is a bishop." Others bring forward their whole household. But all these excuses are idle words; for the goodness of others will not help us then. Remember "that the wise virgins did not bestow any oil on the other five virgins; but they themselves went in to the bridal feast, while the others were shut out! It is a great blessing to found our hopes of safety on our own condition; for there no friend will ever stand in our stead. If even here it is said to Jeremiah, "Pray not thou for this people," (Jer. vii. 16,) while it was still possible for them to repent, much more will the difficulty be increased hereafter. |88
What dost thou say?----that thou hadst a father who was a martyr? This very thing will then add to thy condemnation; since having had an example of goodness in thy own household, thou didst prove thyself an unworthy child of a righteous father. But thou hast a friend who is noble and admirable? Neither will he profit thee then. Why then is it said, "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations"? (Luke xvi. 9.) It is not the friendship that will then avail thee, but the charity. For if the friendship alone could avail, it would be necessary to say only, "Make to yourself friends;" but now, showing that not friendship alone avails, it is added, "of the mammon of unrighteousness." As if perhaps some one might say, "I am able to make friends without the mammon, and much more zealous ones than those made by means of it. But that you may know that it is charity that avails us,-----that it is our work and righteous act,----he persuades us to confide, not simply in the friendship of the saints, but in the friendship caused by the right use of mammon. Knowing all these things, beloved, let us give heed to ourselves with all diligence; when we are afflicted, let us give thanks; when we live in prosperity, let us be on our guard, becoming wise by the misfortunes of others; let us, by repentance and compunction and continual confession, offer praise; and if in any way we transgress in this present life, putting away the sin, and with the utmost zeal cleansing away every stain from our soul, let us beseech God to make us all fit when we die, thus to depart |89 that we may not be with the rich man, but that, enjoying with Lazarus a place in the patriarch's bosom, we may be filled with undying blessedness; which may it be the lot of us all to attain, through the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be praise for ever and ever. Amen.
[Footnotes moved to the end and (re)numbered]
1. * ἀποταξαμένων. The verb ἀποτάσσω, in midd. voice, frequently, in the New Testament, has the meaning to bid farewell to. See Luke ix. 61, and Alford's note and references, and Parkhurst's Lexicon to the New Testament, s. v.
2. † In the neighbourhood of Antioch, the hills were the abode of monks. See Life of Chrysostom in the Benedictine edition. "Partem, matutinarum horarum legendis S. Scripturae libris insumebant."
3. * Or, without constantly making use of spiritual reading.
4. † ἀγαπητόν, one ought to be content.
5. * Alluding to 2 Tim. iii. 16.
6. 1 James v. 17. [Note to the online edition: a numeral does indeed appear here, in text and footnote, rather than the asterisks and daggers used earlier].
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_four_discourses_04_discourse .htm
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 4. pp.90-110.
John Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 4. pp.90-110.
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
DISCOURSE IV.
CONCERNING THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS----CONCERNING CONSCIENCE AND CONFESSION----JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN.
1. To-day it is requisite that we should explain the rest of the parable concerning Lazarus. Perhaps you may suppose that we have explained the whole of it; but I would not avail myself of any want of knowledge on your part, in order to deceive; nor would I give up the task, before I can go away with the assurance that I have explored all, as far as light is given me: as the husbandman, when he gathers the fruit of the vine, ceases not until he has cut off every little bunch. Since, therefore, I now perceive, as if beneath the leaves, some thoughts still hidden in these words, permit me to gather up also these, using the mind as a sickle. A vine being entirely stripped of fruit stands for the present barren, having leaves only. With respect to the spiritual vine of the sacred Scriptures it is not so; but when we have gathered all the fruit that is to be seen, more still remains. Thus many also before us have spoken on this subject; many perhaps after us will speak on it; but no one will be able to exhaust the whole store of wealth. For such is the nature of this abundance, that the more deeply you dig down, the more plentifully divine instruction wells forth: it is a fountain never failing. |91
In the last assembly we ought to have discharged this debt owing to you, but we did not think it right to pass by the memory of the good deeds of Saint Babylas,1 and the two holy martyrs who followed him. Therefore, we put off the remainder of this subject, reserving the completion of the parable till to-day. Since, then, we have rendered to the fathers their praise, not according to their worth, but according to our ability; permit us now to deliver the remainder of this subject. And be not weary until we have arrived at the end, talcing up our discourse from the point at which we lately left off. Where then did we leave the narrative? It was at the point where we came to the great chasm between the just and the unjust. For, when the rich man said, "Send Lazarus," Abraham answered him, "A great gulf is fixed between us and you: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence," (Luke xvi. 26.) We also showed by many arguments that it is necessary to place our hope of safety, according to the grace of God, in our own right condition, and not trust in fathers or grandfathers, or great-grandfathers, or in relations, and friends, and associates, and neighbours; for "no man can by any means redeem his brother," (Ps. xlviii. 8.) But how much soever they who depart |92 this life in company with sinners, beseech and supplicate on their behalf, all that they say will be vain and useless. For again, the five virgins begged from their companions a supply of oil, and did not obtain it; he also who hid his talent in the earth, though he made many excuses, still was condemned. They, too, who fed not the Lord when He was hungry, nor gave Him drink when thirsting ----they, hoping to find refuge in the plea of ignorance, did not gain any pardon or excuse. Others there are who are unable to say a word, as he who appeared at the feast clad in vile garments, being charged with the fault, was speechless. And not this man only, but also another who was unforgiving to his neighbour, of whom he demanded the hundred pence, who afterwards, when charged by his lord with cruelty and inhumanity, had nothing to reply. From these instances it is plain that nothing can help us there, if we have not the good deeds; but whether we use prayers and entreaties, or whether we be silent, the sentence of punishment and penalty will equally be uttered against us. Hear then how this man, having made request to Abraham for two things, failed to gain either of them. For, first he made supplication for himself, when he said, "Send Lazarus;" next, not for himself, but for his brethren, but he obtained neither request. If the first request was impossible, much more was the second----that on behalf of his brethren. However, if it seem good, let us carefully mark the very words themselves. For if when the magistrate causes an offender to be brought into the public court, summons officers of justice, and proceeds with the trial, all hasten with eagerness to hear what questions the judge may put, and what replies the |93 accused may make,----much more ought we to give attention in this case to what this criminal,----I mean, the rich man, requests, and what the righteous judge, by the mouth of Abraham, replies. For it was not the patriarch that was judging the case, even though he uttered the words; but, as in our earthly courts, when robbers or murderers are under accusation, the law requires that they should stand at a distance and out of sight of the judge; it enjoins that they should not hear the sound of the judge's voice, in this manner also marking their dishonour; but a messenger conveys the questions of the judge and the replies of the accused.2 The same thing took place then. The condemned man heard not the voice of God himself speaking to him; but Abraham acted as a deputy, conveying the words of the judge to the criminal. For he did not speak that which he said on his own authority, but he stated the divine laws to the rich man, and uttered the decisions given him from on high. And for this reason the rich man had nothing to reply.
2. Let us, therefore, carefully attend to that which is said. For I am purposely proceeding slowly through this parable: though this be the fourth day, I do not leave the subject; for I see great benefit arising from this examination, both to the rich and to the poor, and to those who are troubled because of the prosperity of the wicked and the poverty and tribulation of the just. For, in general, nothing is so great a stumbling-block and causes so much religious doubt to many people, as the fact that the rich who live in sin may enjoy great prosperity, while the just, |94 who live virtuously, are reduced to extreme poverty, and endure numberless other things even worse than poverty.
But this parable is sufficient to afford a remedy to make the wealthy more wise, to console the poor; it teaches the former not to be high-minded; it comforts the poor with respect to their present condition; it forbids the former to boast if, while living wickedly, they pay no penalty in this life, since a severe examination awaits them in the next world; it persuades the latter not to be troubled on account of the prosperity of others, and not to imagine that our affairs are not under the control of Providence, even if the just suffer ills here, while the wicked and depraved enjoy continual prosperity. For both will hereafter receive their desert; the former the crown which is the reward of patience and endurance, the latter the punishments and penalties which belong to sin. Let both rich and poor inscribe this parable,----the rich on the walls of their houses, the poor on the walls of their mind; and should it ever by the growth of forgetfulness be obscured, renew it completely by means of fresh recollection. Or rather, let the rich also, instead of in their houses, write it in their mind, and constantly bear it about; and let it be their instructor and the groundwork of all their philosophy. For if we have this lastingly written in our mind, neither the delights of the present life will be able to elate us, nor its sorrows to humiliate or overthrow us; but we shall be affected by both these kinds of experience, only as we are by pictures painted on the wall. For when looking at a wall we see portrayed a rich man or a poor, we neither envy the one |95 nor despise the other; because that which we look at is an image only and not reality. Thus, also, if we learn the real nature of riches and poverty, of honour and dishonour; and of all other things both gloomy and bright, we shall be freed from the trouble which arises from each of these classes of things. For they all are more deceptive than a shadow; and neither will a brilliant and honourable position puff- up a lofty and noble soul, nor a lowly and despised position be able to trouble him.
However, it is time now for us to consider the words of the rich man: "I ask thee, father"----that is, I beseech, I beg, I supplicate thee----"that thou wouldest send Lazarus to my father's house; for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment," (Luke xvi. 27, 28.) Since he failed to gain that which he sought for himself, he made supplication for others. Mark how benevolent and mild he becomes when under punishment. He who despised Lazarus when present, now has regard for others who are absent: he who passed by one who was placed before his eyes, is mindful of those whom he does not see, and he entreats with great earnestness and zeal that warning should be given to them, that they might escape the evils about to overtake them. And he begs that Lazarus should be sent to his father's house,----to the place which had been to Lazarus as an arena, the place where his virtue had been tested. Let them see him crowned, he says, who have seen him contending; let the witnesses of his poverty and hunger, of his innumerable woes, be also witnesses of his honour, his transfiguration, his complete glory; that, |96 being taught by both sights, they may learn that our interests are not bounded by this present life; that they may be prepared beforehand, so as to be able to escape this punishment and ruin. What does Abraham reply? "They have Moses and the prophets," he saith; "let them hear,them." Thou hast not, he implies, so much care for thy brethren as God has, who made them: He has given them many teachers, advisers, and counsellors. What, then, does the rich man say? "Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the dead, they would be persuaded."
The same thing is often said now. Where are now those who say, "Who has come from thence? Who ever rose from the dead? Who can tell us what is in Hades?" How many things of this kind the rich man used to say within himself when he was living luxuriously! He did not simply request that some one should rise from the dead; but since when he heard the Scriptures he had been accustomed to despise them, to deride, to regard the things said as myths; from that which he himself had felt, he supposed that the same would be felt by his brothers. "They," he would say, "are sceptical in the same way; but if one should arise from the dead, him they will not disbelieve nor deride, but will rather give heed to his words."
What, then, does Abraham reply? "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they hear though one rose from the dead," (Luke xvi. 31.) And that this is true----that he who listens not to the Scriptures, will not listen even to those who rise from the dead----of this the Jews afford an instance, who, since they did not |97 listen to Moses and their own prophets, did not believe even when they saw the dead arise; but at the very time of the event, tried to kill the risen Lazarus; and on another occasion, at the crucifixion, vehemently opposed the apostles even while many dead were rising.
3. But that you may be assured for another reason that the teaching of the apostles is more convincing than that of the restored to life, consider this----that a dead man is altogether a servant, but the things which the Scriptures declare are uttered by the Lord himself; so that though one should rise from the dead, though an angel should descend from heaven, the Scriptures would still be the surest testimony. For the Ruler of angels and the Lord of the dead and of the living has Himself given the written law. Again, that they who wish for dead men to come back, wish for a superfluous thing, is proved, in addition to that which has been said, by comparing the case of our own courts. Gehenna does not seem to exist to those who believe not. To the faithful it is plain and manifest, but still to the unbelieving it does not seem to exist. There is a court of judgment in which we hear each day that such a one is punished, another is mulcted of property, another is condemned to the mines, another to be burnt, another to be put to death in some other way. Notwithstanding that they hear all this, the evil, the wicked and abandoned are not made wise; often, indeed, many such having been captured, and escaping punishment, break out of prison, and running away, again return to the same courses, and commit even greater crimes than before.
Let us not, therefore, wish to hear those things from |98 the dead which the Scriptures each day teach us, and much more clearly. For if God knew this; namely, that if certain should rise from the dead, they would benefit the living, He would not have overlooked it; He who has formed all things for our good would not have neglected this benefit. Again, if the dead arose continually to declare to us all that takes place there, even this phenomenon would in time also be disregarded; for the tempter could, with the greatest ease, adapt his wicked teaching to such a state of affairs. He would be able often to feign appearances, or by preparing his ministers to feign death and burial, and exhibiting them as having: risen from the dead, by these means he would introduce into the minds of those whom he misleads everything that he wished them to believe. For even now, when nothing of that kind takes place, the forms of the departed often have appeared in dreams, and have deceived and ruined many. Much more if such a state of things, namely, that many returned from the dead, existed, that subtle spirit would involve many in his wiles, and introduce great deception into our life. Therefore God has closed the portals, and does not permit any of those who have departed to return to tell us the things that take place there; so that the tempter cannot take advantage of such a state of things, and introduce all his deceit. For, also, when there were prophets Satan raised up false prophets, and when apostles, he raised up false apostles; even when Christ appeared, he raised up false Christs; and whenever sound doctrine has been delivered, he has introduced corrupt doctrine, sowing tares among the wheat. |99 So also, if this state of things had existed, he would have contrived to cause deception by his own instruments----not really raising the dead, but by sorceries and guile misleading the senses of beholders, or even, as I said before, preparing those who should simulate death, thus turning upside down and confusing all things. But God, foreseeing all these things, has prevented such an attempt, and out of regard for us, has not permitted any one at any time to come from thence to relate to living men the things that take place there. He has taught us to regard the Holy Scriptures as more worthy of trust than everything else. For He has made certain things more clear to us than they would have been made by the resurrection of the dead; He has instructed the whole world; He has driven away error, and brought in the truth; He has, by the instrumentality of fishermen and men of no reputation, procured all these benefits, and afforded to us on all sides sufficient proofs of His own providence. Therefore let us not imagine that our affairs are bounded by the present life; but let us be assured that there will be a scrutiny, and a recompense or a retribution for all that has happened here. This fact is so clear and plain to all, that both Jews and Greeks, even heretics, agree concerning it; yea, all men of every class. For if also all men do not act as wisely as they ought, with regard to the resurrection, still all agree with respect to the judgment, and future punishment and trial. All agree that there is a recompense hereafter for all the things that have happened here. For if this were not the case, why did God stretch out such a heaven and spread the earth beneath, and make the expanse of the sea, and diffuse |100 the air? Why did He display such foresight, if He did not intend to be concerned in our affairs even to the end?
4. Do you not see many who, after living a virtuous life, having suffered innumerable ills, have departed hence without receiving any good? Others, again, who have displayed every kind of evil disposition, who have plundered the possessions of others, have robbed and oppressed widows and orphans, these have departed this life after enjoying wealth and luxury and endless other good things, and have suffered no misfortune whatever. When, therefore, do the former receive the reward of their virtue,----when do the latter pay the penalty of their wickedness, if our affairs are limited by the present life? For that, if there be a God----as there assuredly is----He is a just God, every one will allow; and that, if He is just, He will reward these two classes according to their deserts----this also will be granted. But if He intends to render to each class their desert, whereas in this life neither class received it ----neither the one, the punishment of their sin, nor the other, the reward of their virtue----it is manifest that an opportunity is reserved when each will receive their appropriate recompense.
And for what purpose has God put within our mind a judge so ever-watchful and vigilant,----I mean conscience? It is impossible that any judge among men should be so indefatigable as our conscience is. For judges in worldly affairs are sometimes corrupted by money, or weakened by flattery, or dissemble because of fear; and many other things there are that destroy the rectitude of their decision; but the judgment-seat of conscience never yields to any of these influences; but whether you offer money, or |101 flatter, or threaten, or do any other such thing, it utters still an impartial sentence against the schemes of sinners; and whosoever commits iniquity, himself condemns himself, even though no one else should accuse him. And not once, nor twice, but even frequently, and through one's whole life, it continues to do the same; though much time may have intervened, it never forgets what has happened. At the moment when sin is committed, and before its commission, and after its commission, conscience constitutes itself our accuser; but chiefly after the commission. For at the time of committing the sin, being intoxicated by the pleasure, we are not so sensitive; but when the affair is passed, and has reached its conclusion, then, especially when all the pleasure is exhausted, the sharp sting of repentance is felt. And contrary to that which happens to women in travail, who before the birth have great and unbearable suffering, who feel the pangs of labour causing intense pain, but afterwards have relief, since the pain ceases with the birth of the infant; in the case we are considering, it is not so. For as long as we conceive and have in our mind corrupt designs, we are glad and rejoice; but when we have brought forth this evil offspring, sin, then we see the baseness of that which is produced and are pained; then are we in greater misery than women in travail. Wherefore do not, I beseech you, entertain any corrupt desire, especially the beginning of such a desire. But if we have admitted any such desire, let us quench the beginnings of it; and, even if we have been negligent beyond this, let us destroy the sin which has proceeded to deeds, by confession, and tears, and self-condemnation. |102 Nothing is so great an antidote to sin as condemnation and repudiation of it with penitence and tears. Condemning thy own sin, thou dost put off its yoke. Who is it that speaks thus? God, the Judge himself. "Acknowledge first thy sin, that thou mayest be justified," (Isa. xliii. 26, LXX.) Why are you ashamed and blush to confess your sin? Why speak of it to man, who may blame you? Why confess it to your fellow-servant, who may cause you shame? Rather show it to the Master, to Him who cares for you, who is kindly-disposed; show the wound to the Physician.3
And even if you do not confess, He is not ignorant of the deed, who knew it before it was committed. Why then do you not speak of it? Does the transgression become heavier by the confession?----nay, it becomes lighter and less troublesome. And it is for this reason that He would have you confess, not that you should be punished, but that you should be forgiven; not that He may learn thy sin, (how could this be, since He has seen it,) but that you may learn what favour He bestows. He wishes you to learn the greatness of His grace, that you may praise Him perfectly, that you may be slower to sin, that you may be quicker to virtue. And if you do not confess the greatness of the need, you will not understand the exceeding magnitude of His grace. I do not oblige you, He saith, to come into the midst of the assembly before a throng of witnesses; declare the sin in secret to Me only, that I may heal the sore and remove the pain. Therefore it is that He has placed within us a conscience |103 more faithful than a father. For a father having warned his son once, or twice, or three times, or perhaps, ten times, when he sees him remaining uncorrected, publicly renounces him and dismisses him from the house, and severs the tie of relationship; but not so does conscience act. For if once, or twice, or thrice, or a thousand times it speaks, and you obey not, it will speak again, and will not cease until the latest breath; and both in the house and in the street, at table and in the market, and on the road, often even in dreams, it places before us the image and appearance of our sins.
5. Behold the wisdom of God! He has caused the reproof of conscience not to be unceasing, (for had we been constantly accused, we could not have endured the burden,) nor has He made it so weak as to cease after a first or second warning. For if we felt self-condemnation every day and every hour, we should have been overcome by sorrow. If, again, conscience having warned us once or twice, then ceased to rebuke, we should not have reaped much benefit. Therefore He has caused the warning to be lasting, but not unceasing: it is lasting, that we may not fall into negligence, but that always to the end of our life, being warned, we may be watchful. Again, the warning is not unceasing, nor made cumulative, in order that we may not sink under it, but that we may be refreshed by seasons of repose and other consolations. Thus complete freedom from mental pain would be ruinous to sinners; it would produce in us utter insensibility; while, on the other hand, to feel this pain unceasingly and without measure would be even more injurious. For excess of sorrow, being often strong enough |104 to overthrow man's natural powers of mind, overwhelms the soul, and causes our good qualities to be wholly unserviceable. For this reason God has caused the convictions of conscience to be imposed on us only at intervals, these convictions being exceedingly severe, and often piercing the sinner more sharply than a goad. Not only at the time when we ourselves have sinned, but also when others have committed the same acts, conscience is roused, and with great vehemence accuses us. The fornicator, the adulturer, or the thief, not only when he himself is accused, but when he hears that others are accused of having dared the same sins, he feels as if he himself were punished; he is reminded of his own sin by the blame thrown upon others; and though it is another that is accused, he himself, without being blamed feels the charge, since he has dared to do the same things. In the same way, also, with regard to good deeds, when others are praised and honoured, those who have accomplished the same things rejoice with them, as though they were praised no less than the others. What, therefore, can be more miserable than the case of the sinner who, as often as others are accused, himself feels abashed? What, also, is more blessed than the lot of him who, living virtuously, whenever others are praised, himself feels joy and gladness, being reminded of his own good deeds by the praise bestowed upon others? These things are the work of God's wisdom; they are instances of His exceeding providence. The warning of conscience is a divine anchor, not permitting us to be altogether wrecked in the abyss of iniquity.
Not only at the time of committing the sin, but after |105 long periods of years can conscience remind us of old faults. Of this I shall bring clear proof from the Scriptures themselves.
The brethren of Joseph one day sold him, without having any charge to bring against him, except that he foresaw in dreams his coming honour foreshadowed to him: for "I saw," said he, "your sheaves making obeisance to my sheaf," (Gen. xxxvii. 6.) Indeed, for this very thing they ought to have the more cared for him, for he was to be the crown of the whole family, and the glory of all his race. Such, however, is envy; it makes war against its own honour; and an envious man would rather suffer a thousand ills than see his neighbour renowned, even though a share of the renown were to fall to himself. Than this what can be more wretched? This kind of feeling possessed the brethren of Joseph. Seeing him at a distance, coming to bring them provisions, they said one to another, "Come, let us kill him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams," (Gen. xxxvii. 20.) If they had no regard for him as a brother, nor felt the bond of nature, they ought to have had regard to the very aid that he brought, and to the manner of his service, in coming to supply them with sustenance. But mark how they unwittingly uttered a prophecy: "Come," said they, "let us kill him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams." If they had not plotted against him and concocted treachery, and planned that shameless scheme, they would not have experienced the full intent of those dreams. For it was not likely that he, though meeting with no ill-fortune, would rise as high as the throne of Egypt; yet, by means of these difficulties and hindrances, |106 he attained such a height of splendour. For if they had not conspired against him, they would not have sold him into Egypt; if they had not sold him into Egypt, the mistress would not have been enamoured of him; if the mistress had not been enamoured of him, he would not have been cast into prison, he would not have interpreted the dreams, he would not have been made ruler; if he had not been made ruler, the brethren would not have come to buy corn, nor have bowed down before him. Thus, since they were ready to kill him, for this very cause chiefly did they feel the full meaning of the dreams. What then? Were they the procurers of all his future good, and the cause of his glory? By no means; they were ready to expose him to death, or to sorrow, or to slavery----to the uttermost ills. But the overruling God used the wickedness of the conspirators for the trial and approval of him who was sold and betrayed.
6. In order that this result may not be thought to arise from any casual coincidence or accidental revolution of things, God, by means of the very men who opposed it, brought to pass the very result which they opposed, using His enemies for the approval of His servants, in order that you may learn, that what God has willed no one will hinder, and that none will turn aside His high hand; in order that whenever you are plotted against, you may not stumble or be downcast, but be enabled to know that the plot will result in good in the end, if only you bear your lot well.
Behold, therefore, in this instance, how envy produced a royal possession; how jealousy procured for its victim |107 a crown, and gained him a throne; those who plotted against him, themselves bore him forward to the greatness of his power. He who was plotted against governed, they who plotted served; he received homage, they paid homage. Whensoever, therefore, ills, frequent and accumulated, come upon you, be not troubled nor downcast, but abide till the end. The end will turn out in every way worthy of the beneficence of God, if only you bear thankfully the things that in the meantime befall you.
He who had these visions, being in extreme danger, who was sold by his brethren, injured by his mistress, and again thrown into prison,----he did not say within himself, "What is all this? The visions then are all delusion! I am an exile from my country and deprived of freedom; because of my God, I have not yielded to the seductions of my mistress; because of temperance and virtue, I am punished, and He has not even in this pass defended me, nor stretched forth. His hand, but has suffered me to be delivered to constant and increasing bondage. After the pit, slavery befell me; after slavery, treachery; after treachery, calumny; after calumny, a prison." But none of these things moved him; he remained steadfast in his hope, being confident that none of the things that had been promised would ever fail.
God was, indeed, able to fulfil everything on the very same day; but in order to display His own might and the faith of His servants, he permitted a long time to intervene, and many hindrances to arise, so that you may understand His power, by His fulfilling the promises at the very time when you would give way to despair, and that you may |108 see the patience and faith of His servants, by their not falling away from their expectation of good in the very midst of calamities.
However, as I said, the patriarchs came again, famine as an armed soldier driving them by force, and urging them to the presence of Joseph, the governor; and they wished to buy corn. What, then, did he say to them? "Ye are spies." They then said within themselves, "What is this! we came to get food, and we have endangered our life!" Yes, justly!----since he also came to you bringing food, and ye put him in danger of his life. And he then endured it beeause of his integrity; ye now are suffering because of hypocrisy. He was not, however, their enemy; he put on the appearance of hostility, that he might learn accurately the condition of the family. For since they had been wicked and heartless in his own case, not seeing Benjamin with them, he feared for the child, lest he had been also a brother in suffering. He commands that some one of them should be bound and left there; and that all the rest taking their corn should depart, threatening them with death if they should not bring back their other brother.
Since, then, this had happened and he had said, "Leave one here, and bring back the other brother, or ye shall die," what did they say one to another? "Verily we were guilty concerning our brother when he besought us." Do you observe after how long time they remember that crime? They then said to their father, "An evil beast hath devoured him," (Gen. xxxvii. 33.) Now, when Joseph himself is present and listening, they bewail their crime. What can be more extraordinary than this? |109 Without a tribunal, there is conviction; without accusation, an apology; a proof without testimony; the very men who wrought the deed condemn themselves, and publish abroad that which was done in secret! Who had persuaded them, or obliged them, to expose in public the things dared so long before? Is it not plain that conscience, the inexorable judge, had been constantly disturbing their thoughts and troubling their soul? He also who had been murderously treated, sat there silently judging them; and while no one brought any charge against them, they themselves passed sentence upon themselves.
They spake thus among themselves: another also said in excuse: "Spake I not to you saying, Do not sin against the child, nor do him any harm, for he is our brother? and, behold, now his blood is required at our hands," (Gen. xlii. 22, loosely quoted.) Though there was no one who spoke thus, or said anything concerning the crime, or of murder; though the victim himself, sitting in their presence, inquired about no such thing, but rather was asking about the other brother; their conscience, taking advantage of the opportunity, arose and took possession of their mind, and when no person accused them, obliged them to confess their deeds.
Such things we ourselves often suffer, when the sins are long gone by. When we are searched by woe or misfortune, we call to mind our former ill-doings.
7. Knowing, therefore, all these things, whenever we have done any wrong, let us not wait for calamity or difficulty, for danger and chains; but let us each hour of the day set up for ourselves this tribunal, and let us pass |110 judgment against ourselves, and endeavour in every way to make our peace with God. Let us not doubt about the resurrection and future judgment, nor be hindered by what others say; but by all means, according to the truths we have learnt, let us refute them. For if we were not to render account of all we have done, God would not have set up such a tribunal within us. But this also is a proof of His kindness. For since He will hereafter require from us an account of our sins, He has placed this incorruptible judge within us, that by condemning us for our sins now and making us wiser, He may rescue us from the future judgment. This also St Paul saith: "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged by the Lord," (1 Cor. xi. 31.) In order, therefore, that we may not be punished then, nor pay the penalty then, let each of us betake himself to conscience; and unrolling his past life, and examining with care all his faults, let him condemn the soul that wrought such deeds; let him chastise his thoughts; let him be afflicted; let him be straitened in his own mind; let him require a penalty from himself for his sins, by self-condemnation, by thorough penitence, by tears, by confession, by fasting and alms-giving, by temperance and love. Let us do this that by all means in our power we may be able, with all confidence, to attain the future kingdom, which may it be the lot of us all to gain by the grace and goodness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father be glory, and also to the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.
THE END.
[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]
1. * τοῦ μακαρίου Βαβύλα. Babylas was a bishop of Antioch, martyred under the emperor Decius. An exaggerated story was told of some transaction between Babylas and a Roman emperor, probably Philip, successor of Gordian. The remains of the bishop, placed in a splendid building in the famous grove of Daphne, but removed from thence to Antioch by Julian, were supposed to have miraculous power. The two martyrs were named Juventinus and Maximinus; they were beheaded by order of Julian.
2. * See Introduction, p. vi.
3. * Probably one of the passages alluded to by Hooker, Ecc. Pol. vi. 4, (16.)
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_00_eintro.htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Preface to the online edition.
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Preface to the online edition.
John Chrysostom preached 8 sermons to his congregation against the Jews. These were transmitted to us in the Greek manuscripts of his works, but the nd sermon was much shorter than the others, leading scholars to suppose that most of that sermon was lost. This belief was confirmed in the 1990's when German scholar Wendy Pradels discovered a forgotten copy of sermon II in a Greek monastery which contained the missing material.
The English translation on this site used to reside at Fordham University 1, in the Medieval Sourcebook, where it was placed by Paul Halsall in 1998. At the foot of the page he wrote:
This translation, here cleaned up for typos, etc, was on an anti-Semitic website [as a justification for current anti-Semitism]. So far I have been unable to track down the translator. There were eight homilies by Chrysostom on the subject. This seems to be the first six.
MELVYL reports a translation C. Mervyn Maxwell, Chrysostom's homilies against the Jews: an English translation, Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, 1967. I am trying to find out whether these texts are Maxwell's or an earlier translators'.
Homilies 7 and 8 were listed with the note:
[e-text added May 2002]
Homily 2 was incomplete in this translation, wherever it comes from.
It seemed to me that it was pointless to rediscover the lost material in homily 2, if all the copies in all the libraries, and all the copies on the internet, still did not contain it. In 2010 I commissioned an English translation with the aim of reuniting the parts of homily 2. I placed it on the internet, and also posted it on every website or forum which contained the anonymous translation of Chrysostom's anti-Jewish homilies. As far as I know, no-one has ever claimed ownership of this translation.
In 2011 I received an email from a stranger enquiring where a translation of the homilies might be found. This led me to discover that the file on the Fordham site had disappeared, and raised the question of whether this should be remedied. I knew that Dr Halsall was no longer involved with the site.
After some thought, it seemed to me undesirable that the text should only be accessible through extremist sites, over which no responsible person had any control, and to which I might not necessarily wish to direct enquirers seeking to learn what Chrysostom really had to say. Aside from any other consideration, no text is read justly if it is read in the context of urgent contemporary political agitation.
I had always thought that, if the text was indeed public domain, that it should be joined with the other Chrysostomiana on this site. In the circumstances I retrieved a copy of the Fordham file which I held locally, and divided it into the 8 separate homilies and uploaded it here. I have not altered the formatting, but at some point I will probably go through it and tidy up the chapters and verses and create anchors for these.
Dr Halsall felt obliged to prefix his page with some introductory material about Chrysostom, and the modern debates.2 I have not included this material here, as all these kinds of issues are outside the scope of this collection.
The only other English translation of the homilies is John Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians, translated by Paul W. Harkins. The Fathers of the Church; v. 68 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1979), which also lacks the Pradels material. However the translation here is not the Harkins translation.
It should be added that there is a further sermon of Chrysostom against Jews and Pagans, Contra Iudaeos et gentiles quod Christus sit deus, PG 48, which has never been translated, and is said to end abruptly, in such a manner as to lead scholars to suppose that the ending is lost.
Roger Pearse
28th November 2011
1. Url was http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html. I have notified the site that the link is broken, but as the collection is plainly somewhat neglected, I do not know whether this page might reappear.
2. The explanatory page was formerly at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6-react.html and is still present, curiously, at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6-react.asp.
This material was written by Roger Pearse, 2011. This file and all material on this page is public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_01_homily .htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 1
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 1
HOMILY I
(1) TODAY I HAD INTENDED to complete my discussion on the topic on which I spoke to you a few days ago; I wished to present you with even clearer proof that God's nature is more than our minds can grasp. Last Sunday I spoke on this at great length and I brought forward as my witnesses Isaiah, David, and Paul. For it was Isaiah who exclaimed: "Who shall declare his generation?" David knew God was beyond his comprehension and so he gave thanks to him and said: "I will praise you for you are fearfully magnified: wonderful are your works". And again it was David who said: "The knowledge of you is to wonderful for me, a height to which my mind cannot attain". Paul did not search and pry into God's very essence, but only into his providence; I should say rather that he looked only on the small portion of divine providence which God had made manifest when he called the gentiles. And Paul saw this small part as a vast and incomprehensible sea when he exclaimed: "O the depth of the riches and of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!"
(2) These three witnesses gave us proof enough, but I was not satisfied with prophets nor did I settle for apostles. I mounted to the heavens and gave you as proof the chorus of angels as they sang: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men". Again, you heard the Seraphim as they shuddered and cried out in astonishment:
"Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is filled with his glory".
And I gave you also the cherubim who exclaimed:
"Blessed be his glory in his dwelling".
(3) So there were three witnesses on earth and three in Heaven who made it clear that God's glory cannot be approached. For the rest, the proof was beyond dispute; there was great applause, the audience warmed with enthusiasm, you assembly came aflame. I did rejoice at this, yet my joy was not because praise was coming to me but because glory was coming to my Master. For that applause and praise showed the love you have for God in your souls. If a servant loves his master and hears someone speak in praise of that master, his heart comes aflame with a love for him who speaks. This is because the servant loves his master. You acted just that way when I spoke: by the abundance of your applause you showed clearly your abundant love for the Master.
(4) And so I wanted again today to engage in that contest. For if the enemies of the truth never have enough of blaspheming our Benefactor, we must be all the more tireless in praising the God of all. But what am I to do? Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers.
(5) What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy.
(6) And so it is that I hasten to anticipate this danger and prevent it. This is what physicians do. They first check the diseases which are most urgent and acute. But the danger from this sickness is very closely related to the danger from the other; since the Anomians impiety is akin to that of the Jews, my present conflict is akin to my former one. And there is a kingship because the Jews and the Anomians make the same accusation. And what charges do the Jews make? That He called God His own Father and so made Himself equal to God. The Anomians also make this charge-I should not say they make this a charge; they even blot out the phrase "equal to God" and what it connotes, by their resolve to reject it even if they do not physically erase it.
II
But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs.
(2) But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".
(3) Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it? On this account Stephen said: "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart, you always resist the Holy Spirit", not only by transgressing the Law but also by wishing to observe it at the wrong time.
(4) Stephen was right in calling them stiff-necked. For they failed to take up the yoke of Christ, although it was sweet and had nothing about it which was either burdensome or oppressive. For he said: "Learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart", and "Take my yoke upon you, for my yoke is sweet and my burden light". Nonetheless they failed to take up the yoke because of the stiffness of their necks. Not only did they fail to take it up but they broke it and destroyed it. For Jeremiah said: "Long ago you broke your yoke and burst your bonds". It was not Paul who said this but the voice of the prophet speaking loud and clear. When he spoke of the yoke and the bonds, he meant the symbols of rule, because the Jews rejected the rule of Christ when they said: "We have no king but Caesar". You Jews broke the yoke, you burst the bonds, you cast yourselves out of the kingdom of heaven, and you made yourselves subject to the rule of men. Please consider with me how accurately the prophet hinted that their hearts were uncontrolled. He did not say: "You set aside the yoke", but "You broke the yoke" and this is the crime of untamed beasts, who are uncontrolled and reject rule.
(5) But what is the source of this hardness? It come from gluttony and drunkenness. Who say so? Moses himself. "Israel ate and was filled and the darling grew fat and frisky". When brute animals feed from a full manger, they grow plump and become more obstinate and hard to hold in check; they endure neither the yoke, the reins, nor the hand of the charioteer. Just so the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer". And still another called the Jews "an untamed calf".
(6) Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
(7) The man who fast should be properly restrained, contrite, humbled-not drunk with anger. But do you strike your fellow slaves? In Isaiah's day they quarreled and squabbled when they fasted; now when fast, they go in for excesses and the ultimate licentiousness, dancing with bare feet in the marketplace. The pretext is that they are fasting, but they act like men who are drunk. Hear how the prophet bit them to fast. "Sanctify a fast", he said. He did not say: "Make a parade of your fasting", but "call an assembly; gather together the ancients". But these Jews are gathering choruses of effeminates and a great rubbish heap of harlots; they drag into the synagogue the whole theater, actors and all. For there is no difference between the theater and the synagogue. I know that some suspect me of rashness because I said there is no difference between the theater and the synagogue; but I suspect them of rashness if they do not think that this is so. If my declaration that the two are the same rests on my own authority, then charge me with rashness. But if the words I speak are the words of the prophet, then accept his decision.
III
Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.
(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?
(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.
(4) Let me tell you this, not from guesswork but from my own experience. Three days ago-believe me, I am not lying-I saw a free woman of good bearing, modest, and a believer. A brutal, unfeeling man, reputed to be a Christian (for I would not call a person who would dare to do such a thing a sincere Christian) was forcing her to enter the shrine of the Hebrews and to swear there an oath about some matters under dispute with him. She came up to me and asked for help; she begged me to prevent this lawless violence-for it was forbidden to her, who had shared in the divine mysteries, to enter that place. I was fired with indignation, I became angry, I rose up, I refused to let her be dragged into that transgression, I snatched her from the hands of her abductor. I asked him if were a Christian, and he said he was. Then I set upon him vigorously, charging him with lack of feeling and the worst stupidity; I told him he was no better off than a mule if he, who professed to worship Christ, would drag someone off to the dens of the Jews who had crucified him. I talked to him a long time, drawing my lesson from the Holy Gospels; I told him first that it was altogether forbidden to swear and that it was wrong to impose the necessity of swearing on anyone. I then told him that he most not subject a baptize believer to this necessity. In fact, he must not force even an unbaptized person to swear an oath.
(5) After I talked with him at great length and had driven the folly of his error from his soul, I asked him why he rejected the Church and dragged the woman to the place where the Hebrews assembled. He answered that many people had told him that oaths sworn there were more to be feared. His words made me groan, then I grew angry, and finally I began to smile. When I saw the devil's wickedness, I groaned because he had the power to seduce men; I grew angry when I considered how careless were those who were deceived; when I saw the extent and depth of the folly of those who were deceived, I smiled.
(6) I told you this story because you are savage and ruthless in your attitude toward those who do such things and undergo these experiences. If you see one of your brothers falling into such transgressions, you consider that it is someone else's misfortune, not your own; you think you have defended yourselves against your accusers when you say: "What concern of mine is it? What do I have in common with that man"? When you say that, your words manifest the utmost hatred for mankind and a cruelty which benefits the devil. What are you saying? You are a man and share the same nature. Why speak of a common nature when you have but a single head, Christ? Do you dare to say you have nothing in common with your own members? In what sense do you admit that Christ is the head of the Church? For certainly it is the function of the head to join all the limbs together, to order them carefully to each other, and to bind them into one nature. But if you have nothing in common with your members, then you have nothing in common with your brother, nor do you have Christ as your head.
(7) The Jews frighten you as if you were little children, and you do not see it. Many wicked slaves show frightening and ridiculous masks to youngsters-the masks are not frightening by their nature, but they seem so to the children's simple minds-and in this way they stir up many a laugh. This is the way the Jews frighten the simpler-minded Christians with the bugbears and hobgoblins of their shrines. Yet how could their ridiculous and disgraceful synagogues frighten you? Are they not the shrines of men who have been rejected, dishonored, and condemned?
IV
Our churches are not like that; they are truly frightening and filled with fear. God's presence makes a place frightening because he has power over life and death. In our churches we hear countless homilies on eternal punishments, on rivers of fire, on the venomous worm, on bonds that cannot be burst, or exterior darkness. But the Jews neither know nor dream of these things. They live for their bellies, they gape for the things of this world, their condition is not better than that of pigs or goats because of their wanton ways and excessive gluttony. They know but one thing: to fill their bellies and be drunk, to get all cut and bruised, to be hurt and wounded while fighting for their favorite charioteers.
(2) Tell me, then, are their shrines awful and frightening? Who would say so? what reasons do we have for thinking that they are frightening unless someone should tell us that dishonored slaves, who have no right to speak and who have been driven from their Master's home, should frighten us, who have been given honor and the freedom to speak? Certainly this is not the case. Inns are not more august then royal palaces. Indeed the synagogue is less deserving of honor than any inn. It is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews, as I shall try to prove at the end of my homily.
(3) I urge you to keep my words in your minds in a special way. For I am not now speaking for show or applause but to cure your souls. And what else is left for me to say when some of you are still sick although there are so many physicians to effect a cure?
(4) There were twelve apostles and they drew the whole world to themselves. The greater portion of the city is Christian, yet some are still sick with the Judaizing disease. And what could we, who are healthy, say in our own defense? Surely those who are sick deserve to be accused. But we are not free from blame, because we have neglected them in their hour of illness; if we had shown great concern for them and they had the benefit of this care, they could not possibly still be sick.
(5) Let me get the start on you by saying this now, so that each of you may win over his brother. Even if you must impose restraint, even if you must use force, even if you must treat him ill and obstinately, do everything to save him from the devil's snare and to free him from fellowship with those who slew Christ.
(6) Tell me this. Suppose you were to see a man who had been justly condemned being led to execution through the marketplace. Suppose it were in your power to save him from the hands of the public executioner. Would you not do all you could to keep him from being dragged off? But now you see your own brother being dragged off unjustly to the depth of destruction. And it is not the executioner who drags him of, but the devil. Would you be so bold as not to do your part toward rescuing him from his transgression? If you don't help him, what excuse would you find? But your brother is stronger and more powerful than you. Show him to me. If he will stand fast in his obstinate resolve, I shall choose to risk my life rather than let him enter the doors of the synagogue.
(7) I shall say to him: What fellowship do you have with the free Jerusalem, with the Jerusalem above? You chose the one below; be a slave with that earthly Jerusalem which, according to the word of the Apostle, is a slave together with her children. Do you fast with the Jews? Then take off your shoes with the Jews, and walk barefoot in the marketplace, and share with them in their indecency and laughter. But you would not chose to do this because you are ashamed and apt to blush. Are you ashamed to share with them in outward appearance but unashamed to share in their impiety? What excuse will you have, you who are only half a Christian?
(8) Believe me, I shall risk my life before I would neglect any one who is sick with this disease-if I see him. If I fail to see him, surely God will grant me pardon. And let each one of you consider this matter; let him not think it is something of secondary importance. Do you take no notice of what the deacon continuously calls out in the mysteries? "Recognize one another", he says. Do you not see how he entrusts to you the careful examination of your brothers? Do this in the case of Judaizers, too. When you observe someone Judaizing, take hold of him, show him what he is doing, so that you may not yourself be an accessory to the risk he runs.
(9) If any Roman soldier serving overseas is caught favoring the barbarians and the Persians, not only is he in danger but so also is everyone who was aware of how this felt and failed to make this fact known to the general. Since you are the army of Christ, be overly careful in searching to see if anyone favoring an alien faith has mingled among you, and make his presence know-not so that we may put him to death as those generals did, nor that we may punish him or take our vengeance upon him, but that we may free him from his error and ungodliness and make him entirely our own.
(10) If you are unwilling to do this, if you know of such a person but conceal him, be sure that both you and he will be subject to the same penalty. For Paul subjects to chastisement and punishment not only those who commit acts of wickedness but also those who approve what they have done. The prophet, too, brings to the same judgment not only thieves but also who run with the thieves. And this is quite reasonable. For if a man is aware of a criminal's actions but covers them up and conceals them, he is providing a stronger basis for the criminal to be careless of the law and making him less afraid in his career of crime.
V
But I must get back again to those who are sick. Consider, then, with whom they are sharing their fasts. It is with those who shouted: "Crucify him, Crucify him", with those who said: "His blood be upon us and upon our children". If some men had been caught in rebellion against their ruler and were condemned, would you have dared to go up to them and to speak with them? I think not. Is it not foolish, then, to show such readiness to flee from those who have sinned against a man, but to enter into fellowship with those who have committed outrages against God himself? Is it not strange that those who worship the Crucified keep common festival with those who crucified him? Is it not a sign of folly and the worst madness?
(2) Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness-and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage.
(3) Tell me this. If you were to see a venerable man, illustrious and renowned, dragged off into a tavern or den of robbers; if you were to see him outraged, beaten, and subjected there to the worst violence, would you have held that tavern or den in high esteem because that great and esteemed man had been inside it while undergoing that violent treatment? I think not. Rather, for this very reason you would have hated and abhorred the place.
(4) Let that be your judgment about the synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of those holy men.
(5) Why do I speak about the books and the synagogues? In time of persecution, the public executioners lay hold of the bodies of the martyrs, they scourge them, and tear them to pieces. Does it make the executioners' hands holy because they lay hold of the body of holy men? Heaven forbid! The hands which grasped and held the bodies of the holy ones still stay unholy. Why? Because those executioners did a wicked thing when they laid their hands upon the holy. And will those who handle and outrage the writings of the holy ones be any more venerable for this than those who executed the martyrs? Would that not be the ultimate foolishness? If the maltreated bodies of the martyrs do not sanctify those who maltreated them but even add to their blood-guilt, much less could the Scriptures, if read without belief, ever help those who read without believing. The very act of deliberately choosing to maltreat the Scriptures convicts them of greater godlessness.
(6) If they did not have the prophets, they would not deserve such punishment; if they had not read the sacred books, they would not be so unclean and so unholy. But, as it is, they have been stripped of all excuse. They do have the heralds of the truth but, with hostile heart, they set themselves against the prophets and the truth they speak. So it is for this reason that they would be all the more profane and blood-guilty: they have the prophets, but they treat them with hostile hearts.
(7) So it is that I exhort you to flee and shun their gatherings. The harm they bring to our weaker brothers is not slight; they offer no slight excuse to sustain to the folly of the Jews. For when they see that you, who worship the Christ whom they crucified, are reverently following their rituals, how can they fail to think that the rites they have performed are the best and that our ceremonies are worthless? For after you worship and adore at our mysteries, you run to the very men who destroy our rites. Paul said: "If a man sees you that have knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols"? And let me say: If a man sees you that have knowledge come into the synagogue and participate in the festival of the Trumpets, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to admire what the Jews do? He who falls not only pays the penalty for his own fall, but he is also punished because he trips others as well. But the man who has stood firm is rewarded not only because of his own virtue but people admire him for leading others to desire the same things.
(8) Therefore, flee the gatherings and holy places of the Jews. Let no man venerate the synagogue because of the holy books; let him hate and avoid it because the Jews outrage and maltreat the holy ones, because they refuse to believe their words, because they accuse them of the ultimate impiety.
VI
That you may know that the sacred books do not make a place holy but that the purpose of those who frequent a place does make it profane, I shall tell an old story. Ptolemy Philadelphus had collected books from all over the world. When he learned that the Jews had writings which treated of God and the ideal state, he sent for men from Judea and had them translate those books, which he then had deposited in the temple of Serapis, for he was a pagan. Up to the present day the translated books remain there in the temple. But will the temple of Serapis be holy because of the holy books? Heaven forbid! Although the books have their own holiness, they do not give a share of it to the place because those who frequent the place are defiled.
(2) You must apply the same argument to the synagogue. Even if there is no idol there, still demons do inhabit the place. And I say this not only about the synagogue here in town but about the one in Daphne as well; for at Daphne you have a more wicked place of perdition which they call Matrona's. I have heard that many of the faithful go up there and sleep beside the place.
(3) But heaven forbid that I call these people faithful. For to me the shrine of Matrona and the temple of Apollo are equally profane. If anyone charges me with boldness, I will in turn charge him with the utmost madness. For, tell me, is not the dwelling place of demons a place of impiety even if no god's statue stands there? Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, here the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. Does not greater harm come from this place since the Jews themselves are demons? In the pagan temple the impiety is naked and obvious; it would not be ease to deceive a man of sound and prudent mind or entice him to go there. But in the synagogue there are men who say they worship God and abhor idols, men who say they have prophets and pay them honor. But by their words they make ready an abundance of bait to catch in their nets the simpler souls who are so foolish as to be caught of guard.
(4) So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men.
(5) Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, our are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ. But I am talking about the ungodliness and present madness of the Jews.
(6) Certainly it is the time for me to show that demons dwell in the synagogue, not only in the place itself but also in the souls of the Jews. As Christ said: "When an unclean spirit is gone out, he walks through dry places seeking rest. If he does not find it he says: I shall return to my house. And coming he finds it empty, swept, and garnished. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself and they enter into him and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this generations".
(7) Do you see that demons dwell in their souls and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable. In the old days the Jews acted impiously toward the prophets; now they outrage the Master of the prophets. Tell me this. Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed, who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed? Must you share a greeting with them and exchange a bare word? Must you not turn away from them since they are the common disgrace and infection of the whole world? Have they not come to every form of wickedness? Have not all the prophets spent themselves making many and long speeches of accusation against them? What tragedy, what manner of lawlessness have they not eclipsed by their blood-guiltiness? They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs, of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast.
(8) Wild beasts oftentimes lay down their lives and scorn their own safety to protect their young. No necessity forced the Jews when they slew their own children with their own hands to pay honor to the avenging demons, the foes of our life. What deed of theirs should strike us with greater astonishment? Their ungodliness or their cruelty or their inhumanity? That they sacrificed their children or that they sacrificed them to demons? Because of their licentiousness, did they not show a lust beyond that of irrational animals? Hear what the prophet says of their excesses. "They are become as amorous stallions. Every one neighed after his neighbor's wife". He did not say: "Everyone lusted after his neighbor's wife", but he expressed the madness which came from their licentiousness with the greatest clarity by speaking of it as the neighing of brute beasts.
VII
What else do you wish me to tell you? Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things. But do their festivals have something solemn and great about them? They have shown that these, too, are impure. Listen to the prophets; rather, listen to God and with how strong a statement he turns his back on them: "I have found your festivals hateful, I have thrust them away from myself".
(2) Does God hate their festivals and do you share in them? He did not say this or that festival, but all of them together. Do you wish to see that God hates the worship paid with kettledrums, with lyres, with harps, and other instruments? God said: "Take away from me the sound of your songs and I will not hear the canticle of you harps". If God said: "Take them away from me", do you run to listen to the trumpets? Are these sacrifices and offerings not an abomination? "If you bring me the finest wheaten flour, it is in vain: incense is an abomination to me". The incense is an abomination. Is not the place also an abomination? Before they committed the crime of crimes, before they killed their Master, before the cross, before the slaying of Christ, it was an abomination. Is it not now all the more an abomination? And yet what is more fragrant than incense? But God looks not to the nature of the gifts but to the intention of those who bring them; it is this intention that he judges their offerings.
(3) He paid heed to Abel and then to his gifts. He looked at Cain and then turned away from his offering. For Scripture says: "For Cain and his offerings he had no regard". Noah offered to God sacrifices of sheep and calves and birds. The Scripture say: "And the Lord smelled a sweet odor", that is, he accepted the offerings. For God has no nostrils but is a bodiless spirit. Yet what is carried up from the altar is the odor and smoke from burning bodies, and nothing is more malodorous than such a savor. But that you may learn that God attends to the intention of the one offering the sacrifice and then accepts or rejects it, Scripture calls the odor and the smoke a sweet savor; but it calls the incense an abomination because the intention of those offering it reeked with a great stench.
(4) Do you wish to learn that, together with the sacrifices and the musical instruments and the festivals and the incense, God also rejects the temple because of those who enter it? He showed this mostly by his deeds, when he gave it over to barbarian hands, and later when he utterly destroyed it. But even before its destruction, through his prophet he shouted aloud and said: "Put not your trust in deceitful words for it will not help you when you say: "This is the temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord"! What the prophet says is that the temple does not make holy those who gather there, but those who gather there make the temple holy. If the temple did not help at a time when the Cherubim and the Ark were there, much less will it help now that all those things are gone, now that God's rejection is complete, now that there is greater ground for enmity. How great an act of madness and derangement would it be to take as your partners in the festivals those who have been dishonored, those whom God has forsaken, those who angered the Master?
(5) Tell me this. If a man were to have slain your son, would you endure to look upon him, or accept his greeting? Would you not shun him as a wicked demon, as the devil himself? They slew the Son of your Lord; do you have the boldness to enter with them under the same roof? After he was slain he heaped such honor upon you that he made you his brother and coheir. But you dishonor him so much that you pay honor to those who slew him on the cross, that you observe with them the fellowship of the festivals, that you go to their profane places, enter their unclean doors, and share in the tables of demons. For I am persuaded to call the fasting of the Jews a table of demons because they slew God. If the Jews are acting against God, must they not be serving the demons? Are you looking for demons to cure you? When Christ allowed the demons to enter into the swine, straightway they plunged into the sea. Will these demons spare the bodies of men? I wish they would not kill men's bodies, that they would not plot against them. But they will. The demons cast men from Paradise and deprived them the honor from above. Will they cure their bodies? That is ridiculous, mere stories. The demons know how to plot and do harm, not to cure. They do not spare souls. Tell me, then, will they spare bodies? They try to drive men from the Kingdom. Will they choose to free them from disease?
(6) Did you not hear what the prophet said? Rather, did you hear what God said through the prophet? He said that the demons can do neither good nor evil. Even if they could cure and wanted to do so-which is impossible-you must not take an indestructible and unending punishment in exchange for a slight benefit which can soon be destroyed. Will you cure your body and destroy your soul? You are making a poor exchange. Are you angering God who made your body, and are you calling to your aid the demon who plots against you?
(7) If any demon-fearing pagan has medical knowledge, will he also find it easy to win you over to worship the pagan gods? Those pagans, too, have their skill. They, too, have often cured many diseases and brought the sick back to health. Are we going to share in their godlessness on this account? Heaven forbid! Hear what Moses said to the Jews. "If there arise in the midst of you a prophet or one that says he has dreamed a dream and he foretell a sign and a wonder, and that sign or wonder which he spoke come to pass, and he say to you: "Let us go and serve strange gods whom our fathers did not know, you shall not hear the words of that prophet or dreamer".
(8) What Moses means is this. If some prophet rises up, he says, and performs a sign, by either raising a dead man or cleansing a leper, or curing a maimed man, and after working the wonder calls you to impiety, do not heed him just because his sign comes to pass. Why? "The Lord your God is trying you to see whether you love him with all your heart and all your soul". From this it is clear that demons do not cure. If ever God should permit demons to cure, as he might permit a man to do, his permission is given to test you-not because God does not know what you are, but that he may teach you to reject even the demons who do cure.
(9) And why do I speak of bodily cures? If any man threatens you with Gehenna unless you deny Christ, do not heed his words. If someone should promise you a kingdom to revolt from the only-begotten Son of God, turn away from him and hate him. Be a disciple of Paul and emulate those words which his blessed and noble soul exclaimed when he said: "I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, no height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ our Lord".
(10) No angels, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature separated Paul from the love of Christ. Do you revolt to cure your body? And what excuse could we find? Certainly we must fear Christ more than Gehenna and desire him more than a kingdom. Even if we be sick, it is better to remain in ill health than to fall into impiety for the sake of a cure; for even if a demon cures you, he has hurt more than he has helped. He has helped the body, which a short time later will altogether die and rot away. But he has hurt the soul, which will never die. Kidnappers often entice little boys by offering them sweets, and cakes, and marbles, and other such things; then they deprive them of their freedom and their very life. So, too, the demons promise cure of a limb and then dash the whole salvation of the soul into the sea.
(11) Beloved, let us not put up with that; in every way let us seek to keep ourselves free from godlessness. Could Job not have heeded his wife, blasphemed against God, and been free from the disaster which beset him? "Curse God and die" she said. But he chose to suffer the pain and to waste away; he chose to endure that unbearable blow rather to blaspheme and be free from the evils which beset him. You must emulate him. If the demon shall promise you ten thousand cures from the ills which beset you, do not heed him, do not put up with him-just as Job refused to heed his wife. Chose to endure your illness rather than destroy your faith and the salvation of your soul. God does not forsake you. It is because he wishes to increase your glory that oftentimes he permits you to fall sick. Keep up your courage so that you may also hear him say: "Do you think I have dealt with you otherwise than that you may be shown to be just"?
VIII
I could have said more than this, but to keep you from forgetting what I have said, I shall bring my homily to an end here with the words of Moses: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you". If any of you, whether you are here present or not, shall go to the spectacle of the Trumpets, or rush off to the synagogue, or go up to the shrine of Matrona, or take part in fasting, or share in the Sabbath, or observe any other Jewish ritual great or small, I call heaven and earth as my witnesses that I am guiltless of the blood of all of you.
(2) These words will stand by your side and mine on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you heed them, they will bring you great confidence; if you heed them not or conceal anyone who dares to do those things, my words shall stand against you as bitter accusations. "For I have not shrunk from declaring to you the whole counsel of God".
(3) I have deposited the money with the bankers. It remains for you to increase the deposit and to use the profit from my words for the salvation of your brothers. Do you find it an oppressive burden to denounce those who commit these sins? It is an oppressive burden to remain silent. For this silence makes you an enemy to God and brings destruction both to you who conceal such sinners and to those whose sins go unrevealed. How much better it is to become hateful to our fellow servants for saving them to provoke God's anger against yourselves. Even if your fellow servant be vexed with you now, he will not be able to harm you but will be grateful later on for his cure. But if you seek to win your fellow servant's favor, if you remain silent and hurt him by concealing his sin, God will exact from you the ultimate penalty. Your silence will make God your foe and will hurt your brother; if you denounce him and reveal his sin, you will make God propitious and benefit your brother and you will gain as a friend one who was crazed but who learned from experience that you served him well.
(4) Do not think, then, that you are doing your brothers a favor if you should see them pursuing some absurdity and should fail to accuse them with all zeal. If you lose a cloak, do you not consider as your foe not only the one who stole it but also the man who knew of the theft and refused to denounce the thief? Our common Mother (the Church) has lost not a cloak but a brother. The devil stole him and now holds him in Judaism. You know who stole him; you know him who was stolen. Do you see me lighting, as it were, the lamp of my instruction and searching everywhere in my grief? And do you stand silent, refusing to denounce him? What excuse will you have? Will the Church not reckon you among her worst enemies? Will she not consider you a foe and destroyer?
(5) Heaven forbid that anyone who hears my words of advice should commit such a sin as to betray the brother for whom Christ died. Christ poured out his blood on his account. Are you too reluctant to utter a word on this account? I urge you not to be so reluctant. Right after you leave here, stir yourselves to the chase and let each of you bring me one of those suffering from this disease.
(6) But heaven forbid that so many be sick with it. Let two or three, or ten or twenty of you bring me one man. One the day you do and when I see in your nets the game you have caught, I will set before you a more plentiful table. If I see that the advice I gave today has been put to work, I shall be more zealous in undertaking the cure of those men, and this will be a greater boon both for you and them.
(7) Do not regard my words lightly. Be scrupulous in hunting out those who suffer from this sickness. Let the women search for the women, the men for the men, the slaves for the slaves, the freemen for the freemen, and the children for the children. Come all of you to our next meeting with such success that you win praise from me-and, before any praise of mine, that you obtain, from God a great and indescribable reward which in abundant measure surpasses the labors of those who succeed. May all of us obtain this by the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father together with the Holy Spirit now and forever, world without end. Amen.
This material was uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2011, and derives from a translation of unknown origin formerly hosted at the Medieval Sourcebook. This file and all material on this page is believed to be in the public domain. For more details see the preface to the online edition.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_02_homily .htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 2
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 2
HOMILY II
Against those who fast the fast of the Jews and against the Jews themselves. Delivered after the other homily has been given and five days before the Jewish fast.
THE WICKED AND UNCLEAN FAST of the Jews is now at our doors. Thought it is a fast, do not wonder that I have called it unclean. What is done contrary to God's purpose, be it sacrifice or fast, is the most abominable of all things. Their wicked fast will begin after five days. Ten days ago, or more than ten, I anticipated this and gave an exhortation with the hope it would make your brothers safe. Let no one find fault and say my discourse was untimely because I gave it so many days beforehand. When a fever threatens, or any other disease, physicians anticipate this and with many remedies make safe and secure the body of the man who will be seized by the fever; they hurry to snatch his body from the dangers which threaten it before the patient experiences their onset.
(2) Since I, too, see that a very serious disease is going to come upon you, long beforehand I gave you solemn warning so that you might apply corrective measures before the evil attacked. This was my reason for not waiting until just before the days of fasting to exhort you. I did not want the lack of time to stop you from hunting out your brothers; I hoped that with the span of many days you might be able to track down with all fearlessness those who are suffering from this disease and restore them to health.
(3) Men who are going to celebrate a wedding or prepare a sumptuous feast do this same thing. They do not wait for the day itself. Long beforehand they speak with the fishermen and bird hunters so that the brevity of time may present no obstacle to preparing for the banquet. Since I, too, am going to set a banquet before you against the obstinacy of the Jews, I have gotten a head start in talking to you, the fishermen, that you may sweep up your weaker brothers in your nets and bring them to hear what I have to say.
(4) Those of you who did fish and have your catch securely in your nets, remain steadfast and bind them tight with your words of exhortation. Those of you who have not yet taken this goodly catch have time enough in these five days to trap and overcome your prey. So let us spread out the nets of instruction; like a pack of hunting dogs let us circle about and surround our quarry; let us drive them together from every side and bring them into subjection to the laws of the Church. If you think it is a good idea, let us send to pursue them the best of huntsmen, the blessed Paul, who once shouted aloud and said: "Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you."
(5) When wild beasts and savage animals are hiding under a thicket and hear the shout of the hunter, they leap up in fear. The loud clamor drives them from their hiding and, even against their will, the hunter's cry forces them out, and many a time they fall right into the nets. So, too, your brothers are hiding in what I might call the thicket of Judaism. If they hear the shout of Paul, I am sure that they will easily fall into the nets of salvation and will put aside all the error of the Jews. For it is not Paul who spoke, but Christ, who moved Paul's soul. So when you hear him shout and say: "Behold, I, Paul, tell you," consider that only the shout is Paul's; the thought and the teaching are Christ's, who is speaking to Paul from within his heart.
(6) But someone might say: "Is there so much harm in circumcision that it makes Christ's whole plan of redemption useless? Yes, the harm of circumcision is as great as that, not because of its own but because of your obstinacy. There was a time when the law was useful and necessary, but now it has ceased and is fruitless. If you take it on yourself to be circumcised now, when the time is no longer right, it makes the gift of God useless. It is because you are not willing to come to him that Christ will be of no advantage to you. Suppose someone should be caught in the act of adultery and the foulest crimes and then be thrown into prison. Suppose, next, that judgment was going to be passed against him and that he would be condemned. Suppose that just at that moment a letter should come from the Emperor setting free from any accounting or examination all those detained in prison. If the prisoner should refuse to take advantage of the pardon, remain obstinate and choose to be brought to trial, to give an account, and to undergo punishment, he will not be able thereafter to avail himself of the Emperor's favor. For when he made himself accountable to the court, examination, and sentence, he chose of his own accord to deprive himself of the imperial gift.
(7) This is what happened in the case of the Jews. Look how it is. All human nature was taken in the foulest evils. "All have sinned," say Paul. They were locked, as it were, in a prison by the curse of their transgression of the Law. The sentence of the judge was going to be passed against them. A letter from the King came down from heaven. Rather, the King himself came. Without examination, without exacting an account, he set all men free from the claims of their sin.
II
All, then, who run to Christ are saved by his grace and profit from his gift. But those who wish to find justification from the Law will also fall from grace. They will not be able to enjoy the King's loving-kindness because they are striving to gain salvation by their own efforts; they will draw down on themselves the curse of the Law because from the works of the Law no flesh will find justification. So it is that Paul says: "If you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you." For the man who strives to gain salvation from the works of the Laws has nothing in common with grace. This is what Paul hinted at when he said: "If out of grace, then not in virtue of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if out of works, no longer is it grace: otherwise work is no longer work." And again: "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain." And again: "You who are justified in the Law are fallen from grace." You have died to the Law, you have become a corpse; hereafter you are no longer under its yoke, you are no longer subject to its necessity. Why, then, do you strive to make trouble for yourself when it is all to no purpose and in vain?
(2) When Paul said: "Behold, I, Paul, tell you," why did he add his name? Why did he not simply say: "Behold, I tell you"? He wanted to remind them of the zeal which he had shown with regard to Judaism. What he is saying is this: "If I were a gentile and knew nothing of Jewish matters, perhaps someone would say that, because I had no share in the Jewish plan and dispensation, because I did not know the power of circumcision, I reject it from the dogmas of the Church." This is why he added his name. He wished to remind them of what he had done in behalf of the Law. It is almost as if he were to say: "I do this not thorough hatred of circumcision but in full knowledge of the truth. I, Paul, say this, that Paul who was circumcised on the eighth day, who am an Israelite by birth, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee according to the Law, who zealously persecuted the Church, who entered houses, dragged out men and women, and handed them over into custody. All this could persuade even those who are very stupid that I set down this law not through any hatred nor in ignorance of things Jewish but in full knowledge of the surpassing truth of Christ. "And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is bound to observe the Law".
(3) Why did he not say: "I exhort", or "I command", or "I say"? Why did he say: "I testify? So that he might, by this word, remind us of the future judgment. Where there are witnesses who testify, there also are judgments and sentences. He is frightening his hearer, then, by reminding him of the royal throne and by showing him that those very words will be his witness on that day when each man will give an account of what he has done, what he has said, and what he has heard. The Galatians heard those words in days gone by. Let those who are sick with the Galatians' disease hear them again today. If they are not present, let them hear through you the words that Paul exclaimed and said: "I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is bound to observe the whole Law.
(4) Do not tell me that circumcision is just a single command; it is that very command which imposes on you the entire yoke of the Law. When you subject yourself to the rule of the Law in one part, you must also obey its commands in all other things. If you do not fulfill it, you must be punished and draw its curse upon yourself. When a sparrow has fallen into the hunter's net, even if only its foot is caught, all the rest of its body is caught as well. So, too, the man who fulfills a single commandment of the Law, be it circumcision or fasting, through that one commandment, has given the Law full power over himself; as long as he is willing, and if he is willing to obey a part of the Law, he cannot avoid obeying the whole Law.
(5) We do not say this in accusation of the Law. Heaven forbid! We say it because we wish to show forth the surpassing riches of the grace of Christ. For the Law is not contrary to Christ. How could it be, when he is the one who gave the Law, when the Law leads us to him? But we are forced to say all these things because of the untimely contentiousness of those who do not use the Law as they should. The ones who outrage the Law are those who bid us stand apart from it once and for all and come to Christ, and then tell us to hold fast to it again. The Law has profited our nature very much. I agree to that and would never deny it. But you Judaizers cling to it beyond the proper time and will not let us see how very useful it has been.
(6) It would be the greatest source of praise for a tutor if his young pupil no longer needed him to keep watch over his conduct because the lad had advanced so greater virtue. So, too, it would be the greatest praise for the Law that we no longer had need of its help. For the Law has brought that very thing to pass for us: it has prepared our soul to receive a greater philosophy.
(7) So it is that he who still sits at the feet of the Law and can see nothing greater than what is written therein derives no great profit from it. But I put the Law aside and ran to the loftier teachings of Christ; yet I could grant to the Law the greatest dignity because it made me such that I could go beyond the trivialities written therein and rise to the loftiness of the teaching which comes to us from Christ.
(8) The Law did profit our nature greatly, but only if it led us sincerely to Christ. If this be not the case, it did us harm by depriving us of the greater things because of our close attention to those which are less; it also hurt us by still keeping us in the countless wounds of our transgressions. Suppose there were two physicians, one weaker, the other stronger. If the weaker one applied medicines to the ulcers but could not free the sick man once and for all from the pain coming from his sores, then.......
III
"If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has anything against you, > leave there your offering before the altar and go first to be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift". Christ did not say: "Submit your offering and then go away", but "Let it stay there unoffered and go first to be reconciled to your brother".
(2) Nor did he do this only here but again in another place. If a man has an infidel wife, that is, a gentile, he is not forced to put her away. For St. Paul said: "If any man has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, let him not put her away. But if he has a wife who is a harlot and an adulteress, there is nothing to stop him from putting her away. For Christ said: "Everyone who puts away his wife save on account of immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And so he is allowed to put her away because of immorality.
(3) Do you see God's loving-kindness and concern? He says: "If your wife be a gentile, do not put her away. But if she be a harlot, I do not stop you from doing so". What he means is this: If she acts outrageously toward Me, do not put her away; if she outrages you, there is no one to stop you from putting her away." If God, then, showed us such honor, will we not deem him deserving of equal honor? Will we let him be outraged by our wives? Will we permit this even though we realize that the greatest punishment and vengeance will be stored up for us when we neglect the salvation of our wives?
(4) This is why he made you to be head of the wife. This is why Paul gave the order: "If wives wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home", so that you, like a teacher, a guardian, a patron, might urge her to godliness. Yet when the hour set for the services summons you to the church, you fail to rouse your wife from their sluggish indifference. But now that the devil summons your wives to the feast of the Trumpets and they turn a ready ear to this call, you do not restrain them. You let them entangle themselves in accusations of ungodliness, you let them be dragged off into licentious ways. For, as a rule, it is the harlots, the effeminates, and the whole chorus from the theater who rush to that festival.
(5) And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on there? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles? After you have gone off and shared with those who shed the blood of Christ, how is it that you do not shudder to come back and share in his sacred banquet, to partake of his precious blood? Do you not shiver, are you not afraid when you commit such outrages? Have you so little respect for that very banquet?
(6) I have spoken these words to you. You will speak them to those Judaizers, and they to their wives. "Fortify one another". If a catechumen is sick with this disease, let him be kept outside the church doors. If the sick one be a believer and already initiated, let him be driven from the holy table. For not all sins need exhortation and counsel; some sins, of their very nature, demand cure by a quick and sharp excision. The wounds we can tolerate respond to more gentle cures; those which have festered and cannot be cured, those which are feeding on the rest of the body, need cauterization with a point of steel. So is it with sins. Some need long exhortation; others need sharp rebuke.
(7) This is why Paul did not enjoin us to exhort in every case but also to rebuke sharply: "Wherefore rebuke them sharply". Therefore, I will now rebuke them sharply, so that they may accuse themselves and feel shame for what they have done. Then they will never again be hurt by that sinful fast.
(8) So I shall put aside exhortation henceforth as I testify and exclaim: "If any man does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let a curse be upon him". What greater evidence could there be that a man does not love our Lord than when he participates in the festival with those who slew Christ? It was not I who hurled the curse at them, but Paul. Rather, it was not Paul but Christ, who spoke through him and said earlier: "Those who are justified in the law have fallen away from grace".
(9) So speak these words to them, read aloud to them these texts. Show all your zeal in saving them. When you have snatched them from the devil's jaws, bring them to me on the day of the Jewish fast. Then, after I have kept the rest of my promise to you, let us, with one accord and with one voice, join our brothers in giving glory to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for to Him is glory forever. Amen.
(The remaining portion of homily 2 was only rediscovered in 2001 and only translated in 2010).
This material was uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2011, and derives from a translation of unknown origin formerly hosted at the Medieval Sourcebook. This file and all material on this page is believed to be in the public domain. For more details see the preface to the online edition.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_02_lost_portion.htm
John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos; Oratio 2 (lost section) (2010)
John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos; Oratio 2 (lost section) (2010)
John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos Oratio 2 [previously unpublished section filling in the lacuna in Or. 2.2 (PG 48: 860)]
[Greek text and German translation published by W. Pradels, R. Brändle and M. Heimgartner, "Das bisher vermisste Textstück in Johannes Chrysostomus, Adversus Judaeos, Oratio 2," Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 5 (2001) 23-49.]
The manuscript that was found and used by Pradels, supplementing Monac. Gr. 190, the only previously known ms. of the nd oration, is Μονὴ Λείμωνος no. 27 [from the Leimonos Monastery on Lesbos, an 11th-cen. ms.] pages 120va-129va (the whole oration is on pp. 116r-131r of the ms.).1
The page references embedded in the translation are for this publication by Pradels et al., where refs. to the ms. pagination can be found.
English Translation
[p. 30]
The Law did help our nature2 very much—but only if it genuinely leads us to Christ; by the same token, if it does not do this, it has actually hurt us, by depriving us of greater things through attention to smaller things, and by continuing to keep us confined in the countless wounds of our transgressions. Indeed, suppose there were two doctors, the one less powerful and the other more powerful; and the one, although he applied medicines to the patient's sores, was not able to free the afflicted person once and for all from the pain they caused, but only brought some slight relief, whereas when the other doctor, the more powerful one, arrived, taking all those medicines away and simply washing the sick person, he was able to purify him of his afflictions, leaving no further trace—not even the slightest mark. And then, suppose that the first doctor tried to prevent the patient from being treated by that [better doctor]. What help could he possibly provide by the application of his medicines, that would be as great as the damage he caused by preventing the patient from taking the brief way, the quickest way to health?
This is also how you should think, when it comes to Christ and the Law. The Law applies medicines, bringing altogether slight relief for our sores. Christ, on the other hand, when he came, took away all these things and by washing us with the water of baptism,3 he allowed no trace or mark of our previous wounds to remain. So then, one who still clings to the Law is doing nothing but disbelieving in the skill of the doctor, and denying that baptism is sufficient to take away his trespasses. For running to the law is the mark of one who is afraid that Christ is not strong enough to free us from our prior sins through his own grace—and this is proof of the worst unbelief: such people are committing outrage on both the Law and on Christ, disbelieving both the one and the other. By clinging to the Law, they are disbelieving in Christ's grace; but by clinging to it only in part, they have charged it with great weakness. Tell me: Is the law alone, by itself, able to justify? [Yes?] Well then, why do you not fulfill it completely? - But it is fairly weak and feeble. - Obviously you think so, if you only keep it in part!4 Again, is Christ able to grant the forgiveness of all your sins? [Yes?] Well then, why do you cling to the Law, and fear that you will be judged as a transgressor for not keeping one of the Law's commandments? This is the mark of those who do not truly have confidence in Christ's kindness. At this point, it is timely to say, "Woe to a fearful heart and to slack hands and to a sinner who walks upon two paths!"5 For you must imagine that what has been said about circumcision6 has also been said about fasting, and about every other commandment of the Law, if you keep it now, at the wrong time7—just as, if someone is now circumcised, "Christ will be of no benefit" to him.8 Indeed, so that you will not think this statement only pertained to circumcision, [p. 32] but instead [understand that it applied] to the entire Law, if someone were to keep it now, at the wrong time, you must listen to what he says: "You who are [trying to be] justified by the Law have fallen away from grace."9 What further punishment could there be to equal this one? But may this not happen to our brothers! I do call them brothers, even if they are sick in countless ways, because of my hopes for their health.
Now then, let me strip down for the fight against the Jews themselves, so that the victory may be more glorious—so that you will learn that they are abominable and lawless and murderous and enemies of God. For there is no evidence of wickedness I can proclaim that is equal to this. But, in order to amass forensic-style speeches against them, I shall first demonstrate that even if they had not been deprived of their ancestral way of life, even so their fast would be polluted and impure—and I shall provide the proofs from the Law itself, and from Moses. For if it was lawless when it was observed while the Law was in effect and in power, so much the more now that the Law has ceased. And I shall demonstrate that not only the fast, but also all the other practices which they observe—sacrifices and purifications and festivals—are all abominable. And when the very manner of purification is illegal as practiced, and would be rejected as loathsome,10 which of their other [rituals] can purify them thereafter?
The best starting point for the demonstration will be their observance with regard to the place. For God led them out of the whole world and confined them in a single place, Jerusalem. And in no other place were they permitted to fast, to sacrifice, to celebrate festivals or tabernacles, or indeed to read the Law, at the time when the Law was in force. And if back then, whenever these rites were conducted outside Jerusalem, the procedure constituted transgression, all the more so now. If you wish, I will read the laws that were set down for them concerning these matters. First, let me recite the law set down concerning the festival of Passover: "For you shall not be able to celebrate the Passover in any of the cities which the Lord your God gives you, but at the place which the Lord your God chooses for his name to be called [p. 34] there"11—meaning Jerusalem (for his name had been called over that city, as Daniel also made plain when he prayed and said, "Look at the destruction of us and of your city, upon which your name has been called over it"12). He used this term for the city not because God has a city—of course not!—but in order to make the place more awesome by virtue of the fear inherent in the appellation. So then, this law is one that prohibits them from carrying out the sacrifices of the Passover [anywhere outside Jerusalem], not only in Syria and Cilicia and among other peoples, but even in Palestine itself. "For you shall not be able to celebrate the Passover in any of the cities which the Lord your God gives you"—and the cities he gave were in Judaea. Do you see how they have been forced out, not out of the world, but out of the [rest of the] province itself, into one single place? Again, concerning the festival which is now imminent, he warns, "For seven days you shall celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, when you gather in from your threshing-floor and your wine-vat."13 For because they were ungrateful and unmindful of their benefactor, he bound their remembrances of the kindness of God into the necessities of their festivals. And at the same time, they would learn the reason for the festival: For when the harvest is complete, he says, celebrate days of thanksgiving to the giver of the requested sustenance—"For seven days you shall celebrate the festival, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the proselyte / foreigner14 who is attached to you, the orphan and the widow; for seven days you shall keep the festival unto the Lord God in the place which the Lord your God chooses."15 And as for the fact that they were not even allowed to read the Law outside Jerusalem, listen to this: "After seven years, at the time of the year of Release, the Feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel comes together to appear before the Lord your God in the place which he chooses. There you shall read the Law";16 there you shall fast for the Feast of Tabernacles. Do you see that he preserves this [stipulation] also in the case of the fast?17 [p. 36]
Next, in order not to go through each thing individually, he added in summary fashion that it was in no way permitted for them to carry out their customary rituals of worship anywhere else, saying, "Be careful not to offer your burnt-offerings in any place you see; but in the place which the Lord your God chooses for his name to be called, there you shall offer your sacrifices, there you shall perform all that I command you today."18 For when he said "all," he included, by using this word, festivals and sacrifices and lustrations and purifications and whatever else was in the Law. Then, because they were thoughtless and senseless, and his exhortation was not sufficient to persuade them, he also added an inexorable punishment for those who disobeyed: "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to the children of Israel, saying: Anyone from among you, or from among the proselytes / foreigners who are attached to you, whoever slaughters a bull-calf or a sheep or a goat outside the camp or in the camp itself, and does not bring his sacrifice to the doors of the Tent of Witness, blood shall be reckoned for him; that man has shed blood."19 What does it mean that "blood shall be reckoned for him"? He will be condemned for murder, having become just like a murderer—for [God] was not paying attention to the nature of what was sacrificed, but to the mindset of the one who was sacrificing. For this reason, it was reckoned as murder: because the slaughter took place contrary to God's wishes. Do you see how closely guarded the [issue of] place was? The one who does not sacrifice at the doors of the Tent of Witness, he says, will be punished just as if he has killed a human being, even if he is sacrificing a sheep. And further tightening the punishment, he says, "That soul shall be cut off from his people."20 Why? Because he did not bring his sacrifices to the doors of the Tent of Witness, he then says.21 And why does he order them to sacrifice there? So that they will not sacrifice to their idols and "to the vain things with which they themselves engage in prostitution."22 Do you see that the very reason is an indictment of their impiety and prostitution? (For he always calls their impiety prostitution.) He drove them together from all quarters into a single place for this reason: so that they would have no occasion for impiety. When a well-born and free man has a female slave who is licentious and pulls in all the passers-by for immoral relations with her, he does not allow her to go out into the neighborhood, to show herself in the alley-way, to rush into the marketplace; instead, he confines her upstairs in the house, shackles her with iron, and orders her to remain indoors at all times, so that both the spatial restrictions of the place and the compulsion of the chains will be her starting-point for chastity.23 God acted in the very same way: the Synagogue being his licentious slave-woman, gaping after every demon and [p. 38] every idol, and rushing to make sacrifices to the idols in every spot and in every place, he confined it in Jerusalem and the temple, as though in the master's house, and ordered it to sacrifice and celebrate festivals at appointed times there only, so that both the spatial restrictions of the place and the observance of the times would keep it, even unwillingly, in the law of piety. Sit there and be modest, he says; let the place train you, since your character did not.
And [to confirm] that this is the reason why he commanded sacrifice there only: you have heard the Law that has now been read among us—it runs as follows: "For they shall bring their sacrifices to the doors of the Tent of Witness"24—and it goes on to add the reason: "So that they will not sacrifice to their idols and to the vain things with which they themselves engage in prostitution."25 For there was no spot in Palestine that was not defiled by their impiety; instead, every hill, every ravine, and every tree was privy to this impiety of theirs. For this reason, Hosea cried out and said, "They sacrificed upon the hills; they made sacrifices upon the summits of the mountains, under oak and pine and shade-giving tree, because the shelter was good."26 And Jeremiah said, "Lift your eyes around you and see: Where did they not engage in prostitution?"27 It was for this reason that God, seeing that they had gone astray, confined them in one spot: the temple. But not even this put a stop to their licentiousness; rather, as if obstinately wishing to demonstrate to their Lord that whatever he did they would not abandon their madness, they brought adulterous lovers into their Lord's house, at one time setting up a four-faced idol there, at another time painting the abominations of reptiles and cattle on the wall. Ezekiel made this known to us—for he was brought from Babylon to the temple, and when he saw them burning incense to the sun and mourning for Adonis and worshipping all the other idols in the temple itself, he cried out in distress.28
But the prophet did not point out only this rampant impiety, but also [approached the subject] in another way, speaking as follows: "There came to be in you a perversion29 beyond all women."30 How is it that payments are made to all prostitutes, he says, "but you gave out payments"?31 For they engaged in prostitution and paid money for their own prostitution, which is the greatest proof of a soul that is being driven mad by the sting of its own profligacy. So then, because the house did not make them modest—instead, they set up their idols there—in the end God razed the temple itself to the ground. For what need was there for that place, given that idols were standing there and demons were being served in it? [p. 40]
Now I want to reckon up just what I promised you at first. What was it, then, that I promised? To show that they are transgressing in all that they now do—and in the first place, in the festival of Passover. The fact that they are not simply transgressing the Law, but are manifestly also murderers, when they celebrate this festival outside Jerusalem, is clear from what I have said. This has been proved most abundantly, by the grace of God. Therefore, whenever they sacrifice the Passover [lamb] either here or elsewhere, they are manifestly murderers. For if, when someone does not bring his sacrifice to the doors of the Tent of Witness, the sacrifice is reckoned as blood and murder, and if these people make their sacrifices not only outside the temple, but even outside the city, indeed everywhere on earth, then it is quite obvious that they are enmeshed in the pollution [of murder] to an enormous degree. In the same way, when they celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles and their other festivals, they are again impure and defiled. For if everything is purified by means of the sacrifices, and "apart from the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness,"32 then once all the sacrifices have been taken away with the destruction of the temple, it necessarily follows that the methods of purification and the customs of all the festivals have been taken away—or that if they are practiced, they cause even greater pollution because they are performed in an unlawful manner.
Not only were they not permitted to sacrifice outside the temple—they were not even permitted to sing elsewhere, as the prophet also made plain. For when they had been carried off to Babylon, and those who had taken them captive wanted to hear Jewish song, and would say to them, "Sing to us some of the songs of Zion,"33 they would answer, by way of informing them that it was not permissible to sing outside Jerusalem, "How shall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land?"34 But neither did they fast in a foreign land; listen to what God said to them through Zechariah: "For seventy years, you have not fasted a fast for me, have you?"35—referring indirectly to the time of the captivity. It has also been proved that they were permitted to make sacrifices there only. For this reason the three children said, "There is no ruler or prophet at this time, nor any place to make an offering and find mercy."36 Now of course there was a place in Babylonia—but not the customary place. For they hearkened to Moses, who said, "Be careful not to offer your burnt-offerings in any place you see; but in the place which the Lord your God chooses..."37 Thus, when they were allowed neither to sacrifice nor to sing nor to be purified nor to read the Law (for indeed, another prophet likewise made the same charge when he said—and brought it out as a great accusation [p. 42]—"They read the Law outside and invoked confession."38)—when, therefore, they were allowed to do none of these things, what defense will they possibly have hereafter? They condemn and defile themselves by their myriad paths of transgression. And that is why I called their fast impure right from the beginning: because it is carried out unlawfully. Indeed, their Passover and Feast of Tabernacles, and whatever else they do, are profane and abominable; what they carry out39 is not worship, but lawlessness and transgression and outrage committed on God. You see, if they did not dare to do any of these things during their sojourning in a foreign land (as my discourse has proved), when they expected to recover their ancestral city and return to the temple, then they are obligated much more now to stay idle, to refrain from action, and not to carry out any of these things—now that there is no longer any hope that they will recover Jerusalem. For that city shall not rise up again in the future, nor will they return to their prior form of worship. It was to make this clear to them that God opened up the whole world to them, and made that spot alone inaccessible, and thus there are imperial laws keeping them away and not allowing them to set foot in the doorway of the city—that city is and will remain off-limits for them at all times.
But on the very day of their fast, I will demonstrate that it [i.e., Jerusalem] will not rise again—if you are present again with the same enthusiasm and I see this hall40 made just as magnificent as it is now with the multitude of the listeners. Today, on the other hand, it is necessary to tell you why God opened the entire world to them, but made that city alone inaccessible to them. Why, then, did he do this? He knew their obstinacy and shamelessness, their willfulness and disobedience; he knew that they would not easily choose to give up their former way of life, conducted with sacrifices and burnt offerings, and go toward the higher, more spiritual life of the Gospels. What, then, did he do? After tying their worship of him to the necessity of sacrifices, he furthermore confined the sacrifices themselves to the temple, and after doing this, he made the place off-limits for them, so that, from the fact that they were not allowed to set foot in Jerusalem, they would become aware that it was now not permissible for them to sacrifice—and from the absence of sacrifice they would be taught not to cling to the rest of their forms of worship any longer, and would be able to see that it was no longer the proper time for that way of life, that instead, God was calling them to a different and greater philosophy. A loving mother who has a nursing child, but later is eager to wean him away from milk-nourishment and lead him toward other kinds of nourishment—when she sees that he is unwilling and resistant, and continues to seek her breast and insinuate himself into her maternal bosom, she smears gall or some other kind of very bitter juice around the very nipple of her breast, [p. 44] and thus compels him, unwilling as he is, to turn away from the source of milk in future. In the very same way, God, wanting to lead them to more solid nourishment, but then seeing them constantly running back to Jerusalem and its way of life, walled off the city like a mother's nipple with bile and the bitterest juice—the fear of the Romans—and by means of imperial decrees he made it become off-limits for them. His intention was that because of the desolation and the soldiers' weapons, they would stand aloof from that homeland and little by little become accustomed to rejecting their desire for milk and slipping into a love and craving for solid nourishment. For even though emperors caused the desolation, they were moved by God to do so, and this is clear from [a comparison with] the previous periods, when not even the ruler of the whole [world] was strong enough to take the city, since God was favorable to them. The temple was destroyed for this reason: so that they would no longer look for God in a place, but look up toward the heavens. Sacrifices were taken away for this reason: so that they would be able to see the true sacrifice as well, which took away the sin of the world. But if they are not willing [to change], then God, for his part, has displayed to them his kindness,41 while they, having made themselves unworthy of his goodness, will bring inexorable punishment upon themselves.
But now, it is time to leave behind my discourse with them, and to direct my criticism against those who have gone off to hear the Trumpets.42 Indeed, I ought not to have considered them even worth taking into account at this point, since after so much exhortation and advice they still persisted in the same stupidity. But I do expect to correct their ways by this second exhortation, and to persuade them to condemn their own stupidity with regard to their earlier [behavior]; thus, I eagerly embark on these remarks directed at them. For indeed, I know that by the grace of God, many of those who were accustomed to do these things have departed from their wicked custom; and if not all were persuaded, yet they shall be persuaded by all means. A body that is beginning to be healthy makes progress on a path so as to cast off all its illness and [p. 46] finally return to a state of pure health.
You ran to hear the Trumpets? Tell me—(I wish to have a conversation with them in their absence, as though they were present. For even so does the soul that is in pain converse with people as though they are present and listening, even if those it is attacking are not listening.)—so then, you ran to hear the Trumpets? Tell me: With those murderers? With those charlatans? With those delirious and raving-mad Jews? Did you not listen to Christ, who said, "The one who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"43? For just as a licentious gaze produces adultery, so also untimely hearing works impiety. But you desire to hear a trumpet! Then listen to the trumpet of Paul, the spiritual trumpet blaring out from the heavens and saying, "Take up the full armor of God. Gird your loins with truth, put on the breastplate of righteousness, cover your feet with the equipment of the Gospel of peace, take up the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, the sword of the spirit."44
Do you see how a spiritual trumpet arms you and leads you out to the battle against the demons? Listen to the thunder of John, saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."45 Wait for the trumpet that [will sound] from the heavens: "For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead will rise again."46 Those who hear this [earthly] trumpet will not hear that [heavenly] one—or rather, they will hear it, but to their own detriment. For participation in the Jewish festival will mean participation in their punishment. At that time, the Jews "will look upon him whom they pierced."47 What, then, [will happen,] if you appear in company with them? Is it not abundantly clear what is left [as the implication]? I am afraid to say it, but I impart it to your consciousness.48 You sound the trumpet with them now—so you will mourn with them then. But may it never be that any of the children of the churches be found in the gathering-place of those murderous people—not now, not ever! And that is why I have said this now: so that these things no longer take place.
But not only to men do I address these comments, but also to the women, through their husbands. For indeed, I know that most of the crowd that is drawn to go there is composed of women. Now then, the blessed Paul says, "Husbands, love your wives";49 and again, "The wife should fear her husband."50 But I am seeing neither wives' fear nor husbands' love. For if the wife feared her husband, she would not have dared to go. If the husband loved his wife, he would never have allowed and tolerated her going. For what is worse than this outrage, I ask you? A free and believing woman goes out of the house and goes off to a synagogue? Does she know any other place at all, apart from [p. 46] the church and the time spent there? But if she were going off to a lover, would you not have stood up? Would you not have been inflamed? Would you not have posted guards on all sides? But as it is, you do not see her going off to commit adultery with a man, but going off to [be with] demons—and you allow this impiety? If she commits a transgression against you, you punish her; but if she commits outrage against her Lord, you overlook it? If she wantonly abuses your marriage, you are a harsh and inexorable judge; but if she tramples on the covenants with God, you are careless and slack? How can these [offenses] be worthy of forgiveness? And yet, God does not act that way, but rather in the opposite way: When he himself is outraged, he overlooks it; when you are treated that way, he punishes. Do you wish to learn that he honors your affairs more than his own? "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift before the altar, and go—first be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift."51
1 Pradels et al., pp. 24-25.
2 I.e., the human race as a whole (cf. Lampe s.v. φύσις II.A.6).
3 Lit., "the baptism of water."
4 Lit., "Why [would you] not [have to say that it is weak], if you only keep it in part?" I.e., the fact that you do not keep all of it shows that you think it is weak / defective in some way.
5 Ecclus. 2.12.
6 Cf. section 2.4 of this Homily / Discourse.
7 Gk. ἀκαίρως-i.e., after the coming of Christ. Cf. Homily / Discourse 1, section 2.3.
8 Gal. 5.2.
9 Gal. 5.4.
10 Gk. ὅταν...παράνομοςᾖ[or ᾗ -- in the Greek text, Pradels et al. seem to have smooth breathing, but the translation assumes rough breathing] γινόμενοςκαὶβδελυρὸςὢνἀπελεχθείη... Pradels et al. interpret ἀπελεχθείη as a form of ἀπολέγω (with augment anomalously retained in the optative) and further, presumably reading ᾗ and treating γινόμενος as equivalent to a finite verb, translate, "Wenn...in der Art und Weise, wie es vollzogen wird, widergesetzlich ist und, weil es greulich ist, hätte verboten werden können..." I would probably be more inclined to correct ἀπελεχθείηtoἀπελεγχθείη, and translate, "and would be condemned as abominable / loathsome..." In that case, the remaining anomaly would be the switch from subjunctive to optative.
11 Deut. 16.5-6. See Pradels et al., p. 35 n. 3, regarding the Greek and Hebrew expressions used here for calling a name 'over / upon' someone or something - i.e., in English idiom, calling someone 'by' a certain name.
12 Dan. 9.18.
13 Deut. 16.13.
14 Gk. προσήλυτος.
15 Deut. 16.14-15.
16 Deut. 31.10-11.
17 It is strange that Chrysostom stresses fasting in connection with Tabernacles (Sukkot), especially considering that he is adding words of his own following the Biblical citation. The part of Deut. 16.14 that he does not cite contradicts this (εὐφρανθήσῃ), and in general, it is supposed to be a joyous festival, not a fast. Cf. the confused order in Homily / Discourse 1.1 (Trumpets, Tabernacles, fasts); D. S. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity (Tübingen, 2003), pp. 68-69, refers to these and other early Christian and pagan confusions about the precise content of Jewish festivals. On the other hand, in Homily / Discourse 7.1, the correct order (Trumpets, fasts, Tabernacles) appears. It may be that because the urgent occasion for Chrysostom here is the fast (leading up to Yom Kippur), the idea of fasting spills over to other areas (Homily / Discourse 2.1). Alternatively, some confusion in the recording or transmission of the text may have occurred.
18 Deut. 12.13-14.
19 Lev. 17.1-4.
20 Lev. 17.4.
21 A strange phrase, possibly corrupt. Pradels et al. translate: "Weil er seine Opfer nicht hingebracht hat vor den Eingang des Zeltes der Bezeugung, sagt er dann."
22 Lev. 17.7.
23 Gk. σωφροσύνη.
24 Lev. 17.5.
25 Lev. 17.7.
26 Hos. 4.13.
27 Jer. 3.2.
28 Ezek. 8.
29 Or, "The reverse was the case for you, by comparison with all women..."
30 Ezek. 16.34.
31 Ezek. 16.33.
32 Heb. 9.22.
33 Ps. 136137.3.
34 Ps. 136137.4.
35 Zech. 7.5.
36 Dan. 3.38 [Prayer of Azariah 15].
37 Deut. 12.13.
38 Amos 4.5 (LXX with variant - singular "confession"). NETS, following the standard LXX, translates, "...called for confessions."
39 Gk. τὰγινόμενα.
40 Gk. θέατρον.
41 Gk. φιλανθρωπία.
42 The "Trumpets" are a reference to the Rosh Hashanah celebration. I.e., he is turning back from criticism of the Jews to criticism of the Judaizing Christians.
43 Mt. 5.28.
44 Eph. 6.13-17.
45 Jn. 1.1.
46 1 Cor. 15.52.
47 Jn. 19.37; cf. Zech. 12.10.
48 Alternatively, "I leave it to your conscience."
49 Eph. 5.25.
50 Eph. 5.33.
51 Mt. 5.23-24.
This text was commissioned by Roger Pearse, 2010. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_03_homily .htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 3
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 3
HOMILY III Against those who keep the first Paschal Fast
ONCE AGAIN A NECESSARY and pressing need has interrupted the sequence of my recent discourses. I must put aside my struggles with the heretics for today and turn my attention to this necessary business. For I was ready to address your loving assembly again on the glory of the only-begotten Son of God. But the untimely obstinacy of those who wish to keep the first paschal fast forces me to devote my entire instruction to their cure. For the good shepherd does more than drive away the wolves; he also is most diligent in caring for his sheep who are sick. What does he gain if the flocks escape the jaws of the wild beasts but are then devoured by disease?
(2) The best general is the one who not only repels the siege engines of the enemy but first puts down rebellion within his own city. He knows well that there will be no victory over an outside foe as long as there is civil war within. Do you not know that there is no more destructive force than rebellion and obstinacy? Listen to the words of Christ: "A kingdom divided against itself shall not stand." And yet, what is more powerful than a kingdom which possesses revenues of money, weapons, walls, fortresses, so large a number of soldiers, horses, and ten thousand other sources of strength?
(3) But even power as great as that is destroyed when it revolts against itself. Nothing produces weakness so effectively as contentiousness and strife; and nothing produces power and strength so effectively as love and concord. When Solomon grasped this truth he said: "A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city and kingdom bolted and barred." Do you see the great strength which comes from concord? And do you see the great harm caused by contentiousness? A kingdom in revolt destroys itself. When two brothers are bound together and united into one, they are more unbreakable than any wall.
(4) I know that, by God's grace, most members of my flock are free from this disease and that the sickness involves only a few. But this is no reason for me to relax my care. If only ten, or five, or two, or even one were sick, he must not be neglected. If there is only one worthless outcast. still he is a brother, and Christ died for him. And Christ made great account of the weak ones. He said: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it were better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the sea." And again: "As long as you did not do it for one of these little ones, you did not do it for me." And again: "It is not the will of your Father in heaven that a single one of these little ones should perish."
(5) Is it not absurd, when Christ shows such care for his little ones, that we should refuse to care for them? Do not say: "He is one person." Rather, you must say: "He is one, yes, but if we do not take care of him, he will spread the disease to the rest." Paul said: "A little leaven ferments the whole mass." And our neglect of the little ones is what overturns and destroys everything. Neglected wounds become serious, just as the serious wounds would easily become minor if they receive the proper care.
(6) Moreover, the first thing I have to say to the Judaizers is that nothing is worse than contentiousness and fighting, than tearing the Church asunder and rending into many parts the robe which the robbers did not dare to rip. Are not all the other heresies enough without our tearing each other apart? You must listen to Paul when he says: "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed or you will be consumed by one another."
(7) Tell me this. Do you stray outside the flock and have you no fear of the lion that prowls about outside the fold? "For your enemy, like a lion, goes about seeking whom he may seize." Here you see a shepherd's wisdom. He does not let the lion in among the sheep for fear the lion may terrify the flock. Nor does he drive the lion away from outside the fold. Why? So that he may gather all the sheep together inside the fold, because they are afraid of the wild beast outside. Do you have no reverence and respect for your father? Then fear your foe. If you separate yourself from the flock, your enemy will surely catch you.
(8) Christ, too, could have driven the enemy away from the outside of the fold. But to make you sober and watchful, to make you constantly run to your Mother for refuge, he permitted him to roar outside the fold. Why did he do this? So that when those within the fold hear his roar, they may take refuge together and be more closely bound to one another. Mothers who love their children also do this: when their children cry, they often threaten to throw them to the jaws of the wolves. Of course, they would not throw them to the wolves but they say they will to stop the children from bothering them. Everything Christ did was done to keep us bound together and living at peace with one another.
II
And so it was that Paul could have accused the Corinthians of many great crimes but lie accused them of contentiousness before any other. He could have accused them of fornication, of pride, of taking their quarrels to the pagan courts, of banquets in the shrines of idols. He could have charged that the women did not veil their heads and that the men did. Over and above all tiffs, he could have accused them of neglecting the poor, of the pride they took in their charismatic gifts, and in the matter of the resurrection of the body. But since, along with these, he could also find fault with them because of their dissensions and quarrels with one another, he passed over all the other crimes, and corrected their contentiousness first.
(2) If you will not think I am making a nuisance of myself on this point, I shall clarify it from Paul's own words. He did give top priority to correcting the Corinthians' obstinacy and contentiousness. And he did this even though he could charge them with all those other crimes. Hear what he says about their fornication: "It is actually reported that there is lewd conduct among you." That they were puffed up and proud: "As if I were not coming to you, some are puffed up." Again, that they would plead their cases in the pagan courts: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, bring your case to be judged before unbelievers?" That they ate meat offered to idols: "You cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils." Hear his words of reproach for the women who do not veil their heads and the men who do. "Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered, disgraces her head. He showed that they neglected the poor when he said: "One is hungry and another drinks overmuch. And again: "or do you despise the church of God and put to shame the needy?" When they were all jumping for the more important charismatic gifts and no one was satisfied with the less important, he said: "Are all apostles? Are all prophets?" We can conclude that they were raising doubts about the resurrection because he says: "But someone will say: 'How do the dead rise? Or with what kind of body do they come?"
(3) Although he could make so many accusations, his first charge against the Corinthians was dissension and contentiousness. At the very beginning of his letter he said: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no dissensions among you." For he knew, he knew clearly, that this problem was more urgent than the others. If the fornicator, or the braggart. or a man in the grip of any other vice comes frequently to the church, he will quickly draw profit from the instruction, thrust aside his sin, and return to health.
(4) But when a man has broken away from this assembly, when he has withdrawn from the instruction of the fathers, when he has fled from the physician's clinic, even if he appears to be in good health, lie will soon fall sick? The best physicians first quench the fires of fever and then cure the wounds and fractures. That is what Paul did. He first removed the dissension and then cured their wounds limb by limb. And so lie spoke of dissension before the other sins, so that the Corinthians would not stand apart in strife, so that they would not choose the leaders whom they should follow, so that they would not divide up the body of Christ into many parts?
(5) But he was talking not only to the Corinthians; he was also speaking to those who would come after them and suffer from the same Corinthian disease. I would be glad to ask those of us who are sick with this illness: What is the Pasch; what is Lent? What belongs to the Jews: what belongs to us? Why does their Pasch come once each year; why do we celebrate ours each time we gather to celebrate the mysteries? What does the feast of unleavened bread mean? And I would like to ask them many more questions which contribute to understanding this subject.
(6) If I were to ask them, you would then clearly know how untimely the contentiousness of these men is. They cannot explain what they do. But they refuse to ask anybody, just as if they were wiser than anybody else. They deserve the strongest condemnation because they do not have the answers themselves, but they refuse to follow those who have been appointed to lead them. They have simply risked all they have on this silly practice and are throwing themselves head first down into the depths of danger.
III
When I have this to say against them, what argument of theirs will seem clever? They ask: "Did you not observe this fast before?" It is not your place to say this to me, but I would be justified in telling you that we, too, fasted at this time in earlier days, but still we put more importance on peace than on the observance of dates. And I say to you what Paul said to the Galatians: "Become like me, because I also have become like you." What does this mean? He was urging them to renounce circumcision, to scorn the Sabbath, the feast days, and all the other observances of the Law. When he saw they were frightened and afraid that they might be subjected to chastisement and punishment for their transgression, he gave them courage by the example of his own actions when he said: "Become like me, because I also have become like you."
(2) For, he said, I did not come from the Gentiles, did l? I was not without experience of the Jewish way of life under the Law and the punishment set for those who transgress it, was I? "I am a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as regards the Law, a Pharisee; as regards zeal, a persecutor of the Church. But the things that were gain to me, these, for the sake of Christ, l counted loss." That is, once and for all I stood aloof from them. Therefore, become like me, for I, too, was as you are.
(3) But why do I speak on my own account? Three hundred Fathers or even more gathered together in the land of Bithynia and ordained this by law; yet you disdain their decrees. You must choose one of two courses: either you charge them with ignorance for their want of exact knowledge on this matter, or you charge them with cowardice because they were not ignorant, but played the hypocrite and betrayed the truth. When you do not abide by what they decreed, this is exactly the choice you must make. But all the events of the Council make it clear that they showed great wisdom and courage at that time. The article of faith they set forth at the Council show how wise they were, because they blocked up the mouths of heretics and, like an impregnable wall, they repelled the treachery of every hostile attack. They proved their courage during the war waged on the Churches and the persecution which had but lately come to an end.
(4) Like champions in battle who have set up many memorials of victory and have suffered many wounds, so, too, these champions of the Churches, who could count the many tortures they had endured for their confession of the faith, came together from every side, bearing on their bodies the marks of Christ's wounds. Some could tell of their hardships in the mines, others of the confiscation of all their possessions, and still others of starvation and continuous floggings. Some could show where the flesh had been torn from their ribs, some where their backs had been broken, some where their eyes had been dug out, and still others where they had lost some other part of their bodies for the sake of Christ. At that time the whole synodal gathering, welded together from these champions, along with their definition of what Christians must believe, also passed a decree that they celebrate the paschal feast in harmony together. They refused to betray their faith in those most difficult times [of persecution]; would they sink to pretense and deceit on the question of the Easter observance?
(5) Look what you do when you condemn Fathers so great, so courageous, so wise. If the Pharisee lost all the blessings he possessed because he condemned the publican, what excuse will you have, what defense will you make for rising up against these great teachers beloved of God, especially since your attack is so unjust and irrational? Did you not hear Christ himself say: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them? But if Christ is in their midst where two or three are gathered together, was not his presence all the more pervasive among the more than three hundred Fathers at Nicaea? Christ was present there, it was Christ who formulated and passed the laws. Yet you condemn not only the Council Fathers but the whole world which approved their judgment.
(6) Do you consider that the Jews are wiser than the Fathers who came from everywhere in the world? How can you do that when the Jews have been driven from their ancestral commonwealth and way of life and have no sacred festival to celebrate? I hear many say that the Pasch and the feast of unleavened bread are one. But there is no feast of unleavened bread among them, nor is there a Pasch. Why is there no feast of unleavened bread among them? Hear the words of the Lawgiver: "You may not sacrifice the Passover in any one of the cities which the Lord your God gives you, but only in the place in which His name shall be invoked." And Moses was here speaking of Jerusalem.
(7) Do you see how God confined the festival to one city, and later destroyed the city so that, even if it was against their wills, he might lead them away from that way of life? Surely, it is clear to everybody that God foresaw what would come to pass. Why, then, did he bring them together to that land from all over the world if he foresaw that their city would be destroyed? Is it not very obvious that he did this because he wished to bring their ritual to an end? God did bring the ritual to an end, but you go along with the Jews, of whom the prophet said: "Who is blind but my children, or deaf but those who lord it over them?"
(8) And against whom did they show their want of sense and feeling? Was it not against the apostles, the prophets, and their teachers? Why must I mention teachers and prophets when they slaughtered their own children? For they did sacrifice their sons and daughters to demons. When they ignored the voice of nature, were they going to observe the festival days? Tell me this. Did they not trample kinship under foot, did they not forget their children, did they not forget the very God who created them? Moses said: "You have forsaken the God that begot you, and have forgotten the God that nurtured you." Were they going to keep the festivals after they had forsaken God? Who could say that?
(9) Christ did keep the Pasch with them. Yet he did not do so with the idea that we should keep the Pasch with them. He did so that he might bring the reality to what foreshadowed the reality. He also submitted to circumcision, kept the Sabbath, observed the festival days, and ate the unleavened bread. But He did all these things in Jerusalem. However, we are subject to none of these things, and on this Paul spoke out loud and clear: "If you be circumcised, Christ shall be of no advantage to you." And again, speaking of the feast of unleavened bread, he said: "Therefore let us keep festival, not with the old leaven, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." For our unleavened bread is not a mixed flour but an uncorrupted and virtuous way of life.
IV
Why did Christ keep the Pasch at that time? The old Pasch was a type of the Pasch to come, and the reality had to supplant the type. So Christ first showed the foreshadowing and then brought the reality to the banquet table. Once the reality has come, the type which foreshadowed it is henceforth lost in its own shadow and no longer fills the need. So do not keep pleading this excuse, but show me that Christ did command us to observe the old Pasch. I am showing you quite the opposite. I am showing you that Christ not only did not command us to keep the festival days but even freed us from the obligation to do so.
(2) Hear what Paul had to say. And when I speak of Paul, I mean Christ; for it is Christ who moved Paul's soul to speak. What, then, did Paul say? "You are observing days, and months, and seasons, and years. I fear for you, lest perhaps I have labored in vain among you." And again: "As often as you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord." When he said: "As often as," Paul gave the right and power to decide this to those who approach the mysteries, and freed them from any obligation to observe the festival days.
(3) Now our Pasch and Lent are not one and the same thing: the Pasch is one thing, Lent another. Lent comes once each year; our Pasch is celebrated three times each week, sometimes even four times, or rather as often as we wish. For the Pasch is not a fast but the offering and sacrifice which is celebrated at each religions service That you may know that this is true, listen to Paul when he says: "For Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed," and again: "As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord.
(4) So as often as you approach the sacrificial banquet with a clean conscience, you celebrate the Pasch. You celebrate it not when you fast but when you share in that sacrifice. "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord." Our Pasch is the proclamation of the Lord's death. The sacrifice which we offer today, that which was offered yesterday, and each day's sacrifice is alike and the same as the sacrifice offered on that Sabbath day; the sacrifice offered on that Sabbath is no more solemn than today's, nor is today's of less value than that; they are one and the same, alike filled with awe and salvation.
(5) Why, then, do we fast for forty days? In the past, and especially at the time when Christ entrusted to us these sacred mysteries, many a man approached the sacrificial banquet without thought or preparation. Since the Fathers realized that it was harmful for a person to approach the mysteries in this heedless fashion, they came together and marked out forty days for people to fast, pray, and gather together to hear the word of God. Their purpose was that we might all scrupulously purify ourselves during tiffs time by our prayers. almsgiving, fasting, vigils tears, confessions, and all the other pious practices. so that we might approach the mysteries with our consciences made as clean as we could make them.
(6) And they did well when they came to our aid and established for us the practice of this Lenten fast. This is clear because, if we keep shouting and proclaiming a fast the whole year through, no one listens to what we say. But as soon as the season of Lent draws near, even the laziest of men rouses himself, even though no one counsels or advises him. Why? He gets advice and counsel from the season of Lent.
(7) So if a Jew or pagan ask you why you are fasting, do not tell him that it is because of the Pasch or because of the mystery of the cross. If you tell him that, you give him an ample grip upon you. Tell him we fast because of our sins and because we are going to approach the mysteries. The Pasch is not a reason for fasting or grief; it is a reason for cheerfulness and joy. The cross has taken away sin; it was an expiation for the world. a reconciliation for the ancient enmity. It opened the gates of heaven, changed those who hated into friends; it took our human nature, led it up to heaven, and seated it at the right hand of God's throne. And it brought to us ten thousand other blessings.
(8) There is no need, then, to grieve or be downcast: we must rejoice and glory in all these things. This is why Paul said: "But God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." And again: "But God commends his charity towards us, because when as yet we were sinners, Christ died for us." John put it like this: "God so loved the world. Tell me, how did God love the world? John passed over all the other signs of God's love and put the cross in first place. For after he said: "God so loved the world," he said: "That he gave his only-begotten Son," that he be crucified, "that those who believe in him may not perish but may have life everlasting." If, then, the cross is the basis and boast of love, let us not say that it is a cause for grief. Heaven forbid that we grieve because of the cross. We grieve for our sins, and this is why we fast.
V
Although the catechumen keeps the fast each year, lie does not celebrate the Pasch since he does not share in the sacrifice. But even though a man is not observing the Lenten fast, he does celebrate the Pasch as long as lie comes to the altar with a clean conscience and shares in the sacrifice-whether it be today, tomorrow, or any day whatsoever. The best time to approach the mysteries is determined by the purity of a man's conscience and not by his observance of suitable seasons.
(2) Yet we do just the opposite. We fail to cleanse our conscience and, even though we are burdened with ten thousand sins, we consider that we have celebrated the Pasch as long as we approach the mysteries on that feast day. But this is certainly not the case. If you approach the altar on the very day of the Sabbath and your conscience be bad, you fail to share in the mysteries and you leave without celebrating the Pasch. But if you wash away your sins and share in the mysteries today, you do celebrate the Pasch in precisely the proper way.
(3) Therefore you must safeguard this exactness and vigor of spirit, not in the observance of the proper times but in your approach to the altar. Now you would elect to endure all things rather than change this practice. So, too, you must disdain it and choose to do or suffer anything so as not to approach the mysteries when you are burdened with sins.
(4) Be sure that God takes no account of such observance of special seasons. Hear him as he passes judgment on those at his right hand: "You saw me hungry and gave me to eat; you saw me thirsty and gave me to drink; you saw me naked and you covered me." But he charged with quite different conduct those on his left hand. At another time he brought forward another man in a parable and castigated him because He remembered the evil the man had done. For he said: "You wicked servant, I forgave you all the debt. Should not you then have had compassion also on your fellow servant, even as I had compassion on you?" Again, when the virgins had no oil in their lamps, he locked them out of the bride chamber. And he cast out another man who came into the feast without a wedding garment because this man was garbed in filthy clothes and was wearing the cloak of his fornication and uncleanness, But no one was ever punished or accused because he observed the Pasch in this or that month.
(5) But why speak of ourselves since we have been set free from all such necessity? We are citizens of a city above in heaven, where there are no months, no sun, no moon, no circle of seasons. If you wish to give exact attention to the matter, you will see that, even among the Jews, little account was made of the season of the Pasch, but they cared greatly about the place for it, namely, Jerusalem. Some men came up to Moses and said to him: "We are unclean through touching the dead body of a man. How shall we avoid failing ill the Lord's offering?" He said to them: "Wait here and let me report it to God." Then, after he reported it, he brought back the law which says: "If any man be unclean through touching a dead body, or be afar on a journey and be unable to keep the Pasch in the first month, he shall keep it in the second."
(6) And so is not the observance of the time annulled among the Jews so that the Pasch may be observed in Jerusalem? Will you not show greater concern for the harmony of the Church than for the season? So that you may seem to be observing the proper days, will you outrage the common Mother of us all and will you cut asunder the Holy Synod? How could you deserve pardon when you choose to commit sins so enormous for no good reason?
(7) But why must I speak of the Jews? No matter how eagerly and earnestly we wish it, it is not altogether possible for us to observe that day on which He was crucified. This will make it clear. Let us suppose the Jews had not sinned, that they were not hard of heart, nor senseless, nor indifferent, nor despisers; suppose they had not fallen from their ancestral way of life but were still carefully observing it. Even if this was the case, we could not, by following in their footsteps, put our finger on the very day on which He was crucified and fulfilled the Pasch. Let me tell how this is the case. When He was crucified it was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread and the day of preparation.
(8) But it is not possible for both of these to fall always on the same day. This year the first day of the feast of unleavened bread falls on Sunday, and the fast must still last for a whole week; According to this, after Passiontide, after the cross and resurrection have come and gone, we are still fasting. And it has often happened that, after the cross and resurrection, our fast is still being observed because the week is not yet over. This is why no observance of the exact time is possible.
VI
Let us not quarrel, let us not say: "After fasting these many years, am I to change now?" Change for that very reason. Since you have been so long severed from the Church, come back now to your Mother. No one says: "After I lived as her enemy so long a time, I am ashamed to be reconciled now." You have grounds for shame if you do not change for the better but persist in your untimely contentiousness. That is what destroyed the Jews. While they always kept looking for the old customs and life, these were stripped from them and they turned to impiety.
(2) But why do I speak of fasting and the observance of special days? Paul continued to observe the Law and to endure many a toil; he patiently put up with many journeys and hardships; he surpassed all his contemporaries in the exact observance of that way of life. But after he achieved the heights of that life and came to realize that he was doing all this for his own hurt and destruction, he immediately changed. He did not say to himself: "What is this? Am I to lose the reward for this great zeal of mine? Am I to waste all this work?" Rather he was the quicker to change for the very reason that he might continue to suffer that loss. He scorned justification by the Law so that he might receive the justification of faith. And so he loudly proclaimed: "The things that were gain to me I have counted as loss for Christ. And Christ said: "If you offer your gift at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has anything against you, go first and be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift."
(3) What do you mean? If your brother has something against you, Christ does not permit you to offer your sacrifice until you are reconciled to your brother. When you have the whole Church and so many Fathers against you, do you have the hardihood to dare to approach the divine mysteries before you put aside that unseemly enmity? Since this is the way you feel, how could you celebrate the Pasch?
(4) I say this not only to those who are sick but also to you who are in good health. When you who are well see how many are sick, you will show them great care and kindness, you will pick them out, gather them together, and bring them back to their Mother. Whatever they say against us, however they jump at us, no matter what else they do to us, we must not grow weary and stop until we win them back. For there is nothing comparable to peace and harmony.
(5) It is for this reason that, when the Father enters the church, he does not mount to this chair until he has prayed for all of you; when he rises from this chair, he does not begin his instruction until he has first given the peace to all. And when the priests are going to give the blessing, they first pray for peace for you and then begin the blessing.
(6) And when the deacon bids you to pray all together, he also enjoins you in his prayer to ask for the Angel of Peace, and that everything which concerns you be blessed with peace. As he dismisses you from the assembly, he petitions [peace] for you and says: "Go in peace." And without this peace, it is altogether impossible for us to say or do anything. For peace is our nurse and mother. she is very careful to cherish us and foster us. I am not speaking of what is merely called by the name of peace, nor of the peace which comes from sharing meals together, but of the peace which accords with God, the peace which comes from the harmony sent by the Spirit. Many are now tearing this peace asunder by destroying us and exalting the Jews. These men consider the Jews as more trustworthy teachers than their own Fathers; they believe the account of Christ's passion and death which is given by those who slew Him. What could be more unreasonable than this?
(7) Do you not see that their Passover is the type, while our Pasch is the truth? Look at the tremendous difference between them. The Passover prevented bodily death: whereas the Pasch quelled God's anger against the whole world; the Passover of old freed the Jews from Egypt, while the Pasch has set us free from idolatry; the Passover drowned the Pharaoh, but the Pasch drowned the devil; after the Passover came Palestine, but after the Pasch will come heaven.
(8) Why, then, do you sit beside a lamp after the sun has appeared? Why do you wish to nourish yourself on milk when solid food is being given to you? You were nourished with milk so that you might not remain satisfied with milk: the lamp shone for you that it might guide you and lead you by the hand into the light of the sun. Now that the era of more perfect things has come, let us not run back to the former times, let us not observe the days and seasons and years: rather, let us everywhere be careful to follow the Church by paying heed to charity and peace before all things.
(9) Suppose the Church were to be tripped up and fall. The accurate computation of dates would not succeed in making her slip as much as this division and schism would deserve the blame. But I make no account of the exact date, since God makes no account of it, as I proved when I devoted many discourses to this subject. But the one thing I seek is that we do all things in peace and concord. If we do so, you will not stay home and get drunk while we are fasting with the rest of the people, and the priests are praying together for the whole world.
(10) Note well that this is of the devil's doing and that it is not a single sin, nor two, nor three, but far more than three. It cuts you off from the flock, it makes you ready to hold so many Fathers in scorn, it hurls you into contentiousness, it thrusts you over to the Jews, and furthermore it makes you a scandal both to your own family and to strangers. How can we blame the Jews for waiting for you in their houses when it is you who go running to them?
(11) These sins are not the only problem. During those days of the fast great harm could come to you from your failure to take advantage of the Scripture readings, the religious meetings in the church, the blessing, and the prayers said in common. Great harm could come to you while you and your bad conscience are spending tiffs whole time in fear and dread that, like some foreigner or stranger, you may be caught ill your sinful act. And during all this time, in common with the Church, you should be discharging all your religious duties in a spirit of confidence, pleasure, good cheer, and full freedom.
(12) The Church does not recognize the exact observance of dates. In the beginning the Fathers decided to come together from widely separated places and to flux the Easter date; the Church paid respect to the harmony of their thinking. loved their oneness of mind, and accepted the date they enjoined. My earlier remarks have proved adequately that it is impossible for us or you or any other man to arrive at the exact date of the Lord's day. So let us stop fighting with shadows, let us stop hurting ourselves in the big things while we are indulging our rivalry over the small.
(13) Fasting at tiffs or that time is not a matter for blame. But to rend asunder the Church, to be ready for rivalry, to create dissension, to rob oneself continuously of the benefits of religious meetings-these are unpardonable, these do demand an accounting, these do deserve serious punishment.
(14) I could have said much more than this. What I have said is enough for those who heed me; those who fail to heed my words will not be helped even if I should have much more to say. So let me finish my discourse at this point. and let us all pray together that our brothers come back to us. Let us pray that they cling fondly to peace and stand apart from untimely rivalry. Let us pray that they scorn this sluggish spirit of theirs and find a great and lofty understanding. Let us pray that they be set free from this observance of days so that all of us, with one heart and with one voice, may give glory to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power now and forever, world without end. Amen.
This material was uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2011, and derives from a translation of unknown origin formerly hosted at the Medieval Sourcebook. This file and all material on this page is believed to be in the public domain. For more details see the preface to the online edition.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_04_homily .htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 4
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 4
HOMILY IV Against the Jews and the trumpets of their Pasch
Delivered at Antioch in the Great Church
AGAIN THE JEWS, the most miserable and wretched of all men, are going to fast, and again we must make secure the flock of Christ. As long as no wild beast disturbs the flock, shepherds, as they stretch out under an oak or pine tree and play their flutes, let their sheep go off to graze with full freedom. But when the shepherds feel that the wolves will raid, they are quick to throw down the flute and pick up their slingshots; they cast aside the pipe of reeds and arm themselves with clubs and stones. They take their stand in front of the flock, raise a loud and piercing shout, and oftentimes the sound of their shout drives the wolf away before he strikes.
(2) I, too, in the past, frolicked about in explicating the Scriptures, as if I were sporting in some meadow; I took no part in polemics because there was no one causing me concern. But today the Jews, who are more dangerous than any wolves, are bent on surrounding my sheep; so I must spar with them and fight with them so that no sheep of mine may fall victim to those wolves.
(3) That fast will not be upon us for ten days or more. But do not be surprised that from today on I am taking up my tools and building a fence around your souls. This is what the hard-working farmer does. When he has a rushing stream nearby which may wash away the fields he has tilled, he does not wait for winter. Long beforehand he fences in the banks, builds tip dikes, digs ditches, and makes every preparation against the flood. While the stream runs quietly and is low in its bed, it is a simpler matter to restrain it; when it has become swollen and is swept along with a violent rush of waters, it is no longer so simple to oppose the flood. And so it is that long beforehand the farmer anticipates the surge of the torrent and contrives by every means to keep his fields secure in every way.
(4) As well as farmers, every soldier, sailor, and reaper makes it a practice to prepare ahead. Before the hour of battle, the soldier cleans off his breastplate, examines his shield, makes ready the bridle and bit, feeds and cares for his horse, and sees to it that he is well prepared in every way. Before the sailor launches his ship into the harbor's waters, he prepares the keel, repairs the sides, hews and shapes the oars, stitches together the sails, and makes ready all the other equipment of his ship. Many days before the harvest, the reaper sharpens his sickle. gets ready the threshing-floor, his oxen, his wagon, and everything else which may help him in the harvest. Indeed you can see men everywhere making preparations for their business beforehand so that, when the time does come, it is an easy matter for them to carry on their enterprise.
(5) I am following the example of these men. Many days beforehand I am making your souls secure by exhorting you to flee from that accursed and unlawful fast. Do not tell me that the Jews are fasting; prove to me that it is God's will that they fast. If it be not God's will, then their fasting is more unlawful than any drunkenness? For we must not only look at what they do but we must also seek out the reason why they do it.
(6) What is done in accordance with God's will is the best of all things even if it seems to be bad. What is done contrary to God's will and decree is the worst and most unlawful of all things-even if men judge that it is very good. Suppose someone slays another in accordance with God's will. This slaying is better than any loving-kindness. Let someone spare another and show him great love and kindness against God's decree. To spare the other's life would be more unholy than any slaying. For it is God's will and not the nature of things that makes the same actions good or bad.
II
Listen to me so that you may learn that this is true. Ahab once captured a king of Syria and, contrary to God's decree, saved his life. He had the Syrian king enjoy a seat by his side and sent him off with great honor. About that time a prophet came to his companion and "said to him: 'In the word of the Lord, strike me.' But his companion was not willing to strike him. And the prophet said to him: 'Because you would not hearken to the word of the Lord, behold, you will depart from me and a lion will strike you.' And he departed from him, and the lion found him and struck him. Then the prophet found another man and said: 'Strike me.' And the man did strike him and wounded him, and the prophet bandaged up his face."
(2) What greater paradox than this could there be? The man who struck the prophet was saved; the one who spared the prophet was punished. Why? That you may learn that, when God commands, you must not question too much the nature of the action; you have only to obey. So that the first man might not spare him out of reverence, the prophet did not simply say: "Strike me" but said: "Strike me in the word of God. That is, God commands it; seek no further. It is the King who ordains it; reverence the rank of him who commands and with all eagerness heed his word. But the man lacked the courage to strike him and, on this account, he paid the ultimate penalty. But by the punishment he subsequently suffered, he encourages us to yield and obey God's every command.
(3) But after the second man had struck and wounded him, the prophet bound his own head with a bandage, covered his eyes, and disguised himself. Wily did he do this? He was going to accuse the king and condemn him for saving the life of the king of the Syrians. Is Now Ahab was an impious man and always a foe to the prophets. The prophet did not wish Ahab to recognize him and then drive him from his sight; if the king drove him away, he would not hear the prophet's words of correction. So the prophet concealed his face and any statement of his business in the hope that this would give him the advantage when he did speak and that he might get the king to agree to the terms he wanted.
(4) "When the king was passing by, the prophet called aloud to him and said: 'Your servant went forth to the campaign of war. Behold, a man brought another man to me and said to me: "Guard this man for me. If he shall leap away and bound off, it will be your life for his life, or you will pay a talent of silver." And it happened that as your servant turned his eyes this way and that, the man was not there.' And the king of Israel said to him: 'This is your judgment before me: You slew the man.' And the prophet hurried to take the bandage from his eyes, and the king of Israel recognized that he was one of the sons of the prophets. And he said to the king: 'So says the Lord: "Because you let go from your hand a man worthy of death, it will be your life for his life, and your people for his people.'....
(5) Do you see how not only God but men make this kind of judgment because both God and men heed the end and the causes rather than the nature of what is done? Certainly even the king said to him: "This is your judgment before me: you slew the man." You are a murderer, he said, because you let an enemy go. The prophet put on the bandage and presented the case as if it were not the king but somebody else on trial, so that the king might pass the proper sentence. And, in fact, this did happen. For after the king condemned him, the prophet tore off the bandage and said: "Because you let go from your hand a man worthy of death, it will be your life for his life, and your people for his people."
(6) Did you see what a penalty the king paid for his act of kindness? And what punishment he endured in return for his untimely sparing of his foe? The one who spared a life is punished; another, who slew a man, was held in esteem. Phinehas certainly slew two people in a single moment of time-a man and his wife; and after he slew them, he was given the honor of the priesthood. His act of bloodshed did not defile his hands; it even made them cleaner.
(7) So you see that he who struck the prophet goes free, while he who refused to strike him perishes; you see that he who spared a man's life is punished, while he who refused to spare a life is held in esteem. Therefore, always look into the decrees of God before you consider the nature of your own actions. Whenever you find something which accords with His decree, approve that-and only that.
III
Let us examine the matter of fasting and apply this rule to it. Suppose we should not apply this rule but merely take the act of fasting and consider it with no reference to anything else. The result will be great tumult and confusion. It is true that highwaymen, grave-robbers, and sorcerers have their sides torn to pieces; it is also true that the martyrs undergo this same suffering. What is done is the same, but the purpose and reason why it is done is different. And so it is that there is a great difference between the criminals and martyrs.
(2) In these cases we not only consider the torture but we first look for the intention and the reasons why the torture is inflicted. And this is why we love the martyrs-not because they are tortured but because they are tortured for the sake of Christ. But we turn our backs on the robbers-not because they are being punished but because they are being punished for their wickedness.
(3) So, too, in the matter of fasting, you must pass a judgment. If you see people fasting for the sake of God, approve what they do; if you see that they do this against God's will, turn your back on them and hate them more than you do those who drink, revel, and carouse. And in the case of this fasting we must inquire not only into the reason for fasting but we must consider also the place and the time.
(4) But before I draw up my battle line against the Jews, I will be glad to talk to those who are members of our own body, those who seem to belong to our ranks although they observe the Jewish rites and make every effort to defend them. Because they do this, as I see it, they deserve a stronger condemnation than any Jew. Not only the wise and intelligent but even those with little reason and understanding would agree with me in this. I need no clever arguments, no rhetorical devices, no prolix periodic sentences to prove this. It is enough to ask them a few simple questions and then trap them by their answers.
(5) What, then, are the questions? I will ask each one who is sick with this disease: Are you a Christian? Why, then, this zeal for Jewish practices? Are you a Jew? Why then, are you making trouble for the Church? Does not a Persian side with the Persians? Is not a barbarian eager for what concerns the barbarians? Will a man who lives in the Roman empire not follow our laws and way of life? Tell me this. If ever anyone living among us is caught in collusion siding with the barbarians, is he not immediately punished? He is given neither hearing nor examination, even if he has ten thousand arguments in his own defense. If ever anyone living among the barbarians is clearly following Roman custom and law, again, will he not suffer the same punishment? How, then, do you expect to be saved by defecting to that unlawful way of life?
(6) The difference between the Jews and us in not a small one, is it? Is the dispute between us over ordinary, everyday matters, so that you think the two religions are really one and the same? Why are you mixing what cannot be mixed? They crucified the Christ whom you adore as God. Do you see how great the difference is? How is it, then, that you keep running to those who slew Christ when you say that you worship him whom they crucified? You do not think, do you, that I am the one who brings up the law on which these charges are based, nor that I make up the form which the accusation takes? Does not the Scripture treat the Jews in this way?
(7) Hear what Jeremiah says against those same Jews: "Go off to Kedar and see; send off to the islands of the Kittim and find out if such things have happened. What things? "If the gentiles will change their gods, and indeed they are not gods, but you have changed your glory and from it you will derive no profit." He did not say: "You have changed your God," but, "your glory." What he means is this. Those who worship idols and serve demons are so unshaken in their errors that they choose not to abandon them nor desert them for the truth. But you, who worship the true God, have cast aside the religion of your fathers and have gone over to strange ways of worship. You did not show the same firmness in regard to the truth that they did in regard to their error. That is why Jeremiah says: "Find out if such things have happened, if the gentiles will change their gods, and indeed they are not gods; but you have changed your glory and from it you will derive no profit." He did not say: "You have changed your God," for God does not change. But he did say: "You have changed your glory." You did no harm to me, God says, because no harm has come to me. But you did dishonor yourselves. You did not make my glory less, but you did diminish your own.
(8) Let me also say this to those who are our own-if I must call our own those who side with the Jews. Go to the synagogues and see if the Jews have changed their fast; see if they kept the pre-Paschal fast with us; see if they have taken food on that day. But theirs is not a fast; it is a transgression of the law, it is a sin, it is trespassing. Yet they did not change. But you did change your glory and from it you will derive no profit; you did go over to their rites.
(9) Did the Jews ever observe our pre-Paschal fast? Did they ever join us in keeping the feast of the martyrs? Did they ever share with us the day of the Epiphanies? They do not run to the truth, but you rush to transgression. I call it a transgression because their observances do not occur at the proper time. Once there was a proper time when they had to follow those observances, but now there is not. That is why what was once according to the Law is now opposed to it.
IV
Let me say what Elijah said against the Jews. He saw the unholy life the Jews were living: at one time they paid heed to God, at another they worshipped idols. So he spoke some such words as these: "How long will you limp on both legs? If the Lord our God is with you, come, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him." Let me, too, now say this against these Judaizing Christians. If you judge that Judaism is the true religion, why are you causing trouble to the Church? But if Christianity is the true faith, as it really is, stay in it and follow it. Tell me this. Do you share with us in the mysteries, do you worship Christ as a Christian, do you ask him for blessings, and do you then celebrate the festival with his foes? With what purpose, then, do you come to the church?
(2) I have said enough against those who say they are on our side but are eager to follow the Jewish rites. Since it is against the Jews that I wish to draw up my battle line, let me extend my instruction further. Let me show that, by fasting now, the Jews dishonor the law and trample underfoot God's commands because they are always doing everything contrary to his decrees. When God wished them to fast, they got fat and flabby? When God does not wish them to fast, they get obstinate and do fast; when he wished them to offer sacrifices. they rushed off to idols; when he does not wish them to celebrate the feast days, they are all eager to observe them.
(3) This is why Stephen said to them: "You always oppose the Holy Spirit." This is the one thing, he says, in which you show your zeal: in doing the opposite to what God has commanded. And they are still doing that today. What makes this clear? The Law itself. In the case of the Jewish festivals the Law demanded observance not only of the tune but also the place. In speaking about this feast of the Passover, the Law says to them something such as this: "You will not be able to keep the Passover in any of the cities which the Lord your God gives to you." The Law bids them keep the feast on the fourteenth day of the first month and in the city of Jerusalem. The Law also narrowed down the time and place for the observance of Pentecost, when it commanded them to celebrate the feast after seven weeks, and again, when it stated: "In the place which the Lord your God chooses." So also the Law fixed the feast of Tabernacles.
(4) Now let us see which of the two, time or place, is more necessary, even though neither the one nor the other has the power to save. Must we scorn the place but observe the time? Or should we scorn the time and keep the place? What I mean is something such as this. The Law commanded that the Passover be held in the first month and in Jerusalem, at a prescribed time and in a prescribed place. Let us suppose that there are two men keeping the Passover. Suppose one of them neglects the place but observes the time; suppose the other observes the place but neglects the time. Let the one who observes the time but neglects the place celebrate the Passover in the first month, but far away from Jerusalem; and let the one who observes the place but neglects the time celebrate the feast in Jerusalem but in the second month instead of the first.
(5) Next, let us see which of these two is charged and accused, and which receives approval and esteem. Will it be the one who transgressed in the matter of time but observed the place, or the one who neglected the place but observed the time? If the man who transgressed about the time so as to celebrate the feast in Jerusalem clearly deserves esteem, but the one who observed the time while neglecting the place deserves to be charged and accused for his impious action it is quite obvious that those who do not keep the Passover in the proper place are transgressing the Law, even if they maintain a thousand times over that they are observing the proper time.
(6) Who will make this clear to us? Moses himself. As he tells it, even after some men had observed the Passover outside Jerusalem, "they came up to Moses and said: 'We are unclean through touching the body of a dead man. We should not fail to offer the Lord's offering at its proper time among the sons of Israel, should we'?.' And Moses said to them: 'Stay here and I shall listen to what the Lord will command in your regard.' And the Lord spoke to Moses and said: 'Speak to the sons of Israel and say: "If any man be unclean through the body of a dead man, or if he be afar off oil a journey, whether he be one of you or of your descendants, he shall keep the Pasch in the second month.'....
(7) He means something such as this. If anyone be away from home in the first month. let him not keep the Passover outside the city: but let him return to Jerusalem and keep it in the second month. Let him disregard the time so as not to fail in the matter of the city. In this way he shows that observance of the place is more necessary than observance of the time.
(8) But what could the Jews say if they observe the Passover outside the city of Jerusalem? Since they transgress in the more necessary matter of place, their observance in the less important matter of time cannot be urged in their defense. The result is that they are guilty of the worst transgression of the Law, even if it is obvious a thousand times over that they are not neglecting the matter of time.
(9) This is certain not only from what I have said but also from the prophets. What excuse would the Jews of today have when it is clear that the Jews of old never offered sacrifice, nor sang hymns in an alien land, nor did they observe any such fasts as they do today? To be sure, the Jews of old were expecting to recover the way of life in which they could observe these rituals. Therefore, they remained obedient to the Law and did what it commanded, for the Law told them to expect this. But the Jews of today have no hope of recovering their forefathers' way of life. In what prophet can they find proof that they will? They have no hope, but they cannot bear to give up these practices. And yet, even if they were expecting to recover the old way of life, even so they ought to be imitating those holy men of old by neither fasting nor observing any other such ritual.
V
To prove to you that the Jews in exile observed none of these rituals, hear what they said to those who asked them to do so. For their barbarian captors were urging them by force and demand to play their musical instruments. "Sing to us a hymn of the Lord," they said. But the Jews clearly understood that the Law commanded them not to do so. Therefore, they said: "How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a strange land?" And, again, the three boys who were captives in Babylon said; "At this time we have no prince or prophet nor place to offer sacrifice in your sight and find mercy." Certainly there was much room for a place of sacrifice in the country, but since the temple was not there, they steadfastly refrained from offering sacrifice.
(2) And again God spoke to his people through the lips of Zechariah: "For these seventy years you have not kept a fast for me, have you? He was speaking of the captivity. Tell me. By what right, then, do you Jews fast today, when your ancestors neither offered sacrifices, nor fasted, nor kept the feasts? And this makes it especially clear that they did not observe the Passover. Where there was no sacrifice, there no festival was held, because all the feasts had to be celebrated with a sacrifice.
(3) Let me provide proof for this very point. Listen to the words of Daniel: "In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate not desirable bread, and neither flesh nor wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself with ointment in those weeks. And it came to pass on the twenty-fourth day of the first month that I saw the vision. Pay careful heed to me here, for this text makes it clear that they did not observe the Passover. Let me tell you how this is. The Jews were not permitted to fast during the days of the feast of unleavened bread. But for twenty-one days Daniel took no food at all. And what proves that the twenty-one days included the days of the feast of unleavened bread? We learn this from what he said, namely, that it was on the twenty-fourth day of the first month.
(4) But the Passover comes to an end on the twenty-first of that month. If they began the feast on the fourteenth day of the first month and then continued it for seven days, they then come to the twenty-first. Nonetheless, Daniel steadfastly continued his fast even after the Passover had come and gone. For if Daniel had begun his fast on the third day of the first month and then continued through a full twenty-one days, he passed the fourteenth, went on for seven days after that, and then kept fasting for three more days.
(5) How, then, do the Jews of today avoid being cursed and defiled? The holy ones of old followed no such observances of what the Law prescribed, because they were in a strange land. Are today's Jews doing just the opposite so that they may stir up contentiousness and strife? If some of the holy ones of old who spoke and acted tiffs way were lax and irreverent, perhaps we would have considered their failure to observe these precepts as a sign of their laxity. But they loved and revered God, they gave their very lives for what God had decreed. So it is abundantly clear that failure to keep the Law was not the result of their laxity. Rather, their failure to keep the Law was prompted by the Law itself, because the Law said they must not observe those rituals outside Jerusalem.
(6) This brings us to a conclusion on another matter of great importance. The observances regarding sacrifices, Sabbaths, new moons, and all such things prescribed by the Jewish way of life of that day were not essential. Even when they were observed they could make no great contribution to virtue; when neglected they could not make the excellent man worthless, nor degrade in any way the sanctity of his soul. But those men of old, while still on earth, manifested by their piety a way of life that rivals the way the angels live. Yet they followed none of these observances, they slew no beasts in sacrifice, they kept no feast, they made no display of fasting. But they were so pleasing to God that they surpassed this human nature of ours and, by the lives they lived, they drew the whole world to a knowledge of God.
(7) Who could match a Daniel? Who could match the three boys in Babylon? Did they not anticipate the greatest commandment which the Gospels give, the commandment which is the chief source of all blessings? Had they not already proved this by their deeds? For John says: "Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life of his friends. But they laid down their lives for God.
(8) We must admire them for this. But we must also admire them because they were not doing it for any reward. This is why the boys in Babylon said: "There is a God in heaven, and he can save us; but if lie will not, be it known, O king, that we will not worship your gods." The prophet means: The reward is sufficient for us that we are dying for God. And they gave proof of this great virtue even though they were observing none of the Law's prescriptions.
VI
You Jews will say: "Why, then, did God impose these prescriptions if he did not wish them observed?" And I say to you: If he wished them observed, why, then, did he destroy your city? God had to do one or the other of two things if he wished these prescriptions to remain ill force: either he had to command you not to sacrifice in one place, since he intended to scatter you to every corner of the world; or, if he wished you to offer sacrifice only ill Jerusalem, he was obliged not to scatter you to every corner of the world and he should have made that one city impregnable, because it was there alone that sacrifice has to be offered.
(2) Again the Jews will say: "What is this, then? Was God contradicting himself when he ordered the Jews to sacrifice in one place but then barred them from that very place?" By no means! God is very consistent. He did not wish you to offer sacrifices from the beginning, and I bring forward as my witness of this the very prophet who said: "Hear the word of the... Lord, you rulers of Sodom, give ear to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah." But it was really to the Jews the prophet spoke, not to those dwelling in Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet he calls the Jews by the names of these people because, by imitating their evil lives, the Jews had developed a kinship with those who dwelt in those cities.
(3) In fact Isaiah called the Jews dogs and Jeremiah called them mare-mad horses This was not because they suddenly changed natures with those beasts but because they were pursuing the lustful habits of those animals. "'What care I for the number of your sacrifices?' says the Lord. But it is clear that those who dwelt in Sodom never offered sacrifices. Isaiah is aiming his remarks against the Jews when he calls them by the name of those brute animals, and he does so for the reason I just mentioned." 'What care I for the number of your sacrifices' says the Lord 'I am filled up with your holocausts of rams I desire not the fat of sheep, and the blood of bulls, not even if you come to appear before me. For who required all these things from your hands?' Did you hear his voice clearly saying that he did not require these sacrifices from you from the beginning? If he had made sacrifice a necessity, he would also have subjected the first Jews to this way of life and all the patriarchs who flourished before the Jews of Isaiah's day.
(4) Then the Jews will ask: "How is it that he straightway did permit the Jews to sacrifice?" He was giving in to their weakness. Suppose a physician sees a man who is suffering from fever and finds him in a distressed and impatient mood. Suppose the sick man has his heart set on a drink of cold water and threatens, should he not get it, to find a noose and hang himself, or to hurl himself over a cliff. The physician grants his patient the lesser evil, because he wishes to prevent the greater and to lead the sick man away from a violent death.
(5) This is what God did. He saw the Jews choking with their mad yearning for sacrifices. He saw that they were ready to go over to idols if they were deprived of sacrifices. I should say, he saw that they were not only ready to go over, but that they lad already done so. So he let them have their sacrifices the time when the permission was granted should make it clear that this is the reason. After they kept the festival in honor of the evil demons, God yielded and permitted sacrifices. What he all but said was this: "You are all eager and avid for sacrifices. If sacrifice you must, then sacrifice to me." But even if he permitted sacrifices, this permission was not to last forever: in the wisdom of his ways, lie took the sacrifices away from them again.
(6) Let me use the example of the physician again-there is really no reason why I should not. After lie has given into the patient's craving, he gets a drinking cup from his home and gives instructions to the sick man to satisfy his thirst from this cup and no other. When he has gotten his patient to agree, he leaves secret orders with the servants to smash the cup to bits; in this way lie proposes, without arousing the patient's suspicion, to lead him secretly away from the craving on which lie has set his heart.
(7) This is what God did, too. He let the Jews offer sacrifice but permitted this to be done in Jerusalem and nowhere else in the world. After they had offered sacrifices for a short time, God destroyed the city. Why? The physician saw to it that the cup was broken. By seeing to it that their city was destroyed, God led the Jews away from the practice of sacrifice, though it was against their will. If God were to have come right out and said: "Keep away from sacrifice," they would not have found it easy to keep away from this madness for offering victims. But now, by imposing the necessity of offering sacrifice in Jerusalem, he led them away from this mad practice: and they never noticed what he had done
(8) Let me make the analogy clear. the physician is God, the cup is the city of Jerusalem, the patient is the implacable Jewish people, the drink of cold water is the permission and authority to offer sacrifices. The physician has the cup destroyed and, in this way, keeps the sick man from what lie demands at an ill-suited time. God destroyed the city itself, made it inaccessible to all, and in this way led the Jews away from sacrifices. If lie did not intend to make ready an end to sacrifice, why did God, who u omnipresent and fills the universe, confine so sacred a ritual to a single place? Why did he confine worship to sacrifices, the sacrifices to a place, the place to a time, and the time to a single city, and then destroy the city? It is indeed a strange and surprising thing. the whole world is left open to the Jews, but they are not permitted to sacrifice there; Jerusalem alone is inaccessible to them, and that is the only place where they are permitted to offer sacrifice.
(9) Even if a man he completely lacking ill understanding, should it not be clear and obvious to him why Jerusalem was destroyed? Suppose a builder lays the foundation for a house, then raises up the walls, arches over the roof, and binds together the vault of the roof with a single keystone to support it. If the builder removes the keystone, he destroys the bond which holds the entire structure together. This is what God did. He made Jerusalem what we might call the keystone which held together the structure of worship. When he overthrew the city, he destroyed the rest of the entire structure of that way of life.
VII
Let then my battle with the Jews wait awhile. I did fight a skirmish of words with them today, but I said only what was enough to save our brothers from danger. Perhaps I said much more than that. But I must now exhort those of you who are here in church to show great concern for the fellow members of our body. I do not want to hear you say: "What concern is this of mine? Why interfere and meddle in other people's affairs?"
(2) Our Master died for us. Will you not take the trouble to say a single word? What excuse or defense will you find for this? Tell me this. If you look the other way when so many souls are perishing, how will you find the confidence to stand before the judgment seat of Christ.'? I wish I could know which ones are running off to the synagogue. Then I would not have needed your help but I would have straightened them out with all speed.
(3) Whenever your brother needs correction, even if you must lay down your life, do not refuse him. Follow the example of your Master. If you have a servant or if you have a wife, be very careful to keep them at home. If you refuse to let them go to the theater, you must refuse all the more to let them go to the synagogue. To go to the synagogue is a greater crime than going to the theater. What goes on in the theater is, to be sure, sinful; what goes on in the synagogue is godlessness. When I say this I do not mean that you let them go to the theater, for the theater is wicked; I say it so that you will be all the more careful to keep them away from the synagogue.
(4) What is it that you are rushing to see in the synagogue of the Jews who fight against God? Tell me, is it to hear the trumpeters? You should stay at home to weep and groan for them, because they are fighting against God's command, and it is the devil who leads them in their revels and dance. As I said before, if there once was a time when God did permit what is against his will, now it is a violation of his law and grounds for punishments beyond number. Long ago, when the Jews did have sacrifices, they did sound their trumpets; now God does not permit them to do this.
(5) At least listen to the reason why they got the trumpets. God said to Moses: "Make for yourself trumpets of beaten silver. Next God explained how the trumpets were to be used, for he went on to say: "You will sound them over the holocausts, and the sacrifices for your deliverance.
(6) But where is the altar? Where is the ark? Where is the tabernacle and the holy of holies? Where is file priest? Where are the cherubim of glory? Where is the golden altar of incense? Where is the mercy-seat? Where is the bowl? Where are the drink offerings? Where is the fire sent down from heaven? Did you lose all those and keep only the trumpets? Do you Christians not see that what the Jews are doing is mockery rather than worship?
(7) I blame the Jews for violating the Law. But I blame you much more for going along with the lawbreakers, not only those of you who run to the synagogues but also those of you who have the power to stop the Judaizers but are unwilling to do so. Do not say to me: "What do I have in common with him? He is a stranger, and I do not know him." I say to you that as long as he is a believer, as long as he shares with you in the same mysteries, as long as he comes to the same church, he is more closely related to you than your own kinsmen and friends. Remember, it is not only those who commit robbery who pay the penalty for their crime; those, too, who could have stopped them but did not, pay the same penalty. Those guilty of impiety are punished, and so, too, are those who could have led them from godless ways but did not, because they were too timid or lazy to be willing to do so.
(8) To be sure, the man who buried his talent gave it back to his master whole and entire; yet he was punished because he did not make a profit from it. Suppose, then, that you yourself remain pure and free from blame; if you fail to make a profit from your talent, if you fail to bring back to salvation your brother who is perishing, you will suffer the same punishment which he does.
(9) Is it some great burden I am asking of you, my beloved? Let each one of you bring back for me one of your brothers to salvation. Let each one of you interfere and meddle in your brother's affairs so that we may come to tomorrow's service with great confidence, because we are bringing gifts more valuable than any others, because we are bringing back the souls of those who have wandered away. Even if we must suffer revilement, even if we must be beaten, even if we must endure any other pain whatsoever, let us do everything to win these brothers back. Since these are sick brothers who trample us underfoot, revile us, and rail against us, we are not stung by their insults; we want to see one thing and only one thing: the return to health of him who behaved in this outrageous way.
(10) Many a time a sick man tears the physician's clothes. But the physician does not let this stop him from trying to cure his patient. It is normal, then, for physicians to show such concern for their patients' bodily health. When so many souls are perishing, is it right for us to slacken our efforts and to think we are suffering no terrible harm, even if our own members are rotting with disease? Paul did not think so. What did he say? "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is scandalized, and I am not on fire?" See to it that you catch this fire.
( l) Suppose you see your brother perishing. Even if he reviles you, if he insults you, if lie strikes you, if he threatens to become your foe, if lie menaces you in any other way, show your courage and endure all these insults so that you may win his salvation. If he should become your foe, God will be your friend and will give you in return many great blessings on that day.
(12) May the prayers of the saints save those who have wandered into error, may you who are faithful be successful in your hunt, may those who have blasphemed God be freed from their ungodliness and come to know Christ, who died for them on the cross, so that all of us may, with one accord and one voice, give glory to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power together with the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.
This material was uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2011, and derives from a translation of unknown origin formerly hosted at the Medieval Sourcebook. This file and all material on this page is believed to be in the public domain. For more details see the preface to the online edition.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_05_homily .htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 5
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 5
HOMILY V
HOW IS IT THAT we have a larger throng assembled here today? Surely, you have come together to demand that I keep my promise; you are here to receive the silver tried in the fire which I pledged to pay over to you. For as the Psalmist says: "The words of the Lord are pure words: silver tried by the fire, purged from the earth." Blessed be God because Ire has put in your hearts the yearning to hear words good for your souls.
(2) When wine-tipplers get up each morning, they start their meddlesome probing to discover where they will find the day's drinking-bouts, carousals, parties, revels, and drunken brawls; they busy themselves searching for bottles, mixing bowls, and drinking cups. But when you get up each day, you go around asking where you will find exhortation and counsel, encouragement, and instruction, the kind of discourse which draws you to give glory to Christ.
This makes me the more eager to hold fast to my topic and, from the fullness of my heart, to keep the promises I have made.
(3) My battle against the Jews did come to a fitting end. The monument marking their rout has been set up, the victory crown belongs to me, and I have captured the prize I sought from my previous discourse. For the task I had undertaken was to prove that what the Jews now do by way of ritual transgresses and violates the Law. It was my desire to show that in these rites we have men doing battle with God, creatures waging war against him. And with God's help, I did give precise proof of this. For even if the Jews were going to recover their own city, if they were about to return to their old commonwealth and way of life and see their temple rebuilt-an event which will never come to pass-even so, they have no defense for their present practices.
(4) The three boys in Babylon, Daniel, and all the others who spent their days in captivity kept expecting to recover their own city and, after seventy years, to see the soil of their fatherland; they kept looking forward to living again under their ancestral laws They had a clear pledge and promise that this would come to pass. However, until the promise was fulfilled, until they did return, they did not dare to perform any of the prescribed rites the way the Jews of today do. [error in text here?]
(5) This is the way you, too, can silence and gag the Jews. Ask the Jew why he observes the fast when he has no city. If he shall say: "Because I expect to recover my city," you say to him: "Stop fasting, then, until you do recover it. Certainly, until the holy ones of old returned to their own fatherland, they practiced none of the rites which you now practice. From this it is clear that you are violating the law, even if you are going to recover your city, as you say; you are transgressing your covenant with God and outraging that old commonwealth and way of life." What I have said to your loving assembly both here and in my previous discourse is enough to silence and gag the shameless arguments of the Jews and to prove that they are transgressing the Law.
(6) It was not my sole purpose to stitch shut the mouths of the Jews. I also was anxious to give you more extensive instruction in the teachings of the Church. Come now, and let me give you abundant proof that the temple will not be rebuilt and that the Jews will not return to their former way of life. In this way you will come to a clearer understanding of what the Apostles taught, and the Jews will be all the more convicted of acting in a godless way. As witness I shall produce not an angel, not an archangel, but the very Master of the whole world, our Lord Jesus Christ. When he came into Jerusalem and saw the temple, he said: "Jerusalem will be trodden down by many nations, until the times of many nations be fulfilled."
By this he meant the years to come until the consummation of the world. And again, speaking to his disciples about the temple, he nude the threat that a stone would not remain upon a stone in that place until the time when it be destroyed. His threat was a prediction that the temple would come to a final devastation and completely disappear.
(7) But the Jew totally rejects this testimony. He refuses to admit what Christ said. What does the Jew say? "The man who said this is my foe. I crucified him. so how am I to accept his testimony?" But this is the marvel of it. You Jews did crucify him. But after he died on the cross, he then destroyed your city; it was then that he dispersed your people; it was then that he scattered your nation over the face of the earth. In doing this, he teaches us that he is risen, alive, and in heaven.
(8) Because you were not willing to recognize his power through his benefactions, he taught you by his punishment and vengeance that no one can struggle with or prevail against his might and strength. But even so, you do not believe in him, you do not recognize that he is God and Master of all the world, but you consider him just another man.
(9) Come then and let us conduct a test as we would in the case of a man. How do we test human beings? If we see that a man tells the truth in all things and never ill any way lies to another, we accept his word, even if he happens to be a foe. At least we do so if we have any sense. In the same way, when we see that a man is a liar, even if he tells the truth in some instances, we do not readily accept his word.
II
Let us look, then, at the character and habits of Christ. Not only did he predict and foretell the destruction of the temple but he also prophesied during his life many other things which were going to come to pass a long time afterwards. Let us, then, bring these predictions into the open. If you see that he is lying in these predictions, then do not accept his prediction about the temple, nor consider it deserving of your belief. But if you see that he tells the truth in all things and that this prediction has been fulfilled, if you see that long years have passed but still testify to the truth of what he foretold, let us have no more of your impudence and stubbornness in matters which are clearer than the light of the sun.
(2) Let us see what else he predicted. There once came up to him a woman with an alabaster jar of precious ointment and she poured it on him. His disciples were indignant at what happened and said: "Why was this not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" He reproved them, however, and said "Why do you trouble the woman. She has done a good deed. For I say to you, wherever on the whole earth this gospel is preached, this also that she has done shall be told in memory of her? Did he or did he not tell the truth? Was his prediction fulfilled or did it fail to come true? Put these questions to the Jew. Even if he counts his shameless acts in the tens of thousands, he will not be able to look at this prophecy in the face and stare it down.
(3) Certainly we do hear her story told in all the churches. Consuls have stood listening to it, and generals, too; men, women, the renowned, the distinguished, the famous ones in every city. Wherever in the world you may go, everyone respectfully listens to the story of her good service; her action is known in every corner of the earth.
(4) How many kings brought many and great blessings on their cities, how many kings waged successful wars, set up many trophies of victory, saved nations, built cities, and in addition, acquired countless revenues? Yet they, for all their great exploits, are buried in the silence of oblivion. Many queens and great ladies have conferred benefits beyond number on those subject to them. Yet some people do not even know them by name. But this worthless woman, who only poured out her ointment, is praised everywhere in the world; the long passage of years has failed to blot out the memory of her, and the time to come will never quench her fame.
(5) And yet hers was not a deed of renown. For what renown was there in pouring out some ointment? Nor was she a distinguished person, for she was a low woman and an outcast. Nor was there a large audience to see, for only the disciples were gathered around her. Nor was the place one where she could be easily seen. She made no entrance onto a theater stage to perform her service but did her good deed in a house with only ten people present.
(6) Nonetheless, even though she was a lowly person, even though only a few were there to witness it, even though the place was undistinguished, neither these facts nor any others could obscure the memory of that woman. Today, she is more illustrious than ally king or queen; no passage of years has buried in oblivion the service she performed.
(7) Tell me, now. How do you explain this? Who brought this about? Is it not the work of the God to whom this service was paid? Is it not God who has spread the story of her deed to every corner of the earth? Is it within the scope of human power to predict such things as these? Who in his right mind could say that? We marvel and are astounded when Christ foretells what he, himself, will do. But when he predicts what others will do and then makes these actions of others clear to all the world and worthy of every man's belief, it is still more astounding and marvelous.
(8) Again, he said to Peter: "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." You Jews tell me how you can attack this prediction of his. How can you show that this prophecy is false? The testimony of the facts will not allow it, even if you are obstinate and dispute it ten thousand times. low many conflagrations of war have been kindled against the Church? Many armies have taken the field, many weapons have been used, every form of' punishment and torture has been contrived. There were frying-pans, racks caldrons, ovens, cisterns, cliffs, fangs of wild beasts, seas, confiscations, and ten thousand other means of torture, unmentionable and unendurable? And these were used not only by foreigners but by our own countrymen. Indeed, a sort of civil war held everything in its grip; rather, it was more bitter than ally civil war. Not only did citizens do battle with citizens but kinsmen with kinsmen, members of the same household with each other; friends fought friends. Yet none of these things destroyed the Church nor made it weaker.
(9) Certainly, the wonderful and unexpected thing about this is that all these attacks were made against the Church when it was just beginning. If these dread persecutions were let loose against it after it had taken root and after the Gospel message had been planted everywhere in the world, it would not be so strange that the Church had resisted these attacks. But it was at the beginning of her teaching mission, when the seed of faith had just been sown and the understanding of those who heard the word was still somewhat weak, that these violent wars broke out in all their fury. The fact that they did not weaken our position but even made us prosper all the more is the miracle that surpasses all miracles.
(10) You may say that the Church now stands firm because of the peace granted to it by the emperors. To keep you from saying this, God permitted the Church to be attacked and persecuted at a time when it was smaller and seemed to be weaker. God wanted you to learn that the security the Church enjoys today does not come to it from the peace granted by emperors, but front the power of God.
III
To help you see the truth of this, consider how many men wished to introduce their teachings among the Greeks and to establish a new commonwealth and way of life. Think of such men as Zeno, Plato, Socrates, Diagoras, Pythagoras, and countless others. Yet they fell so far short of success that many people do not even now know them by name. But Christ not only wrote a constitution but even brought a new way of life to the whole world. How many miracles do they say that Apollonius of Tyana worked? But all his deeds were a fraud, a vain show, and devoid of truth. And you may learn this from the fact that, in an instant, they vanished and disappeared.
(2) Let no one consider it an insult to Christ that, while speaking of him, I mentioned Pythagoras, Plato, Zeno and the man from Tyana. I am not doing this of my own choice but out of consideration for the weakness of the Jews, who see in Christ a mere man. This is what Paul did when he came to Athens. On entering the city, he took the topic for his exhortation not from the prophets or the gospels, but from the Athenians' altar to the unknown God. He did not consider their altar more deserving of faith than the gospels, nor did he account the inscription on it more worthy of honor than the prophets. But he was speaking to pagan Greeks, who believed in none of our sacred books, and so he used arguments from their own beliefs to subdue them. He did the same thing at Corinth when he said: "I have become to the Jews a Jew, to those without the Law, as one without the Law (though I am not without the law of God, but am under the law of Christ).
(3) The Old Testament does this, too, in speaking to the Jews about God. It says: "Who is like to you among the gods, O Lord?" What do you mean, Moses? Is there any comparison at all between the true God and false gods? Moses would reply: "1 did not say this to make a comparison; but since I was talking to the Jews, who had a lofty opinion of demons, I condescended to their weakness and brought in the lesson I was teaching in this way." Let me also say that since my discussion is with the Jews, who consider that Christ is mere man and one who violated their Law, I compared him with those whom the pagan Greeks admire.
(4) If you wish me to make a comparison with men from among the Jews themselves, men who tried to do what Christ did, men who gathered disciples and were proclaimed as leaders and chiefs but who were immediately forgotten, let me try to prove it in this way. Surely this was what Gamaliel did to stop their mouths. When he saw the Sanhedrin in a rage and eager to shed the blood of the disciples, he wished to put a stop to their ungovernable anger. So he gave orders for the apostles to be put outside for a little while and then had this to say to the Jews.
(5) "Take care what you are about to do to these men. For some time ago there rose up Theudas, claiming to be somebody, and four hundred men followed him, but he perished and all his followers were scattered abroad. And after him there rose up Judas the Galilean, who drew a considerable crowd; he too died and his disciples perished. So now I say to you, Take care, for if this work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it. Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against God."
(6) Where, then, is the proof that if this is the work of men, it will perish? You had proof of this, said Gamaliel, from the cases of Judas and Theudas. So if the man whom the Apostles proclaim is a leader such as Judas and Theudas, if Ire does not do all Ire does by the power of God, wait a little while, and the outcome of events will give credibility to what you say. You will know from the way things turn out whether he is a deceiver, as you say, and one who violates the Law, or the God who rules all things and, with ineffable power, orders and arranges our affairs.
(7) And this did come to pass. They did wait. The very outcome of events did prove that his power was divine and unconquerable. That trick which had deceived many men was turned around and back on the devil's own head. When Satan saw that Christ had come, he wished to cover up the reality of his coming and to hide the true purpose of his Incarnation. So he brought on stage the rogues whom we mentioned, so that Christ might be considered one of them. And he did this on the cross, too, when he had two thieves crucified with Christ; he did the same thing in the case of Christ's coming when he strove to conceal the truth by putting it alongside the false. But he failed in both cases, and his very effort provided the strongest proof of Christ's power.
(8) Tell me this. If three men were crucified in the same place, at the same time, by the same judges, wily have the two thieves been lost in silence, while He alone is worshipped? Again, if many men introduced new governments, got themselves adherents, and today not even their names are known, how is it that Christ is paid divine service throughout the world?
(9) Comparison makes facts especially clear. You Jews make this comparison, then, and learn how the truth has prevailed. What deceiver has gotten for himself so many churches all over the world, what rogue extended his worship to the ends of the earth, what imposter has every man bowing down before him, and this in the face of ten thousand obstacles? No one did. It is clear, then, that Christ was not a deceiver: he has saved us, he confers blessings upon us, he takes care of us, he protects our lives.
(10) Let me add one more prediction before I return to the topic on which I proposed to speak. Christ said: " I did not come to send peace upon the earth, but a sword." However, he did not speak of what he would himself desire but he was foretelling the end to which things would come. He went on to say: "For I have come to set a man at variance with his father, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law, and a daughter with her mother."
(11) Tell me this. How did he foretell this if he was a mere man and one of the crowd? For this is what he meant. It sometimes happened that in one and the same house one person would believe, and another would not; then the father would want to lead his own son to deny his faith. This is why Christ predicted this very thing. What he was saying was this: "The power of the gospel will be so strong that sons despise their fathers, daughters their mothers, and parents their children. For they will choose not only to scorn members of their own household, but even to lay down their lives, to endure and suffer all things rather than deny their religion."
(12) How could he have managed to know this if tie was just another man out of the crowd? How did it occur to him to reach the conclusion that sons would pay greater veneration to him than to their fathers, that parents would find him dearer than their own children, that wives would have a more ardent love for him than for their own husbands? And how did he know that this would happen not in one home only, nor in two, nor three, nor ten, nor twenty, nor a hundred, but in every corner of the world, in every city and country, on land and sea, in populous places and in those with few, if any, dwellings? No one can say that he foretold this and then failed to fulfill his prediction. Certainly it was not only at the very beginning but it is true even today that, because of their religion, many are hated and cast forth from their fathers' houses. However, they pay no heed to this; the fact that they suffer it for the sake of Christ is consolation enough for them.
(13) Tell me this. What human being ever had the power to do this? Yet this man made all these predictions about that woman, about the Church, and about the wars which would be waged against it. He also predicted that the temple would be destroyed, that Jerusalem would be captured, and that the city would no longer be the city of the Jews as it had been in the past.
(14) If he was wrong and deceived you in all those other predictions, and they did not come true, then refuse to believe what he foretold of Jerusalem and the temple. But you do see those other predictions gloriously fulfilled and their truth waxing stronger with each passing day. The gates of hell did not prevail against the Church, after so many years the story of what that woman did is still told all over the world, and men who believed in him did pay greater veneration to him than to their own parents, wives, and children. If this is true, tell me, why do you reject this one prediction about the temple, especially since the testimony of time puts the gag of silence on your shameless words?
(15) Suppose a mere ten, twenty, thirty, or fifty years were to have passed since the capture of Jerusalem. Even then you would have absolutely no right to show your impudence by rejecting his prediction, but if you wished to be obstinate, you might have had some pretext for protest left to you. But not only fifty years but many more than one, two, or three centuries have passed since Jerusalem was captured. And never has there been seen a single trace or shadow of the change for which you are waiting. Why, then, are you so rash and foolish as to keep up your shameless objections?
IV
We have said enough to prove that the temple will never be rebuilt. But since the abundance of proofs which support this truth is so great, I shall turn from the gospels to the prophets, because the Jews put their belief ill them before all others. And from the words of the prophets I shall make it clear that the Jews will recover neither their city nor their temple in days to come. And yet the need was not mine to prove that the temple will not be restored. This was not my obligation; the Jews have the obligation to prove the opposite, namely, that the temple will be rebuilt. For the years that have elapsed stand by my side in the combat and bear witness to the truth of my words.
(2) Even though the outcome of events defeats them, even though they cannot prove in deeds what they maintain in words, even though they are simply making a rash boast, they have a right to present their testimony. The proof for my position is that the events of which I speak did actually occur: Jerusalem did fall and has not been restored after so many years. Their position rests on their unsupported words.
(3) Yet the burden of proof was on them to show that the city would rise again. This is the procedure for giving proofs in courts of law. Suppose two people are in dispute over some matter and the first party presents the claim for his position in writing, while the second party attacks his statement. The second party must then bring forward witnesses or other proofs in refutation of what is said in the written deposition; but the plaintiff need not do so. This is what the Jews must now do. They must produce a prophet who says that by all means Jerusalem will be rebuilt. For if there was going to be an end to the present captivity for you Jews, there was every need for the prophets to foretell this, as is clear to anyone who has even so much as glanced at the prophetic books. For it was the custom of old among the Jews that. under inspiration from above, their prophets would foretell the good or evil things which were going to befall the people.
(4) What was the reason for this? It was because the Jews were so arrogant and obstinate. They immediately forgot what God had done for them, they ascribed his kindness to demons and reckoned that his blessings had come from them. Even when the sea was divided for them, as they went forth from Egypt, and while other wonderful things were happening to them, they forgot the God who was performing these miracles and attributed them to others who were not gods. For they said to Aaron: "Make for us gods who will be our leaders?" And they said to Jeremiah: 'We will not listen to what you say in the name of the Lord. Rather we will continue doing what we had proposed: we will burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her, as we and our fathers, our kings and princes have done. Then we had enough food to eat and we were well off; we suffered no misfortune But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we are in need of everything and are being destroyed by the sword and by hunger. The inspired prophets, then, foretold what would happen to the Jews so that they would ascribe none of the events to idols, but would believe that both punishments and blessings always come from God: the punishment came for their sins, and the blessings because of God's love and kindness.
(5) So that you may learn that this is the reason for the prophecy, hear what Isaiah, the most eloquent of prophets, had to say to the Jewish people. "I know that you are stubborn and that your neck is an iron sinew" (that is, unbending), "and your forehead bronze" (that is, incapable of blushing)." We, too, make a practice of giving the name 'bronze-faced to those who cannot blush. And Isaiah went on to say: "I foretold what things would come upon you before they took place and I let you hear of them. "Then he added the reason for the prophecy when he said: "So that you may never say: 'My idols did them, my statues and molten images commanded them.'
(6) At another time some of the Jews who were quarrelsome and boastful and, even after the prophecies were fulfilled, were acting as impudently as if they had never heard them. Then the prophets not only foretold what would come to pass but even had witnesses of what they were doing. Again it was Isaiah who said: "Make reliable men my witnesses, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah." And this was not all Isaiah did. He set his prophecy down in writing in a new book so that, after his prophecy was fulfilled, what he had written might bear witness against the Jews of what the inspired prophet predicted to them a long time before. This is wily he did not simply write it in a book, but in a new book, a book capable of staying sturdy for a long time without easily falling apart, a book which could last until the events described in it would come to pass.
V
I shall prove that this is true, and that God foretold everything which was going to befall the Jews. I shall do so not only from what Isaiah said but from all the things which happened to them, both good and bad. Indeed, the Jews three times endured bondage, very harsh and most severe: but none of these came upon them unpredicted. God saw to it that each captivity was prophesied. He carefully foretold the place, the duration, the kind, the form of their misfortune, the return from slavery, and everything else.
(2) First, I shall speak of the prediction of their slavery in Egypt. Surely, in speaking to Abraham, God said: "Know for certain that your posterity will be strangers in a land not their own; they shall be subjected to slavery and shall be oppressed four hundred years. But I will judge that nation which they shall serve, said God. And in the fourth generation they shall return here with great possessions."
Do you see how he mentioned the number of years? Four hundred. The nature of their slavery? He did not simply say: "They shall be subjected to slavery," but: "They shall be oppressed." Listen to Moses' explanation of their misfortune. He said: "No straw is supplied to your servants, and still we are told to make bricks." And each day they were flogged so that you may learn the meaning of the words: "They shall be subjected to slavery and shall be oppressed." When He said: "I will judge that nation which they shall serve," He was speaking of the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, which Moses described in his canticle when he said: "Horse and chariot he has cast into the sea." Then he also mentioned the manner of their return when he said that they will return here with great possessions: "Each of you take from his neighbor and comrade gold and silver vessels." Since they had been subjected to slavery a long time and had received no pay, God permitted them to make this demand of the Egyptians even though their masters might be unwilling to pay. And the prophet exclaimed and said: "And he led them forth laden with silver and gold, with not a weakling among their tribes." So here we have one bondage which was precisely predicted.
(3) Come now and let us turn our discussion to the second captivity. What one is that? The bondage in Babylon. Jeremiah certainly foretold it exactly when he said: "Thus says the Lord: Only after seventy years have elapsed for Babylon will I visit you and fulfill for you my promise to bring you back to this place. I shall change your bondage; I shall gather you from all the nations and all the places to which I have banished you, says the Lord, and bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you." Do you see how here again he spoke of the city, the number of years, and the places from which and to which he was going to lead them?
(4) This explains why Daniel did not make his prayer for the Jews until he saw that the seventy years had elapsed. Who says so? It was Daniel himself, when he said: "I, Daniel, took care of the king's affairs. But I was appalled at the vision, nor was there anyone to understand it." "And I understood in the Scriptures the counting of the years of which the Lord spoke to the prophet Jeremiah: that for the ruins of Jerusalem seventy years must be fulfilled. I turned to the Lord God, seeking to pray and entreat him with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes."
(5) Did you hear how this bondage was foretold and how the prophet did not dare to bring his prayer and entreaty to God before the appointed time? He feared that his prayer might be rash and in vain. He was afraid he would hear what Jeremiah had heard: "Do not pray for this his people, and do not make demand of me for them for I shall not hear your voice." But when he saw that the sentence pronounced against them had been fulfilled and that the time was summoning them to return, he did pray for them. And he did not merely pray, he made his entreaty with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes.
(6) The prophet acted toward God in a way quite common among men. When we see that a master has cast his slaves into prison for many serious crimes, we do not make a plea for them immediately, nor at the outset, nor at the beginning of their punishment. We let them be punished for a few days; then we go to the master with our plea and we have time working on our side. This is exactly what the prophet did. Although the penalty the Jews paid was not as severe as their sins deserved, nonetheless they did pay it. And it was only then that the prophet went to God to plead on their behalf.
(7) If you would like to hear it, let us listen to the prayer he made for them. He said: "I confessed and said, 'Lord great and awesome God, you who keep your covenant and your mercy toward those who love you and observe your commandments!' What are you doing, Daniel? When you intercede for those who have sinned and quarreled with God, are you talking about men who keep God's laws? Do those who transgress his commandments deserve pardon? What did Daniel say? "I am not making this prayer for their sake but for the sake of their forefathers, for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The promise and pledge was made to those who kept God's commandments. These men, then, have no just claim to salvation; this is why I mention their forefathers.
(8) Daniel was not speaking of the Jews in bondage when he said: "You who keep your covenant and your mercy toward those who love you and observe your commandments." That is why he immediately added: "We have sinned, acted lawlessly, done evil, and departed from your commandments and your laws. We have not obeyed your servants the prophets." For there is one defense left to sinners after they have sinned: to confess their sins.
(9) Do you now please consider the virtue of the just man and the arrogance of the Jews. He who is conscious of no evil in himself pronounces a most severe judgment on himself when he says: "We have sinned, acted lawlessly, done evil." But those who were fulfilled with ten thousand evils did quite the opposite when they said: "We kept your commandments; and now we call strangers blessed and evildoers are exalted. Just men usually act modestly after they have done just deeds; the wicked generally exalt themselves after they have sinned. The man who was conscious of no wickedness in himself said: "We have acted lawlessly, we have departed from your laws"; those who are aware of the burden of ten thousand sins say: "We have kept your commandments." I tell you this so that we may shun the sinner and emulate the just.
VI
After he ran through their lawless acts, the prophet next spoke of the penalty they paid, because he wanted to use this to win God over to pity them. For he said: "And there came upon us the malediction recorded in the law of Moses, the servant of God, because we sinned." What is that malediction? Do you wish us to read it?
'"If you will not serve the Lord your God, I shall lead forth against you a shameless national l, a nation whose tongue you will not understand, and you will be few in number." The three boys in Babylon also made this same point clear when they showed that the kind of punishment visited upon them came about because of what they had done. They made confession to God for the sins of all Jews when they said: "You have handed us over to our enemies, lawless and hateful rebels; to an unjust king; the worst in all the world. Do you see how God fulfilled the curse which said: "You will be few in number?" And the one which said: "I shall lead forth against you a shameless nation?
(2) This is the very thing which Daniel was hinting at when he said: "There came upon us evils such as never occurred under heaven according to what happened in Israel." What evils were these? Mothers ate their own children. Moses foretold this, but Jeremiah shows that it came true. For Moses said: "The refined and delicate woman, so delicate and refined that she would not venture to put her foot upon the step, shall put her hand to the unholy table and eat her own children." But Jeremiah shows that this came true when he said: "The hands of compassionate women boiled their own children."
(3) But even after he had spoken of the sills of those who had sinned and after he brought into the open the punishment they endured, he did not ask that this should save them. See, then, the prudence of the servant. For after he had made clear that they had not yet paid the penalty their sins deserved, nor had their sufferings discharged the debt for their offenses, he then fled to the mercy of God and the loving-kindness of his way and says: "And now, O Lord, our God, who led your people out of the land of Egypt, and made a name for yourself even to this day, we have sinned and acted against your law." What he is saying is: "You did not save the Jews of old for their good actions but because you saw their affliction and distress, because you heard their cry. In the same way, free us from our present evils because of your loving-kindness and because of that alone. We have no other claim to salvation."
(4) So he spoke and, after many a lament, he brought forward the city of Jerusalem, like a captive woman, and said: "Let your face shine upon your sanctuary. Give ear, O my God, and listen, open your eyes and see our ruins and the ruins of your city, in which your name is invoked." For when he looked among the men and saw no man who could make God propitious, he turned to the buildings and brought tip the city. He showed its desolation and, after he completed his discourse on these things, he made God propitious. And this became clear from the events which followed.
(5) But back to what I was talking about. For I must return again to the topic I proposed. Yet I had good reason for bringing in these digressions: I waited to give your minds a brief breathing space, since they were growing weary from the constant conflicts with the Jews. But let me return to the point where I departed from my topic to speak of these matters. Let me prove that the evils which were going to overtake the Jews had been accurately predicted by God's inspiration. My discourse had already shown that those two captivities came upon the Jews neither by chance nor unexpectedly.
(6) It remains for me now to bring up the third captivity. After I have done that, I must speak about the bondage which now encompasses them; I must give clear proof that no prophet ever predicted that there would be any freedom or escape from the ills which now encircle them.
(7) What, then, is this third captivity? It is the bondage that came upon them in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. After Alexander, king of the Macedonians, conquered the Persian king, Darius, he took over the kingdom. After Alexander died, four kings followed him to the throne. Antiochus was the son of one of Alexander's four successors. Many years later Antiochus burned the temple, laid waste the holy of holies, put an end to the sacrifices, subjected the Jews, and destroyed their whole state.
VII
Daniel foretold all this with the greatest accuracy, even to the very day. He foretold when it would be, how, by whom, the manner of it, where it would find all end, and what change it would bring about. You will understand this better after you have heard the vision which the prophet set forth in the form of a parable. The ram is Darius, the Persian king; the goat is the Greek king, Alexander of Macedon; the four horns are Alexander's successors; the last horn is Antiochus himself. But it will be better for you to hear the vision itself.
(2) Daniel said: "For I saw in a vision and I was silting at the river Ubal." (The spot ill question he calls by a Persian name.) "And I looked up and saw standing by the Ubal a ram with his horns held high; and the one horn was higher than' the other, and the high one mounted to the very heights. And I saw the ram butting toward the sea, north, and south. No beast will stand before it, nor was there anyone to rescue a beast from its grasp; it did what it pleased and became very powerful. And as I sat, I understood.'" He was speaking of the Persian power and domain which overran the whole earth.
(3) Next he spoke of Alexander of Macedon and said: "Behold, a he-goat came from the southwest across the whole earth without touching the ground. And the goat had a horn to be seen midway between his eyes." He then spoke of Alexander's encounter with Darius and the victory won by Macedonian might. "The goat came up to the horned ram, grew savage, struck the ram,"-I must cut short the account-"broke both his horns and there was no one to rescue the ram from his power."
(4) After that Daniel spoke of Alexander's death and the four kings who succeeded him: "And at the height of its power the great horn was shattered, and in its place there came up four others, facing the four winds of heaven." Daniel then passed from this point to the reign of Antiochus and showed that he came from one of those four when he said: "Out of one of them came one strong horn, and it became very powerful toward the south and the east." Daniel then went on to show that Antiochus destroyed the Jewish commonwealth and way of life when he said: "And through him the sacrifice was disordered by transgression; and it came to pass. that he prospered. And the holy place will be laid waste and sin replaced the sacrifice. After' the altar was destroyed and the holy places trampled underfoot, he set up an idol within and offered unlawful sacrifices to the demons; righteousness was cast to the ground. He both did this and prospered.
(5) Then again, for a second time, he spoke of the same reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the bondage, and the capture and desolation of the temple; this time, however, he gave the date of these events. He again began, toward the end of the book, with the empire of Alexander and described all the intervening accomplishments of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies in their wars against each other, the exploits of their generals, the strategies, the victories, the armies, the battles fought on land and sea. When he came to Antiochus he ended by saying: "His armed forces shall rise up, defile the sanctuary, and remove the continuity" (and by the continuity he meant the uninterrupted daily sacrifices) "and in its place they will put an abomination. By treachery they will lead off those who violate the covenant" (that is, the transgressors among the Jews whom they will remove and keep with themselves); "but the people who know their God shall take strong action" (he means the events in the time of the Maccabees: Judas. Simon, and John). "And the wise men of the people will have understanding of many things but they will fall by the sword and by fire" (here again he describes the burning of Jerusalem) "and by exile and the plunder days. And when they fall, they will receive a little help" (he means that, in the midst of those evils, they will be able to draw a breath and rise from the dread things which have overtaken them), "but many will join them out of treachery. And they shall fall from the number of the wise?° He said this to show that even many of those who stood firm will fall.
(6) Next, Daniel gave the reason why God permitted them to be involved in such trials. What is the reason? "To purge them, to choose them, and to make them white until the time of the end."
This is why, said Daniel, God permitted these evils so as to cleanse them and to show who among them was genuine and approved. In telling of the same king's power and might he said: "He shall do as he pleases, he shall exalt himself and become very powerful. In speaking of the king's blasphemous spirit, he went on to say: "He shall utter excessive haughty thoughts against the God of gods: he shall prosper until the wrath be accomplished."' Daniel was here making it clear that it was not of Antiochus' own will but because of God's wrath against the Jews that he was so victorious.
(7) After Daniel told in many other passages what evils the king would bring on Egypt and Palestine, how he would return, at whose bidding, and under the pressure of what cause, the prophet then recounted a change of fortune and said that, after enduring all these evils, the Jews would find some aid from an angel sent to help them as "At that time there shall arise Michael, the great prince, guardian over the sons of your people. It shall be a time unsurpassed in distress since nations began on earth until that time. At that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written ill the book." By that he meant those deserving to be saved.
VIII
But I have not yet given a proof for the question I am investigating. What is that question? That God set a time limit for those involved in these trials, just as he set a limit of four hundred years for the exile in Egypt and seventy years for the bondage in Babylon. Let us see, then, if he set any time limit for this third slavery. Where can we find the answer to this? In what Daniel said in the verses following those I discussed. (2) Since he had heard of the many great evils which would befall the Jews -the burning of Jerusalem. the toppling of their state, the bondage of his people he then wanted to learn what would be the end of these trials, and if there would be any change in their disastrous condition. So he asked the angel who had appeared to him and said: "Lord, what is to be the outcome of this?.... Come here, Daniel," he said, "because the words are to be kept secret and sealed" (indicating the obscurity of the words) "until the time of the end. Then the angel mentioned the reason why God consented to these evils: "As long as many are chosen, made white, and purged, as long as the lawless act lawlessly, as long as all the unholy ones shall not understand and the holy ones do understand."
(3) Next, ill predicting the length of time these evils would last, Daniel's angel said: "From the time of the changing of the continuity." The daily sacrifice was called the continuity, for what is continuous is frequent and unceasing. And among the Jews it was customary to offer sacrifice to God in the evening and about dawn each day; this is why they called that daily sacrifice a continuity.
(4) But when Antiochus came, he completely did away with this practice. That is what the angel meant when he said: "From the time of the changing of the continuity" (that is, from the time the sacrifice was abolished) "there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days," that is, three and a half years and a little more. Then to show that there will be an end and deliverance from these woes, the angel went on to say: "Blessed is the man who stands firm and attains one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days," adding forty-five days to the one thousand and two hundred and ninety days. He did this because it happened that the conflict lasted a month and a half and in that time the victory became complete, as did also the deliverance of the Jews from the evils which weighed heavy upon them. And when he said: "Blessed is the man who stands firm one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days," he revealed their deliverance. He did not simply say, "the man who attains," but "the man who stands firm and attains." The reason for this is that many of the unholy ones saw the change, but he does not call them happy; he calls blessed only those who gave witness during the time of troubles, who did not desert their religion, and who then found abatement of their ills. This is why he did not simply say: "the man who attains," but "the man who stands firm and attains."
(5) What could be clearer than this? Do you see how very carefully the prophet foretold their captivity and release from bondage? He gave the time not in terms of years, or months, but to the very day. That you may know that my words are not based on mere conjecture, come, let us bring in another witness to what I have said, a witness whom the Jews regard with the highest trust, I mean Josephus, who has made their disasters a subject of tragic history and who has paraphrased the entire Old Testament. He was born after Christ's coming and, in speaking of the captivity predicted by Christ, he also discussed this captivity and set forth Daniel's vision about the ram, the goat, the four horns, and the last horn which arose after the others. I do not wish anyone to be suspicious of what I have said; come, then, and let us compare his words with mine.
(6) Josephus praised Daniel and showed exceedingly high admiration for hint, setting him above all the other prophets. When he came to the story of Daniel's vision, he had this to say. Daniel left us a book in which he made clear the accuracy and fidelity to truth's of his prophecy. For he tells us that after he and some companions had gone forth to a plain at Susa, the metropolis of Persia, suddenly the earth quaked and shook violently. His friends fled and he was left alone. He fell face down and was fixed fast to the spot leaning on both hands. Then someone touched him and at the same time ordered him to get up and see what would happen to his people after many generations
(7) Daniel then arose and was shown a large ram with many horns growing from his head, but the last horn was the highest. Then he looked to the west and saw a goat borne through the air. The goat rushed at the ram, struck him twice with his horns, knocked him to the ground, and trampled on him. Next he saw the goat grown larger and putting forth a very large horn from his forehead. This born was broken off, but four others grew up, turned to the four winds. As Josephus told the story, Daniel saw a smaller horn rise up from these and it grew strong. God, who showed Daniel the vision, was telling him that war would come upon his nation, that Jerusalem would be taken by storm, the temple would be pillaged, the sacrifices would be hindered and cut short, and that this would last for one thousand two hundred and ninety days?
(8) Daniel wrote that he had seen these events in the plain at Susa; he also made it clear that God explained to him what he had seen in the vision. God said that the ram signified the empire of the Persians and Medes, and the horns, those who would hold royal power. He further said that the last horn signified that there would come a king who would surpass those others in wealth and glory. God then explained that the goat would be a ruler from among the Greeks who would twice clash with the Persian king, defeat him in battle, and take over all his empire. The first large horn on the goat's forehead signified the first king. After this fell off, the growth of the four horns and the turning of each of these to the four regions of the earth was a sign that, after the death of the first king, who had neither sons nor family, his successors would divide the empire among them and would rule the world for many years.
(9) And from these successors, the explanation continued, there would arise a king who would make war on the Jewish laws, take away their from of government, pillage their temple, and prevent their sacrifices from being offered for three years. And it did happen that the nation of our fathers underwent these sufferings under Antiochus Epiphanes just as Daniel had seen many years before and had written would come to pass.
IX
What could be clearer than this? Now it is time, unless you think I am making you weary, now it is time to come back to the question we proposed for investigation, namely, the Jews' present slavery and their bondage of today. This was the reason for going through all their exiles. Pay careful heed to me, for our contest is not concerned with ordinary, everyday matters. At the Olympic contests people have the patience to sit from midnight to noon waiting to see who will win the crown; they take the hot rays of the sun on their bare heads, and do not leave before the winners are decided. Our contest today is not for an Olympic prize but for an incorruptible crown. It would be a shame, then, for us to grow weary and give in to our fatigue.
(2) What I have said has sufficiently proved that the three captivities were predicted, the first lasting for four hundred years, the second for seventy, and the third for three and a half years. Now let us talk about the present bondage of the Jews. To show that the prophet also predicted this one, I shall offer as my witness that same Josephus, who is on the side of the Jews. Listen to what he says subsequence to his account of Daniel's vision. He said: "In the same manner Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans and that they would capture Jerusalem and devastate the temple."
(3) Please consider that even if the man who wrote that was a Jew, he did not, on that account, let himself emulate the obstinacy of you Jews. After he said that Jerusalem would be captured, he did not dare to go on to say that it would be rebuilt, nor to mention a definite time for its restoration, because he knew that the prophet had not fixed a definite time. Yet when Josephus spoke previously of the victory of Antiochus and his devastation of Jerusalem, he did state how many days and years the captivity was going to last.
But Josephus said nothing of this sort about the bondage under the Romans. He wrote that Jerusalem and the temple would be despoiled, but he did not add that what had been devastated would be restored. For he saw that the prophet had not added anything about such a restoration. Josephus did say: "All these things, as God revealed them to him, Daniel left behind in his writings, so that those who read them and observe how they have come to pass must wonder that Daniel was so honored by God."
(4) But let us consider where it was that Daniel said that the temple would be despoiled. After he had made his prayer in sackcloth and ashes, Gabriel came to him and said: "Seventy weeks are cut short for your people and for your holy city. Look," the Jews will say, "he did mention the time." Yes, but the time is not the time of the captivity; what is mentioned is the length of time after which the captivity is going to come upon them. It is one thing to speak of how long the captivity will last and another thing to state the number of years before it will arrive and be upon them.
(5) We read: "Seventy weeks are cut short for your people"; no longer does God say: "for my people." And yet the prophet said: "Let your face shine upon your people," but God thereafter was estranged from them because of the bold crime they were going to commit. Presently the prophet gave the reason: "Until transgression will stop and sin will end? What does he mean by the words: "Until sin will end?" What the prophet is saying is that the Jews are committing many sills, but the end of their evil deeds will be the day they slay their Master. Christ also said this: "Fill up the measure of your fathers." "You killed your servants," he said. "Now add to that the blood of your Master."
(6) See how the thoughts of Christ and Daniel agree, Christ said: "Fill up"; the prophet says: "Until transgression will stop and sin will end." What does "end" mean? That no sin thereafter is left to commit. "And until everlasting justice will be introduced." But what is everlasting justice except the justification given by Christ? "And until the sealing of the vision and the prophet and a holy of holies be anointed," that is, until prophecies shall cease. For this is what is meant by "to seat," namely, to bring anointing to an end, to bring vision to an end. This is why Christ said: "The law and the prophets until John." Do you see how this threatens utter desolation and the payment for sins and acts of injustice? For God did not threaten that he will forgive the sins of the Jews but that he will execute vengeance upon then.
X
And when did this happen? When were prophecies completely done away with? When was anointing ended so as never again to return? Even if we be silent, the stones will shout out, because the voice of the facts is so clear. For we could not mention a time at which these predictions were accomplished other than the long and many years already past and the years which are going to be longer and more numerous still. Daniel put it more precisely when he said:
"And you will know and understand that from the going forth of the word of the answer that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt until the coming of an anointed leader, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
(2) Pay careful attention to me here, because here lies the whole question. The seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks make four hundred and eighty-three years, for he is here speaking not of weeks of days or months but weeks of years. From Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes and the captivity there were three hundred and ninety-four years. However, Daniel makes it clear that he is not talking about the destruction of the temple under Antiochus but the subsequent destruction under Pompey, Vespasian, and Titus. He further extends the time and instructs us from what point we must start counting by showing us that our reckoning is not to start from the day of the return from captivity. From what point must we reckon? "From the going forth of the word of the answer that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt."
(3) Jerusalem, however, was not rebuilt under Cyrus but under Artaxerxes, who was called the Long-handed. For after the return of the Jews, Cambyses was ruler, then the Magians, and after them Darius Hystaspes. Next came Darius' son, Xerxes, and after him Artabanus. After Artabanus, Artaxerxes the Long-handed, ruled Persia. During the twentieth year of his kingship Nehemiah returned and restored Jerusalem. Ezra has given us an exact account of this. So then, if we count four hundred and eighty-three years from this point, we will surely come to the time of the last destruction. And so it is that the prophet said: "It shall be rebuilt with streets and a surrounding wall." Therefore what he says is this: after the city has been rebuilt and has recovered its own appearance and form, count the seventy weeks from that point and you will see the slavery which has not yet come to an end.
(4) To make still more clear this very point, namely, that the evils which now grip the Jews will not come to an end, he goes on to say: "After the seventy weeks the anointing will be utterly destroyed and there will be no judgment on it; he will destroy the city and the sanctuary with the help of a leader who comes and they will be cut off as in a deluge? There will be no remnant left, nor a root to grow up again, "until the end of a war which is brought to an end by the vanishing of the people."
(5) And again, in speaking of this slavery, he said: "The incense and the oblation will be abolished and, furthermore, on the holy place will be the abomination of desolation: and accomplishment shall be given to the desolation until the end of time." When you hear him say: "Until the end of time," what else is left for you Jews to look forward to? "And furthermore." What does this mean? "Furthermore," that is, in addition to what he has said, that is, in addition to the destruction of the sacrifice and the oblation, there will be some other greater evil. What is that evil? "On the holy place will be the abomination of desolation." By the holy place he means the temple; by the abomination of desolation he means the statue set up in the temple by Antiochus, who destroyed the city.
(6) And he went on to say: "Desolation until the end." It is true that Christ came into the world according to the flesh long after the day of Antiochus Epiphanes, but when he prophesied the captivity to come, he showed that Daniel had predicted it. This was his reason for saying: "When you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place-let him who reads understand.' The Jews called every image and statue made by man an abomination. So by his veiled reference to that statue, Daniel showed both when and under whom the captivity would take place. As I showed before, Josephus also assured us that these words were spoken about the Romans.
(7) What is there for me to say to you now that has not already been said? When the prophets predicted the other captivities, they spoke not only of the captivity but also of the length of time it was appointed for each bondage to last; for this present captivity, however, they set no time but, to the contrary, said that the desolation would endure until the end. And to prove that what they said is true, come now and let me offer as witnesses the events themselves.
If the Jews had never attempted to rebuild the temple, they could say: "If we had wished to set our hands to the task and to begin to rebuild it, we could by all means have completed the task." But now I shall show that not once, nor twice, but three times they did attempt it and three times, like wrestlers in the Olympic games, they were thrown to the ground. Therefore there can be no dispute or question but that the Church has won the victory crown.
XI
Yet what kind of men were they who set their hands to the task? They were men who constantly resisted the Holy Spirit, revolutionists bent on stirring up sedition. After the destruction which occurred under Vespasian and Titus, these Jews rebelled during the reign of Hadrian and tried to go back to the old commonwealth and way of life. What they failed to realize was that they were fighting against the decree of God, who had ordered that Jerusalem remain forever in ruins.
(2) But it is impossible for a man to wage war on God and win So it was that, when these Jews made their attack against the Emperor, they forced him again to destroy Jerusalem completely. For Hadrian came and utterly subdued them; he obliterated every remnant of their city. To prevent the Jews from making such an impudent attempt in the future, he set up a statue of himself. But he realized that, with the passage of time, his statue would one day fall. So he gave his own name to the ruined city and, in this way, burned on the Jews a permanent brand which would mark their defeat and testify to the impudence of their revolt. Since he was called Aelius Hadrianus, he ordained that from this name the city was to be called Aelia and to this day it is called by the name of the Emperor who conquered it and destroyed it.
(3) Do you see the first attempt of the impudent Jews? Now look at the next. They tried the same thing in the time of Constantine. But the Emperor saw what they tried to do, cut off their ears, and left on their bodies this mark of their disobedience. He then had them led around everywhere, like runaway slaves and scoundrels, so all might see their mutilated bodies and always think twice before ever attempting such a revolt. "Yet these things happened very long ago," the Jews will say. But I tell you that the incident is well known to those of us who are somewhat on in years and are already old men.
(4) But what I am going to tell you is clear and obvious even to the very young. For it did not happen in the time of Hadrian or Constantine, but during our own lifetime, in the reign of the Emperor of twenty years ago. Julian, who surpassed all the emperors in irreligion, invited the Jews to sacrifice to idols in an attempt to drag them to Iris own level of ungodliness. He used their old way of sacrifice as an excuse and said: "In the days of your ancestors, God was worshipped in this way."
(5) They refused his invitation, but, at that time, they did admit to the very things I just lately proved to you, namely, that they were not allowed to offer their sacrifices outside Jerusalem. Their answer was that those who offered any sacrifice whatsoever in a foreign land were violating the Law. So they said to the Emperor: "If you wish to see us offer sacrifices, give us back Jerusalem, rebuild the temple, show us the holy of holies, restore the altar, and we will offer sacrifices again just as we did before."
(6) These abominable and shameless men had the impudence to ask these firings from an impious pagan and to invite him to rebuild their sanctuary with his polluted hands. They failed to see that they were attempting the impossible. They did not realize that if human hands had put an end to those things, then human hands could get them back for them. But it was God who destroyed their city, and no human power could ever change what God had decreed. "For what God, the Holy One, has planned who shall dissipate? His hand is stretched out; who will turn it back?" What God has reared up and wishes to remain, no man can tear down. In the same way, what he has destroyed and wishes to stay destroyed, no man can rebuild.
(7) I grant you that the Emperor did give you Jews back your temple and did build you an altar, just as you foolishly suspected he would. But he could not send down to you the heavenly fire from on high, could he? Yet if you could not have this fire, your sacrifice had to be an abomination and unclean. This is why the sons of Aaron perished; they brought ill a foreign fire.
(8) Nonetheless, these Jews, who were blind to all things, called on the Emperor for help and begged him to aid them in undertaking to rebuild the temple. The Emperor, for his part, spared no expense, sent engineers from all over the empire to oversee the work, summoned craftsmen from every land; he left nothing undone, nothing untried. He overlooked nothing but worked quietly and a little at a time to bring the Jews to offer sacrifice; in this way he expected that it would be easy for them to go from sacrifice to the worship of idols. At the same time, in his mad folly, he was hoping to cancel out the sentence passed by Christ which forbade the rebuilding of the temple. But tie who catches the wise in their craftiness straightway made clear to him by His action that the decrees of God are mightier than any man's and that works get their strength from the word of God.
(9) They started to work in earnest on that forbidden task, they removed a great mound of earth and began to lay bare the foundations. They were just about to start building when suddenly fire leaped forth from the foundations and completely consumed not only a great number of the workmen but even the stones piled up there to support the structure. This put a stop to the untimely obstinacy of those who had undertaken the project. Many of the Jews, too, who had seen what had happened, were astonished and struck with shame. The Emperor Julian had been madly eager to finish the work. But when he heard what had happened, he was afraid that, if he went on with it, he might call down the fire on his own head. So he and the whole Jewish people withdrew in defeat.
(10) Even today, if you go into Jerusalem, you will see the bare foundation, if you ask why this is so, you will hear no explanation other than the one I gave. We are all witnesses to this, for it happened not long ago but in our own time. Consider how conspicuous our victory is. This did not happen in the times of the good emperors; no one can say that the Christians came and prevented the work from being finished. It happened at a time when our religion was subject to persecution. when all our lives were in danger, when every man was afraid to speak, when paganism flourished. Some of the faithful hid in their homes, others fled the marketplaces and moved to the deserts. That is when these events occurred. So the Jews have no excuse left to them for their impudence.
XII
Are you Jews still disputing the question? Do you not see that you are condemned by the testimony of what Christ and the prophets predicted and which the facts have proved? But why should this surprise me? That is the kind of people you are. From the beginning you have been shameless and obstinate, ready to fight at all times against obvious facts.
(2) Do you wish me to bring forward against you other prophets who clearly state the same fact, namely, that your religion will come to an end, that ours will flourish and spread the message of Christ to every corner of the world, that a different kind of sacrifice will be introduced which will put an end to yours? At least listen to Malachi who came later than the other prophets. Let me not at this time bring in the testimony of Isaiah and Jeremiah or the other prophets who came before the captivity. I do not want you Jews to say that their predictions came true during the bondage. Let me bring forward a prophet who came after the return from Babylon and after the restoration of Jerusalem, a prophet who clearly predicted what was to happen to you.
(3) The Jews did return from Babylon, they did recover their city, they did rebuild their temple, and they did offer sacrifices. But it was only after all this that Malachi predicted the coming of the present desolation and the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices. This is what he said, speaking in God's behalf: "Shall I for your sakes accept your persons? says the Lord Almighty. For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is glorified among the nations; and everywhere they bring incense to my name, and a pure offering. But you have profaned it."
(4) When do you Jews think that this happened? When was incense offered to God in every place? When a pure offering? You could not mention a time other than the time after the coming of Christ. Suppose Malachi did not speak of our time, suppose he did not speak of our sacrifice but of the Jewish sacrifice. Then his prophecy will be opposed to the Law. Moses had forbidden the Jews to bring their sacrifice to any place other than that which the Lord God would choose, and then he confined their sacrifices to one particular place. If Malachi said that sacrifices were going to be offered everywhere and that it would be a pure offering, he was contradicting and opposing what Moses had said.
(5) But there is no contradiction nor quarrel. For Moses spoke about one kind of sacrifice, and Malachi later predicted another. What makes this clear? It is clear both from the prophet's words and also from many other indications. The first indication has to do with the place. For Malachi predicted that the sacrifice would be offered not in one city, as in the time of the Jewish sacrifice, but "from the rising of the sun even to its setting." The second indication has to do with the kind of sacrifice. By calling it "a pure offering," he showed the kind of sacrifice of which he spoke.
(6) A further indication deals with those who are going to offer this sacrifice. He did not say "in Israel," but "among the nations." He did not want you to think that the worship given in this sacrifice would be confined to one, two, or three cities; therefore, he did not simply say "everywhere," but from the rising of the sun, even to its setting. By these words he showed that every corner of the earth seen by the sun will receive the message of the gospel. He called it a "pure offering," as opposed to the old sacrifice, which was impure. And it was-not by its own nature but because of the disposition and intention of those who offered it. This is why the Lord said: "Your incense is loathsome to me."
(7) And yet, in other respects, if you should put the two sacrifices side by side to compare them, you will find that the difference between them is so great and unmeasurable that, according to the nature of comparison, only this new sacrifice is properly called pure. Paul contrasted the old Law with the new Law of grace and said that the old Law had been glorified but is now without glory, because of the surpassing glory of the new Law. I, too, would make so bold as to say in this case that, if the new sacrifice should be compared to the old, only this new sacrifice would properly be called pure. For it is not offered by smoke and fat, nor by blood and the price of ransom, but by the grace of the Spirit.
(8) Now hear another prophet who made the same prediction and said that the worship of God would not be confined to one place, but that the time would come when all men would know him. It is Zephaniah who said: "The Lord shall appear to all nations, and will make all the gods of the nations waste away; then each from its own place shall adore Him. Yet this was forbidden to the Jews since Moses commanded them to worship in one place.
(9) You hear that the prophets foretold and predicted that men will no longer be bound to come from all over the earth to offer sacrifice in one city or in one place, but that each one will sit in his own home and pay service and honor to God. What time other than the present could you mention as fulfilling these prophecies? At any rate listen to how the gospels and the Apostle Paul agree with Zephaniah. The prophet said: "The Lord shall appear"; Paul said: "The grace of God our Savior has appeared to all men instructing us, Zephaniah said: "To all nations"; Paul said: "To all men." Zephaniah said: "He will make their gods waste away;" Paul said: "Instructing us, in order that rejecting ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live temperately and justly."
(10) Again, Christ said to the Samaritan woman: "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. God is spirit, and they who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. " I so When Christ said this, he removed from us for the future the obligation to observe one place of worship and introduced a more lofty and spiritual way of worship.
(11) These arguments would suffice to establish that, for the future, there will be no sacrifice, no priesthood, no king among the Jews. Above all, the destruction of the city has proved all these points. But I could also bring forward the prophets as my witnesses, and they distinctly said the same thing. But I see that you have become weary with the length of my discourse; I am afraid that you may think I am foolish and rash to keep annoying you. For this reason I promise that I will speak to you on this same subject at another time.
(12) Meanwhile, I ask you to rescue your brothers, to set them free from their error, and to bring them back to the truth. There is no benefit in listening to me unless the example of your deeds will match my words. What I said was not for your sakes but for the sake of those who are sick. I want them to learn these facts from you and to free themselves from their wicked association with the Jews. I want them then to show themselves sincere and genuine Christians. I want them to shun the evil gatherings of the Jews and their synagogues, both in the city and in the suburbs, because these are robbers' dens and dwellings of demons?
(13) So then, do not neglect the salvation of those brothers. Be meddlesome, be busybodies, but bring the sick ones to Christ. In this way, we shall receive a far greater reward for our good deeds both in the present life and in the life to come. And we shall receive it by the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father together with the Holy Spirit, the giver of life, now and forever, world without end. Amen.
This material was uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2011, and derives from a translation of unknown origin formerly hosted at the Medieval Sourcebook. This file and all material on this page is believed to be in the public domain. For more details see the preface to the online edition.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_06_homily .htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 6
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 6
HOMILY VI Although he had delivered a long homily against the Jews on the previous day, and had become hoarse from the length of his Sermon, he now delivered the following discourse.
WILD BEASTS ARE less savage and fierce as long they live in the forests and have had no experience fighting against men. But when the hunters capture them, they drag them into the cities, lock them in cages, and goad them on to do battle with beast-fighting gladiators. Then the beasts spring upon their prey, taste human flesh and drink human blood. After that, they would find it no easy task to keep away from such a feast but they avidly rush to this bloody banquet.
(2) This has been my experience, too. Once I took up my fight against the Jews and rushed to meet their shameless assaults, "I destroyed their reasoning and every lofty thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and I brought their minds into captivity to the obedience of Christ. And after that I somehow acquired a stronger yearning to do battle against them.
(3) But what is the matter with me? You see that my voice has grown weaker and cannot again last for so long a time. I think that what has happened to me is much the same as what happens to a soldier in battle. He cuts to pieces a number of his foes, courageously throws himself against the enemy lines, strews the ground with corpses, but then breaks his sword; disheartened by this mishap he must retreat to his own ranks. Indeed, what has happened to me is worse. The soldier who has broken his sword can snatch another from some bystander, prove his courage, and show how eager he is for victory. But when the voice becomes weak and exhausted, you cannot borrow another from somebody else.
(4) What shall I do, then? Shall I, too, run away? The power your loving assembly holds over me does not let me run away. I reverence and respect our father, who is here. I reverence and respect your eagerness and earnestness. Therefore, I shall entrust the whole undertaking to his prayers and your charity and I will attempt what lies beyond my power.
(5) It is true that today's feast of the martyrs invites me to recount the conflicts they underwent. If I neglect this topic, if I strip and get ready to enter the arena against the Jews, let no one accuse me of choosing the wrong time for my discourse. The martyrs would find a discourse against the Jews more desirable than any panegyric of mine, since I could never make them more illustrious than they are.
(6) What need could they have of my tongue? Their own struggles surpass our mortal nature. The prizes they won go beyond our powers and understanding. They laughed at the life lived on earth; they trampled underfoot the punishment of the rack; they scorned death and took wing to heaven; they escaped from the storms of temporal things and sailed into a calm harbor; they brought with them no gold or silver or expensive garments; they carried along no treasure which could be plundered, but the riches of patience, courage, and love. Now they belong to Paul's choral band while they still await their crowns, but they find delight in the expectation of their crowns, because they have escaped henceforth the uncertainty of the future.
(7) What need could they have of any words of mine? Therefore, they will find this topic more desirable than any panegyric of mine which, as I said before, will bring no increase to their personal glory. But it could be that they will derive great pleasure from my conflict with the Jews; they might well listen most intently to a discourse given for God's glory. For the martyrs have a special hatred for the Jews since the Jews crucified him for whom they have a special love. The Jews said: "His blood be on us and on our children" the martyrs poured out their own blood for him whom the Jews had slain. So the martyrs would be glad to hear this discourse.
II
If the present captivity of the Jews were going to come to an end, the prophets would not have remained silent on this but would have foretold it. I gave adequate proof of this when I showed that all their bondages were brought upon them after they had been predicted: the bondage in Egypt, the bondage in Babylon, and the bondage in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. I proved that for each of these the Sacred Scriptures had proclaimed beforehand both a time and a place. But no prophet defined a duration for the present bondage, although Daniel did predict that it would come, that it would bring total desolation, that it would change their old commonwealth and way of life, and how long after the return from Babylon it would come to pass.
(2) But Daniel did not reveal that it would come to an end nor that these troubles would ever stop. Nor did any other prophet. Daniel did, however, predict the opposite, namely, that this bondage would hold them in slavery until the end of time The great number of years which have come and gone since that day are witnesses to the truth of what he said. And the years have shown neither trace nor beginning of a change for the better, even though the Jews tried many times to rebuild their temple. Not once, not twice, but three times they tried. They tried ill the time of Hadrian, in the time of Constantine, and in the time of Julian. But each time they tried they were stopped. The first two times they were stopped by military force; later it was by the fire which leaped forth from the foundations and restrained them from their untimely obstinacy.
(3) Now I would be glad to ask them a few questions. Why, tell me, did you recover your own country after spending so many years in Egypt? And after you had been again dragged away into Babylon, wily did you come back to Jerusalem? Again, in the time of Antiochus, you suffered many evils, but you came back to your old state, you again recovered your sacrifices, your altar, your holy of holies, and all the rest, along with the dignity these things once had. But nothing such as this has happened ill your present bondage. One hundred, two hundred, three hundred, four hundred years and many more than that have passed This is the five hundredth year up to our own day,! t but we see no hint of such a change for the better on the horizon. What we do see is that the Jewish fortunes have completely collapsed; they do not even have a dream to show they might have ally expectation such as they had in their former captivities.
(4) Suppose the Jews should plead their sins as an excuse. Suppose they should say: "We sinned against God and offended him. This is the reason why we are not recovering our homeland. We did treat shamelessly the prophets who never ceased to accuse us, we did deny the blood-guilt of which the prophets spoke in tragic phrases, but we will now confess and condemn ourselves for our own sins." If the Jews should plead this excuse, I will be glad to question each one of them again.
(5) Is it because of your sins that you Jews have been living for so long a time outside Jerusalem? What is strange and unusual about that? It is not only now that your people are living sin fill lives. Did you, in the beginning, live your lives injustice and good deeds? Is it not true that from the beginning and long before today you lived with countless transgressions of the Law? Did not the prophet Ezechiel accuse you ten thousand times when he brought in the two harlots, Oholah and Oholibah, and said "You built a brothel in Egypt; you passionately loved barbarians, and you worshipped strange gods."
(6) What about this? After the waters of the sea were divided, after the rocks were broken asunder, after so many miracles were worked in the desert, did you not worship the calf?. Did you not try many times to kill Moses, now by stoning him, now by driving him into exile, and in ten thousand other ways? Did you ever stop hurling blasphemies at God? Were you not initiated in the rites of Baal of Peor? Did you not sacrifice your sons and daughters to demons? Did you not make a display of every form of ungodliness and sin?
(7) Did not the prophet, speaking in behalf of God, say to you: "Forty years I was offended with that generation, and I said: 'These always err in heart.' "' How was it, then, that at that time God did not turn himself away from you? How is it that after you slew your children, after your idolatries, after your many acts of arrogance, after your unspeakable ingratitude, that God even allowed the great Moses to be a prophet among you and that he worked wondrous and marvelous signs himself?. What happened in the case of no human being did happen to you. A cloud was stretched over you in place of a roof; a pillar instead of a lamp served to guide you; your enemies retreated of their own accord; cities were captured almost at the first battle-shout. You had no need of weapons. no need of an army in array, no need to do battle. You had only to sound your trumpets and the walls came tumbling down of their own accord. And you had a strange and marvelous food which the prophet spoke of when he exclaimed: "He gave them the bread of heaven. Man ate the bread of angels: he sent them provisions in abundance.
(8) Tell me this. In those days you were guilty of ungodliness, you worshipped idols, you slew your children, you stoned the prophets, and you did ten thousand dreadful deeds. Why, then, did you enjoy such great kindness and good will from Him? Why did He offer you such protection at that time? Now you do not worship idols, you do not slay your children, you do not stone the prophets. Why are you now spending your lives in endless captivity? God was not one kind of God then and a different kind now, was he? Is it not the same God who governed those past events and who brings to pass what goes on today? Tell me this. Why did you have great honor from God when your sins were greater? Now that your sins are less serious, tie has turned himself altogether away from you and has given you over to unending disgrace.
(9) If he turns away from you now because of your sins, lie should have done so all the more in those days. If he put up with you when you were living lives of ungodliness, he ought to put up with you all the more now that you venture no such enormities. Why, then, has he not put up with you? Even if you are too ashamed to give the reason, I will state it clearly. Rather, I will not state it, but the truth of the facts will do so.
(10) You did slay Christ, you did lift violent hands against the Master, you did spill his precious blood. This is why you have no chance for atonement, excuse, or defense. In the old days your reckless deeds were aimed against his servants, against Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Even if there was ungodliness in your acts then, your boldness had not yet dared the crowning crime. But now you have put all the sins of your fathers into the shade. Your mad rage against Christ, the Anointed One, left no way for anyone to surpass your sin. This is why the penalty you now pay is greater than that paid by your fathers. If tiffs is not the reason for your present disgrace, why is it that God put up with you in the old days when you sacrificed your children to idols, but turns himself away from you now when you are not so bold as to commit such a crime? Is it not clear that you dared a deed much worse and much greater than any sacrifice of children or transgression of the Law when you slew Christ?
III
Tell me this. Will you still dare to call him an imposter and lawbreaker? Will you not instead go off and bury yourselves somewhere, when you look the facts in the face, since their truth is so obvious? If Jesus were an imposter and lawbreaker, as you say he was, you should have been held in high honor for putting him to death. Phinehas slew a mall and put an end to all God's wrath against the people? The Psalmist said: "Then Phinehas stood up and propitiated him and the slaughter stopped? He rescued a great many ungodly men from the wrath of God.by slaying a single lawbreaker. This should have happened all the more in your case, if indeed the man you crucified was a transgressor of the Law.
(2) Phinehas, then, was held guiltless after he slew a lawbreaker; indeed, he was honored with the priesthood. But after you crucified an imposter, as you say, who made himself equal to God, you did not receive esteem nor were you held in honor. Instead you suffered a more grievous punishment than you did when you sacrificed your children to idols. Why is this so? Is it not clear even to the dullest minds? You committed outrage on him who saved and rules the world; now you are enduring this great punishment. Is this not the reason?
(3) Yet even today you abstain from blood which would defile you and you observe the Sabbath. But at the time you slew Christ, you violated the Sabbath. God even promised, through Jeremiah, to spare your city if you would stop carrying burdens on the Sabbath. Look, you are observing this law now; you are not carrying burdens on the Sabbath. But God is not reconciled to you on this account. Since that sin of yours surpassed all sins, it is useless to say your sins are keeping you from recovering your homeland. You are in the grip of your present sufferings not because of the sins committed in the rest of your lives but because of that one reckless act. If this were not the case, God would not have turned his back on you in such a way, even if you had sinned ten thousand times. This is clear not only from all I have already said but from what I am now going to tell you.
(4) What is this? Oftentimes we have heard God speak to your fathers through the prophets and say: "You deserve countless evils. But I do this for my name's sake, that it may not be profaned among the nations." And again: "It is not for your sakes that I do this, O house of Israel, but for my name's sake."
What God is saying is this: "You deserved heavier vengeance and punishment. But so that no one may say that God let the Jews stay in the power of their enemies because God was weak and unable to save them, I am helping you and protecting you."
(5) Suppose Christ were a lawbreaker and you crucified him; suppose you had committed countless sins and much worse ones than the sins of your fathers. God would still have saved you to keep his name from being profaned. If Christ were a lawbreaker, God would not have let him be considered a great man, God would not want people putting the blame on Christ for your misfortunes. If God clearly overlooks your sins for Iris glory's sake, he would have done so all the more if you crucified a lawbreaker. He would have approved of this slaughter and would have blotted out your sins, many as they are. But when God clearly and completely turns himself from you, it is obvious that, by his anger and by abandoning you forever, he is proving even to the most shameless that he who was slain was not a lawbreaker, but the lawgiver who has come as the author of countless blessings. You acted outrageously against him and you are now held in indignity and dishonor. We worship him and, even though heretofore we were held in greater dishonor than all of you, now, through the grace of God, we are more venerable than all.of you and are held in higher esteem.
(6) But the Jews will say: "Where is the evidence that God has turned away front us?" Does this still need proof in words? Tell me this. Do not the facts themselves shout it out? Do they not send forth a sound clearer titan the trumpet's call? Do you still ask for proof in words when you see the destruction of your city, the desolation of your temple, and all the other misfortunes which have come upon you? "But men brought these things upon us, not God." Rather it was God above all others who did these things. If you attribute them to men. then you must consider that, even if men were to have the boldness, they would not have had the power to bring these things to accomplishment, unless it were by God's decree.
(7) The barbarian came down upon you and brought all Persia with him. He expected that lie would catch you all by the suddenness of his attack and lie kept you all locked up in the city as if you were caught in the net of a hunter or fisherman. Because God was gracious to you at that time-I repeat, at that time without a battle, without a war, without a hostile encounter, the barbarian king left one hundred and eighty-five thousand of his slain soldiers among you and fled, contented that he alone was saved. And God often decided countless other battles in this way. So also now, if God had not deserted you once and for all, your enemies would not have had the power to destroy your city and leave your temple desolate. If God had not abandoned you, the ruin of desolation would not have lasted so long a time, nor would your frequent efforts to rebuild the temple have been in vain.
IV
These are not my only arguments. I shall use other sources as well in my efforts to prevail upon you to agree that it was not by their own power that the Roman emperors did what they did.
They did what they did because God was angry with the Jews and had abandoned them. If the things that happened were the work of men, your misfortunes should have ended with the capture of Jerusalem and your disgrace should not have gone beyond it. Let me grant, according to your argument, that men demolished the walls, destroyed the city, and overturned the altar, Was it the work of men that you have no more prophets? Men did not take away the grace of the Spirit, did they? Did men destroy the other things you held solemn, such as the voice from the propitiatory, the power which came in the anointing, the declaration made by the priest from the stones?
(2) The Jewish religious way of life did not have all its origins from here below; the greater number and the more solemn things came from heaven above. For example, God permitted the sacrifices. The altar was from here below as were the faggots, the knife, and the priest. But the rite which was going to enter the sanctuary and consume the sacrifices had its source from on high; no man carried the fire into the temple, but a flame came down from above and by this the ministry for the sacrifice was fulfilled.
(3) And, again, if they ever had to know something, a voice came forth from the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, from between the cherubim, and foretold the future. Again from the stones which were on the breast of the high priest, which they called the declaration, there came a sort of flashing which indicated the future.
Furthermore, whenever someone had to be chosen and anointed, the grace of the Spirit would wing its way down and the oil would run on the forehead of the elect. Prophets fulfilled these ministries. And many a time a cloud of smoke obscured the sanctuary. To keep the Jews from continuing their shameless ways and attributing their desolation to men, God not only permitted the city to fall and the temple to be destroyed but he also removed the things which had their source from heaven above: the fire, the voice, the flashing of the stones, and all other such things.
(4) The Jews will tell you: "Men waged war on us; men plotted against us." When they say this, tell them that men would certainly not have waged war against them unless God had permitted it. Granted that men tore down your walls. Did a man keep the fire from Coming down from heaven? Did a man stop the voice which was continually heard from the propitiatory? Did a man stop the declaration from the stones? Did a man put an end to the anointing of your priests? Did a man take away all those other things? Was it not God who withdrew them? Surely, this is clear to everybody. Why, then, did God take them away? Is it not obvious that he hated you and turned his back on you once and for all? The Jews will say: "By no means! The reason why we do not have these is because we do not have our mother-city." But why do you not have your mother-city? Is it not because God has abandoned you?
(5) Let us, rather, stop their shameless mouths with still more proof. To do this, let me prove from the Scriptures themselves that the destruction of the temple was not the reason for destroying the ritual given to the prophets. The real reason was the wrath of God. And he is much more provoked to anger now, because of the Jews' mad rage against Christ, than he was when they worshipped the calf. Surely, when Moses was their prophet, there was neither temple nor altar. Even though they kept committing countless acts of ungodliness, his gift of prophecy did not desert him. To be sure, he was a great and noble man, but, in addition to hint, there were again seventy other men who, at that time, were proclaimed as prophets.
(6) This was true not only in Moses' day but also thereafter, when they had been given a temple and the rest of the ritual. Even after this temple was burned and they all had been led off to Babylon, Ezechiel and Daniel saw no holy of holies, stood beside no altar. But even though they were in the middle of a barbarian land and in the midst of unclean transgressors of the Law, they were filled with the Spirit and foretold the future, predicting events far more numerous and marvelous than those prophesied by their predecessors. And they saw divine visions insofar as it was possible for them to see.
(7) Tell me this. Why is it that you have no prophets now? Is it not clear that it is because God has turned his back on your religion? Why did he turn his back on you? It is again obvious that he did so because of him whom you crucified' and because of your recklessness in committing that outrage. What makes this so obvious? It is obvious from this: when you Jews lived the life of ungodliness before, you got everything; now, after the cross, although you seem to be living a more moderate life, you 'endure a greater vengeance and have none of your former blessings.
V
The prophets clearly and distinctly put the truth before you so that you could learn the reason for your troubles. hear how Isaiah predicted not only the blessings that will come to all through Christ but also your senseless arrogance. He said: "By his stripes we were healed," and by these words he foretold the salvation which has come to all through the cross. Then, to show the kind of men we are, he went on to say: "We had all gone astray like sheep, each turned aside on his own way." In describing the manner of his execution on the cross, he said: "Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearer, he was silent and opened not his mouth. In his humiliation his legal trial was taken away.
(2) And where can we see that all these things came true? In Pilate's unlawful court of law. Although they testified to so many things against him, as Matthew said, Jesus made no answer to them. Pilate, the presiding official, said to him: "Do you hear what witness these men bear against you? And he made no answer but stood there silent. This is what the heaven-inspired prophet meant when he said: "Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearer, he was silent." Then he showed the lawlessness of the law court when he said: "In his humiliation his legal trial was taken away." No one at that time cast a truly just vote against him, but they accepted the false testimony against him. What was the reason for this? Because he did not wish to proceed against them.
(3) If he wished to do so, he would have stirred up everything and shaken the world to its depths. When he was on the cross, he split the rocks, darkened the earth, turned aside the rays of the sun, and made night out of day over the whole world. If he did this on the cross, he could have done it in the courtroom. Yet he did not wish to do it but, instead, showed us his mildness and moderation. This is why Isaiah said: "In his humiliation his legal trial was taken away." Then, to show that Jesus was not just anybody, he went on to say: "Who shall declare his generation? Who is this man of whom Isaiah said: "His life is taken from the earth? This is why Paul also said: "Our life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, our life, shall appear, then you too will appear with him in glory."
(4) But let me return to the topic which I proposed to discuss and prove, namely, that the Jews are enduring their present troubles because of Christ. It is time now to bring in my witness, Isaiah, who spoke these words. Where, then, did he say this? After he spoke of the trial, death, and ascension, after he said: "His life is taken from the earth," he went on to say: "And I shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death." He did not simply say "the Jews," but "the ungodly." What could be more ungodly than those who first received so many good things and then slew the author of those blessings?
(5) If these prophecies have not been fulfilled, if you Jews are not now held in dishonor, if you are not now bereft of everything your fathers had, if your city did not fall, if your temple is not in ruins, if your disaster has not surpassed every tragedy, then you Jews should refuse to believe me. But if the facts shout out and prophecy has been fulfilled, why do you keep up your foolish and unavailing impudence?
(6) Where are the things you held as solemn, where is your high priest, where are his robe, his breast piece, and stones of declaration? Do not talk to me about those patriarchs of yours who are hucksters and merchants and -filed with all iniquity. Tell me, what kind of priest is he if the ancient oil for anointing priests no longer exists nor any other ritual of consecration? What kind of a priest is he if there is neither sacrifice, nor altar, nor worship?
Do you wish me to speak of the laws governing the priesthood and how priests were consecrated in olden times? In this way you would find out that those among you who are today called patriarchs are not priests at all. They act the part of priests and are playing a role as if they were on the stage, but they cannot carry the role because they are so far removed from both the reality and even the pretense of priesthood.
(7) Recall how ill those days Aaron was made a priest, how many sacrifices Moses offered, how many victims he slew, how he bathed Aaron, anointed the lobe of his ear, his right hand and right foot. Only then did Moses lead Aaron into the holy of holies; only then did he bid him remain there a set number of days. But it is worth your while to hear his very words. "This is the anointing of Aaron and the anointing of his sons. "And the Lord spoke to Moses saying 'Take Aaron with his sons, their vestments, and the oil of unction, the calf for sin, and a ram, and gather together the community at the entrance of the meeting tent.' And Moses spoke to the whole assembly: 'This is the word which the Lord has commanded.' And after he brought them forward" (for I must cut the account short), "he washed them with water, put the tunic [on Aaron], girded him with the sash, clothed him with the robe, placed the ephod on him, girded him and fastened it around him. He then set the breast piece on him with the declaration of doctrine and truth on it, and put the miters on his head, and on the miter, the gold plate. Taking the anointing oil he sprinkled the altar with it and consecrated it and the vessels; the laver and its base he also consecrated. And he poured some of the oil on Aaron's head and did in like manner to his sons. And he brought forward the calf. After he sacrificed it, when Aaron and his sons had put their hands upon it, he took some of its blood and put it on the horns of the altar and purified the altar. And he poured the blood on the base of the altar and consecrated it by performing the rite of atonement Over it. After lie burned portions of the calf, some within on the altar, others outside the camp, he brought in a ram and offered it for a holocaust.
(8) And again he brought a second ram, the ordination ram. Aaron and his sons laid their hands on it and Moses immolated its He took some of its blood and put it on the lobe of Aaron's right ear, the thumb of his right hand, and the big toe of his right foot.
And he did the same thing to Aaron's sons. Then he took some parts of the sacrifice and put them into Aaron's hands and those of his sons and in this way he made the offering. And again he took the blood and some oil and sprinkled Aaron and his vestments with it, and his sons and their vestments. He consecrated them and ordered them to cook the flesh at the entrance to the tent of meeting and to eat it there. And he said: 'You shall not go forth from the entrance to the tent of meeting for seven days until the day when the day of your ordination is complete."'
(9) Moses said that by all these rites Aaron was ordained, purified, and consecrated, and that they appeased God. But we find none of these today: no sacrifice, no holocaust, no sprinkling of blood, no anointing with oil, no tent of meeting where they must sit for a definite number of days. This makes it obvious that the priest among the Jews today is unordained, unclean, under a curse, and profane; he only provokes God's wrath. If a priest could not be ordained in any other way than by these rites, and these rites no longer exist, then there is no possible way that their priesthood could have continued to exist. You see that! was right when I said they had gotten somewhere far off and had been far removed from both the reality and even the pretense of the priesthood.
VI
We can also learn from other sources how awesome was the dignity of the priesthood. Indeed, there was a day when some wicked and evil men revolted against Aaron, quarreled with him over his position in the community, and tried to drive him from his leadership. Moses, the mildest of men, wanted to persuade them by the facts themselves that he had not brought Aaron to the leadership because he was a brother, relative, or member of his family, but that it was in obedience to God's decree that he had entrusted the priesthood to him. So he ordered each tribe to bring a staff, and Aaron was instructed to do the same.
(2) When each tribe had brought a staff, Moses took all of them and put them inside the meeting tent. Once he had put them there, he gave orders that they await the decision of God which would come to them through those staves. Then all the other staves kept their same appearance, but a single one-Aaron's-blossomed and put forth leaves and fruit. So the Lord of nature used leaves instead of letters to teach them that he had again elected Aaron [error in text?].
(3) God said in the beginning: "Let the earth bring forth vegetation," and he stirred up its power to bear fruit; in Aaron's day, he also took that dry and fruitless wood and made it blossom without earth or root. That staff was thereafter a proof and witness both of the wickedness of those men and of God's choice. It uttered no word, but the very sight of it, in tones clearer than any trumpet's call, urged every man never to attempt such things as did Aaron's foes.
(4) Not only ill this case but at another time and in another way God made clear his choice of Aaron. Many men conspired against Aaron in their lust for the leadership for which God selected him. (And leadership is the kind of thing many men fight over and desire.) Moses ordered them to bring their censers, put incense in them, and to wait for a decision from heaven. As they were burning their incense, the earth split apart and gulped down all their supporters, and a flame from heaven consumed those who had taken up their censers.
(5) Moses did not want anyone to forget, with the passage of time, what had happened. Nor did he want men of a later day to remain ignorant of God's wondrous decision. Therefore, he gave orders that those bronze censers be picked up and beaten into plates for the altar. Just as the very sight of the voiceless staff sent forth a voice, so these bronze plates would speak to all men thereafter, to exhort and advise them never to imitate the madness of those men of old, for fear that they might suffer the same judgment.
(6) Do you see how priests were chosen in former days? But everything that goes on among the Jews today is a ridiculous sport, a trading in shame, filled with outrages beyond number. Tell me, then. Do you let yourself be led by these men who stubbornly oppose God's laws in their every word and deed? Do you rush to their synagogues? Are you not afraid that a bolt of lightning may come down from above and consume your head? Even if a man is not a thief himself but is seen in a den of robbers, he pays the same penalty as they. You do know tiffs, do you not? But why talk about robbers and their crimes?
(7) Surely you all know and remember the time when some evil tricksters in our midst tore down the statues? You remember how not only those who did this reckless deed but also those who were seen simply standing there when it happened were all arrested and dragged off to court together. And you remember that they all paid the supreme penalty. Tell me, then. Are you all agog to run off to a place where they outrage the Father, blaspheme the Son, and reject the Holy Spirit, the giver of life? Are you not afraid, do you not shudder to set foot inside those profane and unclean places? Tell me. What defense or excuse will you have since it is you who have thrust yourself into ruin and perdition, since it is you who have hurled yourself from the precipice?
(8) Do not tell me that the Law and the books of the prophets are there. These do not make it a holy place? Which is the better thing? Is it better to have the books there or to speak out the truths they contain? Obviously it is better to speak out these truths and to keep them in your heart. Tell me, what about this? The devil quoted Scripture. This did not make his mouth holy, did it? You cannot say it did, since the devil kept on being the devil. What about the demons? Just because they spoke out and proclaimed: "These men are servants of the most high God and they proclaim to you a way of salvation," do we on this account rank them among the apostles? By no means! Just as before, we keep right on turning our backs on them and hating them.
(9) If spoken words do not make the mouth holy, does the presence of the Scriptures make a place holy? But how could this be right? This is my strongest reason for hating the synagogue: it does have the Law and the prophets. And now I hate it more than if it had none of these. Why is this? Because in the Law and the prophets they have a great allurement and many a snare to attract the more simple-minded sort of men. This is why Paul drove out the demon which did not remain silent but spoke out. As the author of Acts says: "Being very much grieved, he said to the spirit, 'Go out of her.' Why? Because the demon kept shouting: "These men are servants of the most high God.
(10) As long as the demons remained silent, they did not deceive people by their words; when they spoke out, they did so with the intention of enticing many of the simpler sort into listening and heeding them in these other matters. The demons wish to open the door to their deceits and to create confidence in their lies. And so they give some admixture of truth, in the same way that those who mix lethal drugs smear the lip of the cup with honey to make the harmful potion easy to drink.
(11) This is why Paul was very much grieved and why he hurried to stop up the demons' mouths when they took to themselves a dignity which ill became them. This is why I hate the Jews. Although they possess the Law, they put it to outrageous use. For it is by means of the Law that they try to entice and catch the more simpleminded sort of men. If they refused to believe in Christ because they did not believe in the prophets, the charge against them would not be so severe. As it is, they have deprived themselves of every excuse because they say that they do believe in the prophets but they have heaped outrage on him whom the prophets foretold.
VII
In short, if you believe the place is holy because the Law and the books of prophets are there, then it is time for you to believe that idols and the temples of idols are holy. Once, when the Jews were at war, the people of Ashdod conquered them, took their ark, and brought it into their own temple. Did the fact that it contained the ark make their temple a holy place? By no means! It continued to be profane and unclean, as the events straightway proved. For God wanted to teach the enemies of the Jews that the defeat was not due to God's weakness but to the transgressions of those who worshipped him. And so the ark, which had been taken as booty in war, gave proof of its own power in an alien land by twice throwing the idol to the ground so that the idol was broken. The ark was so far from making that temple a holy place that it even openly attacked it.
(2) Look at it in another way. What sort of ark is it that the Jews now have, where we find no propitiatory, no tables of the law, no holy of holies, no veil, no high priest, no incense, no holocaust, no sacrifice, none of the other things that made the ark of old solemn and august? It seems to me that the ark the Jews now have is no better off than those toy arks which you can buy in the market place. in fact it is much worse. Those little toy arks cannot hurt anybody who comes close to them. But the ark which the Jews now have does great harm each day to those who come near it.
(3) "Brethren, do not become children in mind, but in malice be children, and rescue from their untimely anguish those who are frightened by these things. Teach them what should really terrify them and make them afraid. They should not be terrified by that ark but they should be afraid that they will bring destruction to the temple of God. How will they destroy the temple of God? By constantly rushing off to the synagogue, by a conscience which is inclined toward Judaism, and by the untimely observance of the Jewish rites.
(4) "You who would be justified in the Law have fallen away from grace." This is what you must fear. On that day of judgment you must be afraid of hearing him who will judge you say: "Depart, I know you not." "You made common cause with those who crucified me. You were obstinate toward me and started up again the festivals to which I had put an end. You ran to the synagogues of the Jews who sinned against me. I destroyed the temple and made rains of that august place together with all the awe-inspiring things it contained. But you frequented shrines that are no better than hucksters' shops or dens of thieves."
(5) The cherubim and the ark were still there, the grace of the Spirit still abounded in the temple when Christ said: "You have made it a den of thieves" and "a house of business." And He said this because of the transgressions and blood-guilt of the Jews. Now, after the grace of the Spirit has abandoned them, after all those august solemnities have been taken away, they are still stubborn with God and carry on their irreligious rites. What worthy name can we find to call their synagogues?
(6) The temple was already a den of thieves when the Jewish commonwealth and way of life still prevailed. Now you give it a name more worthy than it deserves if you call it a brothel, a stronghold of sin, a lodging-place for demons, a fortress of the de.vii, the destruction of the soul, the precipice and pit of all perdition, or whatever other name you give it.
(7) Do you wish to see the temple? Don't run to the synagogue; be a temple yourself. God destroyed one temple in Jerusalem but he reared up temples beyond number, temples more august than that old one ever was. Paul said: "You are the temple of the living God. Make that temple beautiful, drive out every evil thought, so that you may be a precious member of Christ, a temple of the Spirit. And make others be temples such as you are yourselves. When you see the poor, you would not find it easy to pass them by. When ally of you see some Christian running to the synagogue, do not look the other way. Find some argument you can use as a halter to bring him back to the Church. This kind of almsgiving is greater than giving to the poor, and the profit from it is worth more than ten thousand talents.
(8) Why do I speak of being worth more than tell thousand talents? Or worth more than the whole visible world? A human being is worth more than the whole world. Heaven and earth and sea and sun and stars were made for his sake.
(9) Consider well, then, the dignity and worth of the man you save. Do not think lightly of the care you show to him. Even if a man gives away more money than you can count, he does not do as great a thing as the man who saves a soul, leads it from its error, and takes it by the hand along the road to godliness. The man who gives to the poor takes away the poor man's hunger; the man who sets a Judaizing Christian straight, wins a victory over godlessness. The first man gave consolation to the poor; the second put a stop to reckless transgression. The first freed the body from pain, the other snatched a soul from the fires of hell.
(10) I showed you the treasure; do not forsake the profit. You cannot dare put the blame on your poverty or excuse yourself because you are indigent. The only expense is one of phrases; the only cost is one of words. Therefore, let us not shrink back from the task but, with all the zeal and desire we possess, let us go hunting for our brothers. Even though they be unwilling, let us drag them into our own houses, let us sit down with them at table and put a meal before them. Let us do tiffs so that after they have broken their fast before our eyes, after they have given us a full and sufficient guarantee of their conversion and return to better ways, they may help both themselves and us to a share in eternal blessings through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father together with the Holy Spirit, now and forever, world without end. Amen.
This material was uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2011, and derives from a translation of unknown origin formerly hosted at the Medieval Sourcebook. This file and all material on this page is believed to be in the public domain. For more details see the preface to the online edition.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_07_homily .htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 7
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 7
HOMILY VII
(1) Have you had enough of the fight against the Jews? Or do you wish me to take up the same topic today? Even if I have already had much to say on it, I still think you want to hear the same thing again. The man who does not have enough of loving Christ will never have enough of fighting against those who hate Christ. Besides, there is another reason which makes a discourse on this theme necessary. These feasts of theirs are not yet over; some traces still remain.
(2) Their trumpets were a greater outrage than those heard in the theaters; their fasts were more disgraceful than any drunken revel. So, too, the tents which at this moment are pitched among them are no better than the inns where harlots and flute girls ply their trades. Let no one condemn me for the boldness of my words; it is the height of boldness and outrage not to suspect the Jews of these excesses. Since they stubbornly fight against GOD and resist the HOLY SPIRIT, how can we avoid the necessity of passing such sentence upon them?
(3) This festival used to be a holy one when it was observed according to the Law and at God's command. But this is no longer true. All its dignity has been destroyed because it is observed against God's will. Those who, above all others, treat the Law and the ancient festivals with the least respect are the very ones who are ready today to observe the Law and festivals more than anyone else. But we are the one who honor the Law above all others, even if we let it rest like a man who has grown old and infirm, even if we do not drag it, gray with age, to the arena, even if we do not force it to enter the contests which are not suited to its years. In my past discourses I gave adequate proof that today is not the day of the Law nor of the old commonwealth and the old way of life.
(4) But come now, let me investigate what remains to be discussed. I did enough to complete my task when I proved from all the prophets that any such observance of ritual outside Jerusalem is transgression of the Law and sacrilege. But they never stop whispering in everybody's ear and bragging that they will get their city back again. Even if this were true, they could not escape the charge of transgressing the Law. But I gave you abundant evidence to prove that the city will not be restored nor will they get back their old commonwealth and way of life.
(5) Once that has been proved, there is no room for disagreement on any of the other points. For example, neither the form of sacrifice, nor of the holocaust, nor the binding force of the Law, nor any other aspect of their old commonwealth and way of life can stand. To begin with, the Law commanded that three times each year every male go up to the temple. But they could not do this once the temple was destroyed. Then, too, the Law commanded that sacrifices be offered by the man afflicted with gonorrhea, the leper, the woman in her menstrual period, the woman who had given birth to a child. But this is impossible since the place no longer exists nor is there an altar to be seen. The Law commanded them to sing sacred hymns but, as I showed before, the place they were living in prevented them; the prophets condemned them and said (917) they were reading the Law and making their confession of praise to God in a foreign land. Since they could not even read the Law outside Jerusalem, how could they observe it outside Jerusalem?
(6) This is why God threatened them and said: 'I shall not visit your daughters when they commit fornication nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery.' What does this mean? First, I shall read to you the old Law and then I shall try to make his meaning clearer. What, then, does the Law say? 'If a woman transgresses against her husband, disdaining and disregarding him, and if someone sleeps with her the sleep of intercourse, and if she escapes the eye of her husband and there is no witness against her, nor is she caught in the act, nor if a spirit of jealousy comes over her husband when she has not been defiled...'
(7) This is what the Law means. If a woman commits adultery and her husband suspects it, or if he suspects her when she has not committed adultery, but there is no witness nor conception to prove the suspicion, 'he will bring her to the priest and take along barley meal as an offering for her.' Why, I ask, must it be barley meal rather than fine flour or the meal of wheat? Since what happened was a source of pain, accusation, and wicked suspicion, the form of the sacrifice imitated a household disaster. This is why the Lord said: 'You will not pour oil on it nor put frankincense over it.' ''Then'' (for I must cut the account short) ''The priest shall lead her forward and will take pure water in an earthen vessel; he will pick up some of the dust which is on the floor and throw it into the water; he will make the woman stand, will make her swear an oath, and he will say to her: 'If you did not transgress so as to become defiled for your husband, be immune from the water of reproof. But if you did transgress and you are defiled, if someone other than your husband did have intercourse with you, may the Lord make of you an execration and a curse among your people.'
(8) What is the meaning of 'an execration and a curse'? As the saying goes; May what happened to that poor woman not happen to me! 'By the Lord causing your belly to swell and the water that brings a curse will enter your belly to make it swell.' And the woman will say: 'Amen, Amen'. And it will come to pass, if the woman is defiled, that the water of the curse will enter her belly to make it swell, and the woman will be an execration. If she is not defiled, she will be unharmed and will conceive offspring.' Once the Jews had gone off into bondage, none of these things could be done because there was no temple, no altar, no Meeting Tent, no sacrifice to be offered. Because this was the case, when God threatened them, he said: 'I shall not visit your daughters when they commit fornication nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery.'
II
(1) Do you see that the Law takes its force from the place? And since the city is gone, there can no longer be a priesthood. There can be no emperor if there are no armies, no crown, no purple robe, none of the other things which weld together an empire. So, too, there can be no priesthood if sacrifice has been destroyed, if offerings are forbidden, if the sanctuary has been trampled into the dust, if everything which constituted it has disappeared. For the priesthood depend on all these things.
(2) As I said before, it was enough for my purpose to prove that neither the sacrifices, nor the holocausts, nor the other purifications, nor any other part of the (918) Jewish commonwealth and way of life would return. It was enough, finally, to prove that the temple will never rise again. Now that it is no more, everything has been taken away; if something ritualistic seems to be going on, it is against the Law and a reckless crime. In the same way, once I have proved that the temple will never be restored to its former state, I have at the same time also proved that the rest of the ritual of worship will not return to its former condition, that there will be no priest, there will be no king. If not even a commoner of Jewish blood was allowed to be a servant to foreigners, it would be all the more forbidden for their king himself to be subject to others.
(3) But since my effort and zeal are here devoted not only to stopping up the mouths of the Jews but also to instructing your loving assembly, come now and let me take another authority and prove this same point. Let me prove that both the sacrifices of the Jews and their priesthood have completely ended that day will never again return to their former status.
(4) Who says this? That great and wonderful prophet, David. He made it clear that the one kind of sacrifice would be abolished and another brought in to take its place when he said: 'Many are the wondrous works you have done. O Lord my God: and in your thoughts there is no one like to you. I have declared and I have spoken.' See how wise the prophet is. He said: 'Many are the wondrous works you have done,' and he stood aghast at God's power to work miracles. But he did not go on to tell us about the creation of the things we see of heaven, earth, and ocean, of water and fire; he did not tell us of those strange marvels which happened in Egypt, or of any other miracles like those. What did he say were wondrous works? 'Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire.'
(5) What do you mean, David? Is this a strange marvel? No, he said. For this was not the only thing he saw. Inspired by heaven, he saw with prophetic eyes how God would lead the nations to him; he saw how those who were nailed to their gods, who worshipped stones, who were worse off than brute beasts suddenly looked up and recognized the Master of all creation; he saw how these men put aside their foul worship of demons and gave pure and bloodless worship to God. At the same time he saw that the Jews, too, who were even more imperfect than the pagans, would put aside their worship through sacrifices, holocausts, and other material things and be led to our way of life. And he pondered on God's ineffable loving-kindness which surpasses all understanding; he stood aghast at how greatly things had changed, how God had reshaped them, how he had made men from demons into angels, and how he had introduced a commonwealth and way of life worthy of heaven.
(6) All this was to take place after the old sacrifice had been abolished and after God had brought into its place the new sacrifice through the body of Christ. This is why David stood aghast and marveled and said: 'Many are the wondrous works you have done, O Lord my God.' To show that he made this whole prophetic prediction in behalf of Christ when he said: 'Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire,' David went on to say: 'But a body you have fitted to me.' By this he meant the Lord's body which became the common sacrifice for the whole world, the sacrifice which cleansed our soul, canceled our sin, put down death, opened heaven, gave us many great hopes, and made ready all the other things which Paul knew well and spoke of when he exclaimed: 'Oh, the depth of the riches and of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and how unsearchable are his ways.'
(7) David, then, foresaw all this when he said: 'Many are the wondrous work you have done, O Lord my God.' He went to say, speaking in the person of Christ: 'In holocausts and sin offerings you had no pleasure, and then continued: 'Then I said, Behold I came.' When was 'then'? When the time was ripe for more perfect instructions. We had to learn the less perfect lessons through his servants, but the loftier lessons which surpass the nature of man we had to learn from the Lawgiver himself.
(8) This is why Paul said: 'God, who at sundry times and in varied ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.' And again, John said: 'For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.' And this is the highest panegyric for the Law, namely that it prepared human nature for the Teacher.
(9) But he did not want you to look on him as a new God or any kind of innovation. Hear what he said: 'In the head of the book it is written of me.' What he meant was this: 'Long ago the prophets foretold my coming and at the beginning of the Scriptures they opened them a little to give men a glimpse of the knowledge that I am God.'
III
(1) An so, at the beginning of creation, when God said: 'Let us make mankind in our image and likeness,' he was revealing to us in a rather obscure way the divinity of his Son, to whom he was then speaking. Later on the Psalmist showed that this new religious way of life did not contradict the old, but that it was God's will that the old sacrifice be abolished and the new sacrifice replace the old. The new was an extension of the right way of worship; it did not oppose or fight with the old. He showed this when he said: 'In the head of the book it is written of me,' and added: 'That I should do your will, O my God; I have desired it and your law in the mist of my heart.' And when he explained what God's will was, he made no mention of sacrifice or holocausts or offerings or toil and sweat, but said: 'I have declared your justice in a great assembly.'
(2) What does he mean when he says: 'I have declared your justice?' He did not simply say: 'I have given,' 'I have declared.' What does this mean? That he has justified our race not by right actions, nor by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone. Paul, too, made this clear when he said: 'But now the justice of God has been made manifest independently of the Law.' But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not through any labor and suffering. And Paul took up again the testimony of this Psalm when he spoke as follows: 'For the Law, having but a shadow of the good things to came, and not the exact image of the objects, is never able by the sacrifices which they offer continually, year after year the same, to perfect those who draw near. Therefore in coming into the world, he says: 'Sacrifice and oblation you wished not, but a body you have fitted to me.' By this he meant the entrance into the world of the Only-begotten, the dispensation through the flesh. For this is the way he came to us. He did not change place-how could he since he is every-where and fills all things-but he was made visible to us through the flesh.
(3) Here we are fighting not only against the Jews but also against the pagans and many heretics. So let me uncover for you the deeper meaning here; let me search out the reason why Paul mentioned this text when he had countless testimonies to show that the Law and the old commonwealth and way of life are no longer productive. He did not cite this simply by chance but he did it with good reason and ineffable wisdom. Everybody would agree that he had on this subject other testimonies, both of greater length and more vehement, if he had wished to bring them forward.
(4) For example, Isaiah said: 'I have no pleasure in you. I have had enough of whole-burnt rams. I desire not fat of fatlings and blood of bulls and goats, not even if you come into my sight. Who required these things at your hands? If you offer me wheaten flour, it is in vain. Incense is an abomination to me.' And again, in another place: 'I did not call you now, Jacob, nor, Israel, did I make you weary. You did not honor me with sacrifices nor did you worship me with your gifts; I did not weary you with frankincense, nor did you get incense for me with silver.' And Jeremiah said: 'Why do you bring me incense from Sheba and cinnamon from a far country? Your holocausts have not pleased me.' And again: 'Heap up your holocausts upon your sacrifices and eat up the flesh.' And another prophet said: 'Take away from me the sound of your songs: I will not hear the canticle of your harps.' And again, there was another text, where the Jews were saying: 'Will the Lord receive it in place of holocausts if I give my first-born for my wickedness, the fruit of my body for the sin of my souls?' And the prophet reproved them and said: 'It has been announced to you what is good and what the Lord God requires of you, that you love mercy, do judgment and justice, and be ready to walk behind your God.' David also spoke in the same vein when he said: 'I will not take calves from your house nor goats from your flocks.'
(5) When Paul had so many testimonies in which God surely rejects those sacrifices, the times of the new moon, the Sabbaths, the festivals, why did he omit all these and mention just that one text? Many of the infidels and many of the Jews themselves who are now doing battle with me maintain that their commonwealth and way of life was not abolished because it was imperfect or its place taken by a greater way of life-I mean ours-but because of the sinfulness of those who offered the sacrifices in those days. And Isaiah certainly did say: 'If you stretch out your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you: and if you multiply your prayers, I will not hear.' Then, to give the reason for this, he went on to say: 'For your hands are full of blood.' These words are not an accusation made against the sacrifices; they are an indictment of the sinfulness of those who offered them. God rejected their sacrifices because they offered them with bloodstained hands.
(6) Again, when David said: 'I will not take calves from your house nor goats from your flocks,' he went on to add: 'But to the sinner God said: 'Why do you declare my justices and take my covenant in your mouth? You hated discipline and cast my words behind you. If you saw a thief, you ran along with him and you threw in your lot with adulterers. Your mouth abounded with injustice and your tongue wrapped up deceits in your words. You sat down and spoke slander against your brother and set a stumbling-block for your mother's son.' This makes it clear that in this instance God did not simply reject sacrifices, but that he rejected them because those who offered them were adulterers and thieves and plotted against theirs brothers. So these enemies of mine maintain that, since each prophet accuses those who offer the sacrifices, his prophecy is saying that this is the reason why God rejected their sacrifices.
IV
(1) This is what my opponents say to me. But Paul dealt them a knockout blow and said enough to shut their shameless mouths when he cited as his witness the text I have discussed. When Paul wished to prove that God had rejected the old commonwealth and way of life, because it was imperfect, and that he had rendered it inoperative, he took as testimony that text in which no accusation is made against those who offered the sacrifices. He used a text which makes it clear that the sacrifice was in itself imperfect. For the prophet David made no accusation against the Jews; he simply said: 'Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire, but a body you fitted to me: in holocausts and sin offerings you had no pleasure.'
(2) In explanation of this text Paul said: ' He annuls the first covenant in order to establish the second.' If David had said: 'Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire,' and than said no more, their argument would have some place to defend itself. But since he also said: 'But a body you fitted to me,' and showed that another sacrifice was brought in to replace it, he left no hope for the future that the old sacrifice would return. And in explaining this, Paul said: 'Through this offering we have been sanctified in the will of Christ;' and also: 'If the blood of bulls and goats and the sprinkled ashes of a heifer sanctify the unclean for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered himself unblemished, cleanse our conscience from dead works? This gives us abundant proof, then, that those old rituals have stopped, that a new rite has been brought forward to replace them, and that the old will not hereafter be restored.
(3) What is left to discuss now? For some time I have been anxious to prove to you that their kind of priesthood has disappeared and will never return. Let me make this expressly clear from the Scriptures themselves. First I must preface this with a few remarks, so that my explanation of the scriptures say may be even more obvious.
(4) On his return from Persia, Abraham begot Isaac; Isaac then begot Jacob; Jacob begot the twelve patriarchs from whom arose the twelve tribes-or, rather, the thirteen, because, in Joseph's place, his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, became leaders of tribes. A tribe was named after each of Jacob's sons: for example, the tribe of Ruben, of Simeon, of Levi, of Judah, of Naphthali, of Gad, of Asher, of Benjamin. So also in Joseph's case, his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, gave their names to two tribes; one was called the tribe of Ephraim and the other the tribe of Manasseh. Of these thirteen tribes all but one had fields and large incomes, all but one tilled the fields and devoted themselves to all the other secular pursuits. But the tribe of Levi was honored with the priesthood; it alone was freed from secular work. They did not till the farms, nor do anything else of the sort, but devoted their attention exclusively to the priesthood. Form all the people they received tithes of wine and wheat and barley and everything else; all gave them tithes and this was their income. No one from any other tribe could ever become a priest. From this tribe-I mean the tribe of Levi-came Aaron, and by succession, his descendants received the priesthood; no one from another tribe ever becomes a priest. And so these Levites received tithes from the rest and, in this way, supported themselves.
(5) But in the time of Abraham, before the day of Jacob and Isaac, before the coming of Moses, when the Law had not yet been written, when the priesthood did not clearly to the Levites, when there was no Meeting Tent or Temple, before the division of the people into tribes, before Jerusalem existed, before anyone at all had yet taken control of the government among the Jews, there was a man named Melchizedek, a priest of the Most High God. This Melchizedek was at the same time both priest and king; he was to be a type of Christ, and Scripture makes clear mention of this. For Abraham attacked the Persians, rescued his nephew Lot from their hands, seized all the spoils, and was returning from his mighty victory over his foes. After describing those events the Scripture had this to say about Melchizedek. 'Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest of the Most High God. He blessed Abraham and said, 'Blessed by the Most High God, creator of heaven and earth: blessed be the Most High God who has delivered your enemies into your hand.' Then Abraham gave him a tenth of everything.'
(6) If, then, any prophet clearly says that after Aaron, after that priesthood, after those sacrifices and oblations, there will rise up another priest, not from Levi's tribe but from another tribe from which no one ever became a priest, a priest not according to the order of Aaron but according to the order of Melchizedek, it is just as clear that the old priesthood has ceased to exist and another, a new priesthood has been brought in to take its place. If the old priesthood were going to remain effective, it would have to be called a priesthood according to the order of Aaron and not according to the order of Melchizedek. Did any prophet speak of this new priesthood? Yes, that same prophet who before spoke about the sacrifices and who was speaking of Christ when he said: 'The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand.'
V
(1) To prevent anyone from suspecting that this was said about some ordinary man, it was not Isaiah nor Jeremiah, nor any prophet who was a common man that said it, but King David himself. But a king cannot call any man his Lord; it is God alone whom he can call Lord. If David were a common man, perhaps one of those shameless people would have said that he was talking about a mere human being. But now, since David was a king, he would not have called a man his Lord. If David were talking about some ordinary person, how could he have said that this person sat at the right hand of that ineffable and mighty Majesty? That would have been impossible. But of this person said: 'The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.'
(2) Then, to keep you from thinking that this person was weak and powerless, David went on to say: 'With you is the principality in the day of your strength.' And he made it still clearer when he said: 'From the whom before the daystar I begot you.' But no mere man was begotter before the daystar. 'You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.' He did not say: 'According to the order of Aaron.' So ask the Jews why David brought in another priest, according to the order of Melchizedek, if the old priesthood was not going to be abolish.
(3) At any rate, see how Paul made this clearer when he came to this text. After Paul said of Christ: 'As he (David) says also in another place. 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,' the Apostle went on to say: 'On this point we have much to say, and it is difficult to explain it.' After he reproved his disciples-but I must cut the account short-he went on to tell them who Melchizedek was and to tell the story. 'He met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; to whom Abraham divided the tithes of all.' Then, to give some insight into Melchizedek, the type, he said: 'Now consider how great this man is, to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave tithes of all.' He did not say this for no purpose but because he wanted to show that our priesthood is much greater than the Jewish priesthood. And the excellence of the realities is shown beforehand in the very types which foreshadow them.
(4) Abraham was the father of Isaac, the grandfather of Jacob, and the ancestor of Levi, for Levi was Jacob's son. The priesthood among the Jews began with Levi. So this man Abraham was the ancestor of the Levites and the Jewish priests. But in the time if Melchizedek, who is the type of our priesthood, Abraham had the rank of a layman. Two things make this clear. First, he gave tithes to Melchizedek, and it is the laymen who give tithes to the priests. Second, he was blessed by Melchizedek, and laymen are blessed by priests.
(5) We again see the excellence of our priesthood when we find Abraham, the patriarch of the Jews, the ancestor of the Levites, receiving a blessing from Melchizedek and giving tithes to him. Surely the Old Testament says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham and exacted a tenth part from him. And Paul brought these very points to the fore and said: 'Consider how great this man is.' Who is 'this man'? Paul told us. Melchizedek, 'to whom even Abraham their patriarch gave tithes from the best portion of the spoils.' 'And indeed they who are of the priestly sons of Levi have a commandment to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brethren, though these also have come from the loins of Abraham.'
(6) What Paul means in this. He said that the Levites, who were priests among the Jews, received a commandment, according to the Law, to take tithes from the other Jews. Although they all were descended from Abraham, both the Levites and the rest of the people, nonetheless the Levites took tithes from their brothers. But Melchizedek, who was not of their descent, because he was not a descendant of Abraham, and who was not of the tribe of Levi but from another nation, exacted a tenth part from Abraham, that is, he took tithes from him.
(7) Not only this, but he did something further. What is that? He again blessed Abraham, even though it was Abraham who had received the promises. What does this show? That Abraham was much inferior to Melchizedek. How can this be? 'Beyond all contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the superior, ' so that, unless Abraham, the ancestor of the Levites, were inferior to Melchizedek, Melchizedek would not have blessed him, nor would Abraham have given tithes to Melchizedek. But Paul wished to show that, because of the excellence of Melchizedek, that inferiority might have continued, so he went on to say: 'Even Levi, the receiver of tithes, was also, so to speak, made subject to tithes, though Abraham.'
(8) What does he mean by 'was made subject to tithes'? Although Levi was not yet born, through his father, he, too, gave tithes to Melchizedek. As Paul said: 'He was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek meet him.' This is why Paul was careful to say: 'So to speak.' He went on to tell why he said this. 'If the perfection was by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the Law), what further need was there that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchizedek, and said not to be according of Aaron?'
(9) What is it that Paul Meant? He meant this. If the Jewish religion was perfect, if the Law was not a foreshadowing of future blessing but had been efficacious in every respect, if it was not going to yield to another Law, if the old priesthood was not going to disappear and make way for another priesthood, why did the prophet say: 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek?' He should have said: 'according to the order of Aaron.' This is why Paul said: 'If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should rise, according the order of Melchizedek, and said not to be according to the order of Aaron.'
(10) This surely made it clear that the old priesthood was ended and that another much better and more sublime priesthood has been brought in to replace it. When we admit this, we would also agree that another way of life suited to the new priesthood will be brought in and another Law given, and clearly this is ours. Paul prepared us for this when he said: 'When the priesthood is changed, it is necessary that a change of law be made also, for the author of these is one.'
(11) Many of the prescriptions of the Law were devoted to the ministries of the priesthood, and the old priesthood has been abolished. Since another priesthood was brought in to replace the old, it is clear also that a greater Law had to be brought in to replace the old. To make clear who it was of whom these words were spoken, Paul said: 'For he of whom these things are said is from another tribe, from which no one has ever done service at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, and Moses spoke nothing at all about priests when referring to this tribe.'
(12) Christ clearly is sprung from that tribe, namely the tribe of Judah; Christ surely is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek; Melchizedek is surely much more venerable than Abraham. Then we must also admit from every angle that one priesthood is being brought in to replace another and that it is much more sublime than the old priesthood. If the type was such, if it was more magnificent than the Jewish priesthood, the reality which it foreshadowed is itself still much more magnificent. This is the point which Paul was making when he said: 'And it is yet far more evident if there arise another priest, according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become so not according to the Law of carnal commandment, but according to a life that cannot end.'
(13) What did Paul mean when he said: 'Not according to the Law of carnal commandment, but according to a life that cannot end'? He meant that none of Christ's commandments are carnal commandments. He did not order the sacrifice of sheep and calves; he ordered us to worship God through the virtue of our lives; as our reward for this, he set the prize of a life that cannot end. And again, after he had died as the price of our sins, he came and raised us up; he saved us by freeing us from a double death: the death from sin and the death of the flesh. Since he came bringing us such gifts, Paul said: 'Not according to the Law of carnal commandment, but according to a life that cannot end.'
VI
(1) I have, therefore, now proved what was left to be proved. I have proved that, because the priesthood was changed, it was reasonable and necessary that there also be a change of Law. And again I was able to prove this very point by bringing forward as my witnesses the prophets. They testified that the Law will be changed, that the old commonwealth and way of life will be transformed for the better, and that never again will a king arise for the Jews.
(2) But I must say only as much as my audience can listen to and heed; I must not crowd everything together and say it all at once. Therefore, I will store up the rest for another occasion and, for the present, I will stop my instruction at this point. But let me first exhort you loving assembly to keep in mind what I have said and to connect it up with what I said before. And what I asked you before, I shall now ask you again. Rescue your brothers and show great concern for our members who have grown negligent. I do not undertake this great task just to hear myself talk or to enjoy the tumult of your applause; I do it to bring those who have been cut off back to the path of truth.
(3) Let no one say to me: 'I have nothing in common with him, I would be lucky to manage well my own affairs.' No one can manage his own affairs if he does not love his neighbor and work for his salvation. This is what Paul meant when he said: 'Let no one seek his own interest, but those of his neighbor.' He knew that your own interests lie in what benefits your neighbor. You are in good health, but your brother is sick. So then, if you are in your right mind, you will be distressed over him who is in distress and you will, in this matter, follow the example of that blessed soul who said: 'Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I am not inflamed?'
(4) If we find joy in tossing down a couple of obols and spending a little money on the poor, what great pleasure will we reap if we can save men's souls? What recompense will we enjoy in the life to come? Certainly, in this world, as often as we run into these men, we will derive great pleasure from meeting them, because we recall the good turn we did for them. When we see them in the next world before the dread tribunal of judgment, we will experience a great confidence. When the unjust, the greedy, the plunderers, and those who have inflicted countless evils on their neighbors go before this tribunal and see their victims-and they surely will see them, as Christ says, and as is clear from the story of the rich man and Lazarus - they will not be able to open their mouths nor to say a word in their own defense. They will be overwhelmed with the great shame of their condemnation and will be swept off from the sight of their victims into the rivers of flame.
(5) But when those who taught and instructed their neighbors in this life stand before the tribunal, they will see those whom they saved pleading in their behalf. And they will be filled with great confidence and trust. Paul made this clear when he said: 'We are your boast, as you will also be ours.' Tell me, when will this be? 'In the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
(6) And, again, Christ gave good counsel when he said: 'Make friend for yourselves with the mammon of wickedness, so that when you fail they may receive you into the everlasting dwellings.' You see that much confidence will come to us from those to whom we have done good in this life. But if there are so many prizes, such great recompense, such ample repayment for the money we spent on others, how will we fail to gain many great blessing when we help a soul? Tabitha clothed widows and aided the poor and came back to life from the dead. If the tears of those to whom she did good brought her departed soul back to her body-and this before the day of resurrection-will not the tears of those whom you rescued and saved do something to help you? The widows who stood around Tabitha's corps pointed out that she who had died was alive. In the same way, those whom you saved in this life will stand around you on the day of judgment. They will snatch you from the fire of Gehenna and to it that you enjoy His loving-kindness in abundance.
(7) Knowing, then, what we now know, let us not be roused to fervor only for the present hour; fan the fire you now have, go forth, and spread salvation over the city; even if you do not know them, get busy and find those who have this sickness. I shall be all the more eager to speak to you when I have found out from your very deeds that I did not scatter my seed on rocky ground. And you yourselves will be more eager to practice virtue. In money matters, the man who has made a profit of two gold pieces gets a greater enthusiasm to collect and amass a profit of ten or twenty pieces. This happens, too, in the matter of virtue. The man who has succeeded in doing a good deed gets some encouragement and motivation from doing this right action. The result is that he will undertake other good deeds.
(8) Let us, then, rescue our brothers and store up beforehand pardon for our sins. Much more, let us first store up abundant confidence and, before all else, let us see to it that God's name is glorified. To do this, let us take our wives, children, and households and go out after this game and quarry. Let us from the snares of the devil those whom he has made captive to his will. And let us not stop until we have done everything in our power to rescue them, whether they heed or reject our words. But it would be impossible, if they are Christians, for them not to heed us.
(9) Still, I do not want you to have even the excuse that they would not heed you. Let me say this. If you pour out many words and do everything in your power and still see that he refuses to heed you, then bring him to the priests. By the help of God's grace the priests will surely overcome their quarry. But it will all be your doing, because is was you who took him by the hand and led him to us. Let husbands talk to their wives and wives to their husbands, fathers to their children and friends to friends.
(10) Let the Jews learn how we feel. Let it also become known to those who side with the Jews, even though they pretend to be ranked with us. We have an eager and vigilant concern for our brothers who have deserted over the Jewish side. When the Jews find this out, it will be they, rather than we, who thrust out those of our number who frequent their synagogue. I should say, there will be no one hereafter who will dare to flee to them, and the body of the Church will be unsullied and pure.
This material was uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2011, and derives from a translation of unknown origin formerly hosted at the Medieval Sourcebook. This file and all material on this page is believed to be in the public domain. For more details see the preface to the online edition.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_08_homily .htm
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 8
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 8
HOMILY VIII
I
(1) Gone is the fasting of the Jews, or rather, the drunkenness of the Jews. Yes, it is possible to be drunk without wine; it is possible for a sober man to act as if he is drunk and to revel like a prodigal. If a man could not get drunk without wine, the prophet would never have said: 'Woe to those who are drunk not from wine;' if a man could not get drunk without wine, Paul would never have said: 'Do not be drunk with wine.' For he said this as if there were a possibility of getting drunk some other way. And it is possible. A man can be drunk with anger, with unseemly desire, with greed, with vainglory, with ten thousand other passions. For drunkenness is nothing other than a loss of right reason, a derangement, and depriving the soul of its health.
(2) Therefore, I would not be making too strong a statement if I should say that we find a drunkard not only in the man who is a heavy drinker of strong wine but we also find one in the man who nurtures some other passion in his soul. For the man in love with a woman who is not his wife, the man who spends his time with prostitutes, is a drunkard. The heavy drinker cannot walk straight, his speech is rude, his eyes cannot see things as they really are. In the same way, the drunkard who is filled with the strong wine of his undisciplined passion is also unsound of speech; everything he utters is disgraceful, corrupt, crude, and ridiculous; he, too, cannot see things as they really are because he is blind to what he sees. Like a deranged man or one who is out of his wits, he imagines he sees everywhere the woman he yearns to ravish. No matter how many people speak to him at gatherings or banquets, at any time or place, he seem not to hear them; he strains after her and dreams of his sin; he is suspicious of everything and afraid of everything; he is no better off than some trap-shay animal.
(3) Again, the man in the grip of anger is drunk. In the same way as other drunkards, his face became swollen, his voice grows rough, his eyes are bloodshot, his mind is darkened, his reason is submerged, his tongue trembles, his eyes are out of focus, and he does not hear what is really said. His anger affects his brain worse that strong wine; it stirs up a storm and causes a distress that cannot be calmed.
(4) But if the man in the grip of passion or anger is drunk, this is all more true of the impious man who blasphemes God, who goes against his laws and never is willing to renounce his untimely obstinacy. This man is drunk, mad, and much worse of than insane revelers, even if he does not seem aware of his condition. And this is the characteristic which most marks a drunkard: he has no awareness of his unseemly behavior. This, in fact, is the special danger of madness: those who suffer from it do not know they are sick. So, too, the Jews are drunk but do not know they are drunk.
(5) Indeed, The fasting of the Jews, which is more disgraceful than any drunkenness, is over and gone. But let us not stop thinking ahead for our brothers, let us not consider that our concern for them is now no longer timely. See what soldiers do. Suppose they have met the enemy and routed them. As they return from pursuing the foe, they do not immediately rush back to camp. First they go back to the battlefield to pick up their fallen comrades. They bury the dead but, if they see among the corpses men who are not mortally wounded but are still breathing, they give them as much first aid as they can, they pick them up, and carry them back to their camp. Then they extract the dart, call the physicians, wash away the blood, apply remedies to the wounds, and by giving them every care, they bring the wounded back to health.
(6) Therefore, we must do the same. By God's grace, we made the prophets our warriors against the Jews and routed them. As we return from pursuing out foes, let us look all around to see if any of our brothers have fallen, if the fast has swept some of them off, if any of them have shared in the festival of the Jews. Let us bury no one; let us, however, pick up every fallen man and give him the treatment he needs. In battles between armies of this world, a soldier cannot bring back life or recover for further service a comrade who has fallen once and for all and died. But in a battle of this war of ours, even if a man has been mortally wounded, if we have good will and the help of God's grace, we can take him by the hand and lead him back to life. Unlike a casualty in war, here is not a man's body that dies, but his will and his resolution. And it is possible to restore to life a will that has died; it is possible to persuade a dead soul to come back to its own proper life and to acknowledge again its Master.
II
(1) We must not grow weary, my brothers, we must not became exhausted, we must not lose heart. Let no one say: 'We should have done all we could to put them on their guard before the fast. Now that they have fasted, now that they have sinned, now that their transgression is complete, what use is there in helping them now?'
(2) If anyone knows what it means to look out for his brothers, he also knows that he must look for them and show this concern now more than ever. We must not only put them on their guard before they sin but we must also extend a helping hand after they have fallen. Suppose God had done that from the beginning; suppose he had put us on guard only before we sinned; suppose, after we had sinned, he had given us up and let us lie where we had fallen from one end of our life to the other. Then no one of us would ever have been saved.
(3) But God does not act that way. He loves men, he is kind to them, he desires their salvation above all things. And so he looks out for them even after they have sinned. He said to Adam: 'From every tree in the garden you will eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat; for on the day you eat of it; you will surely die.' God put Adam on his guard by giving him every warning he would need: he showed him the ease of fulfilling the Law, the liberality of what it permitted, the harshness of the future punishment, and the speed with which it would come. For God did not say: 'After one, two, or three days, but, 'on the very day you eat of it, you will surely die.'
(4) God looked out for Adam very carefully; he instructed him, exhorted him, and gave him many blessings. But even so, Adam disregarded his commands and fell into sin. Still God did not say: 'What good will it do now? What is the use of helping now? He ate the fruit, he fell into sin, he transgressed the law, he believed the devil, he dishonored my commandment, he was wounded, he became subject to death and died, he came under the judgment. What need have I to speak to him now?
(5) But God said none of these things. Rather, he came immediately to Adam, spoke to him, and consoled him. Again God gave Adam another remedy-the remedy of toil and sweat. God kept right on doing everything and exerting himself until he raised up fallen nature, rescued it from dead, led it by the hand to heaven, and gave it greater blessings than it had lost. By the things God himself did, he taught the devil that he would reap no profit from his plot. Satan had succeeded in driving men from Paradise but he would soon see them in heaven mingling with the angels.
(6) In the case of Cain, God did the same thing. Before Cain's great sin, God spoke plainly to him, warned him, and said: 'You sinned; stop it. His (Abel's) refuge is in you and you will rule over him.' See God's wisdom and understanding. He said: 'Because I have honored Abel, you are afraid he will take from you the privilege of the first-born; you are afraid he will take the first place, which is due to you.' For the first-born necessarily had a more honored position than the second-born. So God said: 'Take courage, do not be afraid, feel no anguish over this. His refuge is in you, and you will rule over him.' This is what God meant: 'Stay in the honored position of the first-born; be a refuge, a shelter, and a protection for your brother. But do not jump to bloodshed; do not come to that impious act of murder.' Even so, Cain did not listen, he did not stop, he did commit that murder, he did bathe his hands in blood from his brother's throat.
(7) But then what happened? God did not say: 'Let him go now. What further use is there in helping him? He did commit the murder, he did slay his brother. He scorned my advice; he dared to do that mad and unforgivable deed of slaughter. Even though I was looking out for him, instructing him, even though he enjoyed such benefice from me, he drove all these from his mind and paid them no heed. Let him go, then, and be hereafter cast from my sight. He has deserved no consideration from me.'
(8) God neither said nor did anything like that. Instead, he came again to him, corrected him, and said: 'Where is your brother Abel? When Cain said he did not know, God still did not desert him but he brought him, in spite of himself, to admit what he had done. After Cain said: 'I do not know, 'God said: 'The voice of your brother's blood cries to me.' What God was telling Cain was that the very deed proclaimed who the murderer was. And what did Cain say? 'My guilt is too great to be forgiven. If you drive me from the land, I shall also be hidden from your face.'
(9) What Cain meant was this. 'I have committed a sin too great for pardon, defense, or forgiveness; if it is your will to punish my crime, I shall lie exposed to every harm because your helping hand has abandoned me.' And what did God do then? He said: 'Not so! Whoever kills Cain shall be punished sevenfold.' What God said was this: 'Do not fear that. You will live a long life. If any man does kill you, he will be subject to many punishment.' For the number seven in the Scriptures means an indefinitely large number. So, then, Cain was stricken with many punishments-with torment and trembling, with grief and discouragement, with paralysis of his body. After he had undergone these penalties, as God put it: 'Whoever kills you and frees you from these punishments will draw the same vengeance upon himself.'
(10) The punishment of which God spoke seems to be excessively harsh but it does give us a glimpse of his great solicitude. God wanted men of later times to exercise self-control; therefore, he designed the kind of punishment which was capable of setting Cain free from his sin. If God had immediately destroyed him, Cain would have disappeared, his sin would have stayed concealed, and he would have remained unknown to men of after days. But as it is, God let him live a long time with that bodily tremor of his. The sight of Cain's palsied limbs was a lesson for all he met; it served to teach all men and exhort them never to dare do what he had done, so that they might not suffer the same punishment. And Cain himself became a better man again. His trembling, his fear, the mental torment which never left him, his physical paralysis kept him, as it were, shackled. They kept him from leaping again to any other like deed of boldness; they constantly reminded him of his former crime; through them he achieved greater self-control in his soul.
III
(1) As I was speaking, it occurred to me to bring up a further question. Cain confessed his sin and condemned what he had done; he said his crime was too great to be forgiven and that he deserved no defense. Why, then, could he not wash away his sins? The prophet Isaiah said: 'Be the first to tell your iniquities, that you may be justified.' Why, then, was Cain condemned? Because he did not tell his sins as the prophet commanded. Isaiah did not simply say: 'Tell your iniquities.' What did he say? He said: 'Be the first to tell your iniquities.'
(2) The question here is this. It is not simply a matter of telling, but of being the first to tell and not waiting for an accuser to convict you. But Cain did not tell first; he waited for God to accuse him. And then, when God did accuse him, he denied it. After God had once and for all given clear proof of what he had done, Cain then told his sin. But this is no longer a confession.
(3) Therefore, beloved, when you commit sin, do not wait for another man to accuse you but, before you are accused and indicted, do you yourself condemn what you have done. Then, if someone accuses you later on, it is no longer a matter of your doing the right thing in confessing, but of your correcting the accusation which he makes. And so it is that someone else has said: 'The just man begins his speech by accusing himself.' So it is not a question of accusing but of being the first to accuse yourself and not waiting for others to accuse you.
(4) Peter certainly sinned gravely in denying Christ. But he was quick to remind himself of his sin and, before anyone accused him, he told of his error and wept bitterly. He so effectively washed away his sin of denial that he became the chief of the apostles and the whole world was entrusted to him.
(5) But I must get back to my main topic. What I said has given us sufficient proof that we must not neglect or scorn our brothers who fall into sin. We must put them on their guard before they sin and we must show great concern for them after they have fallen. This is what physicians do. They tell people in good health what can preserve their health and what can ward off every disease. But if people have disregarded their instructions and have fallen sick, physicians do not neglect them but, especially at that time, they look out for the patients so that they may free them from their ailments.
(6) And Paul certainly did this too. Incest is a sin and serious transgression which is not even found among the pagans. But Paul did not scorn the man who had committed incest. Even though this man rebelled and refused to be cured, even though he kicked about and was unmanageable, Paul led him back to health and he did it in such a way as to unite him again to the body of the Church. Paul did not say to himself: 'What good would it do? What would be the use? He committed incest, he has sinned; he does not want to give up his licentious ways; he is puffed up and boastful and has made his wound incurable. So let us be done with him and leave him in the lurch.'
(7) Paul said none of these things. The very reason why he showed great concern for this sinner was that he saw the man had slipped into unspeakable wickedness. So Paul never gave up frightening him, threatening him, punishing him both through his own efforts and with the help of others. Paul left nothing undone, nothing untried until he brought the man to acknowledge his sin, to see his transgression. And, at last, Paul freed the man from every stain of sin.
(8) Now you do the same thing Paul did. Imitate the Samaritan in the gospel who showed such concern for the man who had been wounded. For a Levite passed that way, a Pharisee passed by, but neither of them turned to the man lying there. They just went their way and, like the cruel, pitiless men they were, they left him there. But a Samaritan, who was in no way related to this man, did not hurry past but stopped, took pity on him, poured oil and wine on his wounds, put him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn. There he gave some money to the innkeeper and promised him more for taking care of a man who was in no way related to him.
(9) He did not say to himself: 'What do I care about him? I am a Samaritan. I have nothing in common with him. We are far from the city and he cannot even walk. What about this? Suppose he is not strong enough to make the long journey. Am I going to bring in a corpse, will I be arrested for murder, will I be held accountable for his death?' Many a time people go along a road and see men who have been wounded but are still breathing. But they pass them by not because they are stingy with their money, but because they are afraid that they themselves may be dragged into court and held accountable for the murder.
(10) That gentle and benevolent Samaritan feared none of these things. He scorned all such fears, put the man on his own beast, and brought him to an inn. He did not think of any of these things-neither the danger, nor the expense, nor anything else. If the Samaritan was so kind and gentle to a stranger, what excuse would we have for neglecting our brothers when they are in deeper trouble? For those who have just observed the fast have fallen among robbers, the Jews. And the Jews are more savage than any highwaymen; they do greater harm to those who have fallen among them. They did not strip off their victim's clothes nor inflict wounds on his body as did those robbers on the road to Jericho. The Jews have mortally hurt their victim's soul, inflicted on it ten thousand wounds, and left it lying in the pit of ungodliness.
IV
(1) Let us not overlook such a tragedy as that. Let us not hurry past so pitiable a sight without taking pity. Even if others do so, you must not. Do not say to yourself: 'I am no priest or monk; I have a wife and children. This is a work for the priests; this is work for the monks.' The Samaritan did not say: 'Where are the priests now? Where are the Pharisees now? Where are the teachers of the Jews?' But the Samaritan is like a man who found some great store of booty and got the profit.
(2) Therefore, when you see someone in need of treatment for some ailment of the body or soul, do not say to yourself: 'Why did so-and-so or so-and-so not take care of him?' You free him from his sickness; do not demand an accounting from others for their negligence. Tell me this. If you find a gold coin lying on the ground, do you say to yourself: 'Why didn't so-and-so pick it up?' Do you not rush to snatch it up before somebody else does?
(3) Think the same way about your fallen brothers; consider that tending his wounds is like finding a treasure. If you pour the word of instruction on his wounds like oil, if you bind them up with your mildness, and cure them with your patience, your wounded brother has made you a richer man that any treasure could. Jeremiah said: 'He who has brought forth the precious from the vile will be as my mouth.' What could we compare to that? No fasting, no sleeping on the ground, no watching and praying all night, nor anything else can do as much for you as saving your brother can accomplish.
(4) Consider how frequent and numerous are the sins you commit with your mouth. How many obscene things has it said? How many blasphemies, how many abuses has it uttered? If you give some thoughts to this, you will surely never hesitate to look out for your fallen brother. By this one good deed can cleanse every stain from your mouth. Why do I say cleanse? Because you will make your mouth as the mouth of God. And what honor could be equal to that? It is not I who make this promise to you. God himself said it. If you bring back one person, he said, your mouth will be cleansed and holy, as my mouth is.
(5) So let us not neglect our brothers, let us not go around saying: 'How many kept the fast? How many were filched away from us?' Rather, let us show our concern for them. Even if those who observed the fast are many, you my beloved, must not make a show and a parade of this calamity in the Church; you must cure it. If someone tells you that many have observed the fast, stop him from talking so the rumor may not get around and become public knowledge. You say to him: 'For my part, I don't know of anyone who observed it. You are mistaken, sir, and deceived. If you see two or three filched away, you say that these few are many.' So stop this accuser from talking. But you must also see to it that you show your concern for those who were snatched away. Then you will keep the Church safe from a double hurt: first, by preventing the rumor from making the rounds and, secondly, by bringing back to the sacred fold the sheep who were snatched away.
(6) Therefore, let us not go around asking: 'Who fell into sin?' Let our only zeal be to set straight those who have sinned. It is a dangerous practice and a terrible thing only to accuse your brothers and not to come to their aid, to parade in public the sins of the sick and not cure them. Let us, then get rid of this wicked practice, my beloved, for it leads to no small harm.
(7) Let me tell you how it does this. Somebody hears you say that there were many who observed the fast with the Jews and, without any further investigation, he spreads the story to somebody else. And the second man, without inquiring into the truth of the rumor, again tells it to still another. Then, as the evil rumor little by little grows greater, it spreads a great disgrace over the Church. And this does no good for those who have fallen away; in fact, it causes considerable harm both to them and to many others.
(8) Even is those who did fall are in number, we make them a multitude by the multitude of our rumors; we weaken those who resisted and we give a push to those on the point of falling. If one of our brothers hears the rumor that a large number joined in keeping the fast, he will be more inclined to be careless himself; again, if it is one of weak ones who hears the story, he will rush to join the strong of those who have fallen. Even if many have sinned, let us not join with those who rejoice at this or any other evil. If we do, we make a parade of the sinners and say that their name is legion. Rather, let us stop the rumormongers and keep them from spreading the story.
(9) Do not tell me that those who observed the fast are many. Even if they are many, you must set them straight. I did not expend all these words for you to accuse many, but for you to make the many few and to save even these few. Therefore, do not put their sins on parade, but treat their wounds. Some people parade rumors and have time only for that. They see to it that the number of those who have sinned is judged to be large even if only a few have fallen. In the same way, if people reprove the rumormongers and shut their mouths, if they show concern for those who have fallen, no matter how many they be, it is no hard task for them to set the sinner straight. And furthermore, they keep those rumors from doing harm to anyone else.
(10) You have heard David's lament for Saul when he said: 'How the mighty have fallen. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the street of Ashkelon so that the daughters of foreign tribes may not rejoice, so that the daughters of the uncircumcised may not exult in arrogance.' If David did not wish the matter paraded in public so that it might not be a source of joy to his foes, so much the more must we avoid spreading the story to alien ears. Rather, we must not spread it even among ourselves for fear that our enemies may hear it and rejoice, for fear that our own may learn of it and fall. We must hush it up and keep it guarded on every side. Do not say to me, 'I told so-and-so.' Keep the story to yourself. If you did not manage to keep quiet, neither will he manage to keep his tongue from wagging.
V
(1) What I say applies not only to the actual observance of the fast but also to ten thousand other sins. Let us not only ask if many were filched away; let us ask how we may bring them back. Let us not exalt our enemies' side and destroy our own. Let us not show that they are strong and that our side is weak. Let us do quite the opposite. Rumor can often destroy a soul but, just as often, it can lift it up; it can put zeal in a soul where was none and, again, it can destroy the zeal that was there.
(2) So I urge you to increase the rumors which exalt our cause and show its greatness, but not the rumors which spread shame on the community of our brothers. If we hear something good, let us broadcast it to all; if we hear something bad or evil, let us keep that hidden among ourselves and do everything we can to get rid of the evil. Therefore, let us now go forth, let us get busy and search for the sinner, let us not shrink back even if we must go into his home. If you do not know him, if you have no connection with him, get busy and find some friend or relative of his, someone to whom he pays particular attention. Take this man with you and go into his home.
(3) Do not blush or feel ashamed. If you were going there to ask for money or to get some favor from him, you have reason to feeling ashamed. If you hurry to save the man, no one can find fault with your motive for entering his home. Sit down and talk with him. But start your conversation on other topics so that he does not suspect that the real purpose of your visit is to set him straight.
(4) Say to him: 'Tell me, do you approve of the Jews for crucifying Christ, for blaspheming him as they do, and for calling him a lawbreaker?' If the man is a Christian, he will never put up with this; even he be a Judaizer times without number, he will never bring himself to say: 'I do approve.' Rather, he will stop up his ears and say to you: 'Heaven forbid! Be quite, man.' Next, after you find that he agrees with you, take the matter again and say: 'How is it that you attend their services, how is it you participate in the festival, how is it you join them in observing the fast?' Then accuse the Jews of being obstinate. Tell him about their every transgression which I recounted to your loving assembly in the days just past. Tell him of their transgressions connected with the place, the time and the temple, and how the prophets gave proof of these in their predictions. Show him how the whole ritual of the Jews is useless and unavailing. Show him that they will never return to their old commonwealth and way of life and that they are forbidden to fulfill, except in Jerusalem, what the old life demanded.
(5) Furthermore, remind him of Gehenna. Remind him of the test he will undergo before the Lord's dread tribunal of judgment. Remind him that we will give an accounting for all these things and that no small punishment awaits those who dare to do what he is doing. Remind him that Paul said: 'You who are justified in the Law have fallen away from grace.' Remind him of Paul's threat: 'If you be circumcised, Christ will be no advantage to you.' Tell him that, as is the case with circumcision, so, too, the fasting of the Jews drives from heaven the man who observes the fast, even if he has ten thousand other good works to his credit. Tell him that we have the name of Christians because we believe in Christ and not because we run to those who are His foes.
(6) Suppose he uses the cures which the Jews effect as his excuse; suppose he says: 'They promise to make me well, and so I go to them.' Then you must reveal the tricks they use, their incantations, their amulets, their charms and spells. This is the only way in which they have a reputation for healing; they do not effect genuine cures. Heaven forbid they should! Let me go so far as to say that even if they really do cure you, it is better to die than to run to God's enemies and be cured that way. What use is it to have your body cured if you lose your soul? What profit is there that you find some relief from your pain in this world if you are going to be consigned to eternal fire?
(7) So that no Jew may say will cure you, listen to what God said: 'If there arise among you a prophet or dreamer of dreams who gives you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he spoke come to pass, and if he says: 'Let us go and worship other gods,' do not listen to that prophet; for the Lord, your God, is testing you to see if you love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.'
(8) What God means is this. Suppose some prophet says to you: 'I can raise a dead man to life or cure a blind man. But you must obey me when I say:
'Let us worship demons, or let us offer sacrifice to idols.' Then, suppose the man who said this can cure a blind man or raise a dead man to life. God said that you must not heed him because of these sign and wonders which he works. Why? Because God is testing you, he permitted that man to have this power. It is not that God does not know your thoughts but that he is giving you a chance to prove if you really love him. And there are men who are eager to drag us away from our Beloved. Even if they show dead men brought back to life, the man who truly loves God will not stand apart from God because he has seen such signs and wonders.
(9) If God said this to the Jews, he says it all the more to us. We are the ones he led to a greater life of virtue. He opened the door for us to rise again. He gave the command to us not to love our dwelling here on earth but to keep all our hopes aimed at the life to come.
VI
(1) But what are you saying? Is it that a bodily ailment is afflicting you and crushing you? You have not suffered as many ills as did blessed Job. You have not endured even the slightest part of his pain. Fist, he lost the whole throng of his flocks, his herds, and every other possession. Then the whole chorus of his children was snatched off. And all this happened on a single day, so that not only the nature of his calamities but also the unbroken succession of his losses might crush this athlete down to earth.
(2) After all that, he received a lethal blow on his body, he saw worms swarming forth from his flesh, he sat naked on a dung hill, a public spectacle of disaster for all men there to see, Job the just, truthful, God-fearing man who kept himself aloof from every evil deed. And his troubles did not stop there. All day, all night, he suffered distress, and a strange and unusual hunger assailed him. He said: 'I see my food is a stench.' Each day he was reproached, scoffed at, mocked, and ridiculed. He said: 'My servants and the children of my concubines have risen up against me, my dreams are filled with terror, my thoughts are tossed with constant storms.'
(3) But his wife promised him freedom from all these things when she said: 'Speak some word against the Lord and die.' What she meant was: 'Curse God and you will be free from the troubles which oppress you.' Did her advice change the mind of that holy man? It did just the opposite; it gave him great strength so that he even reproached his wife. He chose to feel pain, to endure hardship, and to suffer ten thousand terrible things rather than curse God and so find release from his terrible troubles.
(4) The man who had been thirty-eight years in the grip of his infirmity used to rush each year to the pool and each year he was driven back and found no cure. Each year he would see others cured because they had many to take of them. But he had no one to put him in the water ahead of the others and so remained in the constant grip of his paralysis. Even so, he did not run to the soothsayers, he did not go to the charm-users, he did not tie an amulet around his neck, but he waited for God to help him. That is why he finally found a wonderful and unexpected cure.
(5) Lazarus wrestled all his days with hunger, disease, and poverty, not only for thirty-eight years but for his whole life. At any rate, he died while he was lying at the gateway of the rich man, scorned, scoffed at, famished, laid out before the dogs for food. For his body had grown to weak to scare away the dogs who came and licked his wounds. Yet he did not search for a soothsayer, he did not tie tokens around his neck, and he did not resort to the charm-users, he did not call in those skilled in witchcraft, nor did he do anything he was forbidden to do. He chose to die from these troubles of his rather than betray in any small way his life of godliness.
(6) Look at the torments and sufferings those men endured! What excuse will we have if for our fevers and hurts we run to the synagogues, if we summon into our own house these sorcerers, these dealers in witchcraft?
Hear what the Scripture says: 'My son, if you com to serve the Lord, prepare your soul for trial, put straight your heart, and be steadfast. Be obedient to him in sickness and in poverty. As gold is tested in the fire, so the chosen man is tested in the furnace of humiliation.'
(7) Suppose you flog your servant. Suppose, that, after you have dealt him thirty or fifty lashes, he then loudly demands his freedom, or that he flees from your control to take refuge with men who hate you. Suppose that he then incites them against you. Tell me this. Can he get you to forgive him? Can anyone offer a defense in his behalf? Of course not.
(8) But why? Because it is a master's duty to punish his servant. And this is not the only reason. If the slave had to run away, he should not gone to the enemies who hated his master; he should have gone to his master's true friends. You must do the same. When you see that God is punishing you, do not flee to his enemies, the Jews, so that you may not rouse his anger against you still further. Run instead to martyrs, to the saints, to those in whom he is well pleased and who can speak to him with great confidence and freedom.
(9) But why talk about slaves and masters? If a father flogs his son, the son cannot do what the slave did, nor can he deny his relationship to his father. Suppose the father flogs his son, suppose he keeps him from his table, suppose he drives him from his house, and punishes him every way he can. Both the laws of nature and those established by man command the son to be brave and endure all this. No one ever excuses the son if he refuses to obey his father and put up with the punishment. Even if the boy who was flogged lifts his voice in ten thousand bitter laments, everybody tell him that it was his father who flogged him, that his father is the master and the power to do whatever he wants, that the son must meekly endure it all.
(10) So, then, slaves put up with their masters and sons put up with their fathers even though the punishments they get often do not fit the fault. Will you refuse to put up with God when He corrects you? Is he not more your master than your master is? Does he not love you more than any father? When he interferes and does something, it is not done from anger. He does everything for you own good. If you get some slight illness, will you reject him as your master and rush off to the demons and desert over to the synagogues? What pardon will you find after that? How can you call on Him for help again? Who else will be able to plead your cause even if he could speak with the freedom and confidence of a Moses? There is no one.
(11) Do you not hear what God said to Jeremiah about the Jews? 'Do not intercede for this people because even Moses and Samuel shall stand (before my face), I will not listen to them.' That is how far some sins go beyond forgiveness and how incapable of defense they are. Therefore, let us not draw down such anger on ourselves. Even if the Jews seem to relieve your fever with their incantations, they are not relieving it. They are bringing down on your conscience another more dangerous fever. Every day you will feel the sting of remorse; every day your conscience will flog you. And what will your conscience say? 'You sinned against God, you transgressed his Law, you violated your covenant with Christ. For an insignificant ailment you betrayed your faith. You are not the only one who has suffered this ailment, are you? Have not others been much more seriously ill that you? Still no one of them dared commit such a sin. But you were so soft and weak that you sacrificed your soul. What defense will you make to Christ? How will you ask for his help in your prayers? With what conscience will you set foot in the church? With what eyes will you look at the priest? With what hands will you touch the sacred banquet? With what ears will you listen to the reading of the scriptures there?'
VII
(1) Every day your reason will sting you and your conscience will flog you with these words. What kind of health is this when we have such thoughts in our minds to accuse us? But if you put up with your fever for a little while, if you scorn those who want to chant over you an incantation or tie an amulet to your body, if you insult them roundly and drive them from your house, your conscience will immediately bring you relief like a drink of water. Even if the fever recurs time and time again, even if it is burning up your body, your soul bring you a solace that is better and more profitable than any relief from water or perspiration.
(2) Even if you recover your health after the incantation, the thought of the sin you committed leaves you worse off than those who are tossed with fever. And if you are the one who has the fever now, if you are the one who suffers ten thousand torments, you will be better off than any healthy man, because you have gotten rid of those foul sorcerers. You reason will exult, you soul will rejoice and be glad, you conscience will praise you and voice its approval.
(3) And what will your conscience say? 'Well done, well done, good man. You are the servant of Christ, you are the man of faith, the athlete of the godly life. You chose to die in torment rather than betray the life of godliness entrusted to your care. You will stand with the martyrs on that day. The martyrs chose to be flogged and torn on the rack that God might hold them in honor. So you chose this day to be flogged and racked with fever and wounds rather than submit to profane incantations and amulets. Because you nurture yourself with these hopes, you will not feel the torments which assail you.'
(4) If this fever does not carry you off, another one surely will; if we do not die now, we are sure to die later. It is our lot to have a body doomed to die. But we do not have this body so that we may heed its passions and take to ourselves a life of godlessness, but that we may use its passions for the godly life. If we live the sober life, this corruption, this same mortal body will become the basis for our honor and will give us great confidence not only on that day but also in the present life.
(5) So, go ahead and insult those sorcerers roundly and drive them from your house. Everybody who hears of it will praise you and marvel at you. People will say one to the other: 'So and so was sick and in pain. Time and time again people came to him and urged him, and advised him to subject himself to magic incantations. He did not give in but said: 'It is better to die the way I am than to betray my faith and the godly life.' 'Those who hear these words will applaud him long and loud; they will be astounded and give glory to God.
(6) Do you not think this will be more rich in honor than many statues, more brilliant in its magnificence than many portraits, more remarkable in its distinction than many dignities? Everyone will praise you, everyone will count you happy, everyone will crown you with the victor's wreath. And they will be better themselves, they will experience a return to zeal, they will imitate your courage. If somebody else does what you did, you will carry off the reward because it was you who gave him his start, it is you whom he emulates.
(7) Your good deeds will not only bring praise to you but also rapid release from your sickness. The nobility of your choice will win God to even greater good will; all the saints will rejoice at what you have done; they will pray for you from the bottom of their hearts. If such courage brings these rewards in this life, consider what reward you will receive in heaven. In the presence of all the angels and archangels, Christ will come forward, take you by the hand, and lead you to the middle of that stage. Everyone will listen when he says:
(8) 'This man was once gripped by fever. Many people urged him to be rid of his ailment, but, for my name's sake and because he feared he might offend me in some way, he scorned these people and thrust aside those who were promising to cure him in that fashion. He chose to die of his illness rather than betray his love for me.'
(9) If Christ leads to the center of this stage those who gave him to drink, who clothed and fed him, he will do this all the more for those who endured fevers for his sake. Giving food and clothing is not the same thing as submitting to a long continuing disease. To submit to the disease is a much greater thing. And the greater the suffering, the more glorious will be the reward.
(10) In sickness and in health, let us rehearse for this day and talk about it one to the other. If we find ourselves in the grip of a fever we cannot endure, let us say to ourselves: 'What about this? If someone brought a charge against me and I was dragged into court, if I were tied to the whipping post and my sides were torn with lashes, would I not have to put up with it at any rate, even though I would get no profit or reward?'
(11) Now let us ponder on this. Suppose there is set before you a reward for your patience and endurance; suppose the reward is large enough to encourage your fallen spirit. 'But my fever is severe,' you say, 'and hard to bear.' Then compare you fever to the fire of Gehenna. You will surely escape that fire if you show great endurance in putting up with your fever.
(12) Remember how many sufferings the apostles endured. Remember that the just were constantly afflicted. Remember that blessed Timothy had not rest from his illness, but lived with his disease from one end of his life to the other. Paul made this clear when he said: 'Use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities.' That just and holy man took in hand the superintendence of the world, brought the dead back to life, drove out demons, and cured ten thousand ailments in others. If he experienced such terrible suffering, what defense will you have for groaning and grieving over ailments with will last only for a time?
(13) Did you not listen to the Scripture? It says: 'Whom the Lord loves he chastises; and he scourges every son whom he receives.' How many times and how many men have yearned to receive the crown of martyrdom? In this you have a perfect martyr's crown. A martyr is made not only when someone is ordered to offer sacrifices to die rather than offer the sacrifice. If a man shuns any practice, and to shun it can only bring on death, he is certainly a martyr.
VIII
(1) So that you may know that this is true, remember how John (the Baptist) died, from what motive and why. Remember, too, how Abel died. Neither John nor Abel saw an altar with its fire, nor a statue standing before them. They heard no voice commanding them to offer sacrifice. John only reproached Herod and had his head cut off; Abel merely honored God with a more excellent sacrifice than his brother did, and Cain slew him. They were not deprived of martyr's crowns, were they? Who would dare to say that? The very way they died is enough to make everyone agree that they belong in the front ranks of the martyrs.
(2) If you are looking for some divine proclamation about these two men, listen to what Paul said. He made it clear that his words are the words of the Holy Spirit when he said: 'I think that I also have the Spirit of God.' What then, did Paul say? He began with Abel and told how Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, and through his faith, through he is dead, he yet speaks.
(3) Then Paul continued his account down through the prophets and came to John. After he said: 'They were put to death by the sword, and other were tortured,' after he recounted many and different modes of martyrdom, he went on to say: 'Therefore, let us also, having such a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, put away every encumbrance and run with patience.' Do you see that he also called Abel a martyr, along with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? For some of these died for God's sake in the same way that Paul spoke of when he said: 'I die Daily', they died not by dying but only by their willingness to endure death.
(4) If you do this, if you reject the incantations, the spells, and the charms, and if you then die of your disease, you will be a perfect martyr. Even though others promised your relief along with an ungodly life, you chose death with godliness. And I have spoken these words to those boastful talkers who say that the demons do effect cures. To learn how false this is, listen to what Christ said about the devil: 'He was a murderer from the beginning.' God says he is a murderer; do you rush to him as you would to a physician?
(5) Tell me this. When you stand indicted before God's tribunal, what reason will you be able for considering the Jews' witchcraft more worthy of your belief than what Christ has said? God said that the devil is a murderer; they say that he can cure diseases, in contradiction to God's word. When you accept their charms and incantations, you actions show that you consider the Jews more worthy of your belief than God, even if you do not say it in so many words.
(6) If the devil is a murderer, it is clear that the demons who serve him are murderers, too. What Christ did has taught you this lesson. At any rate, he gave the demons leave to enter into the herd of swine and the demons drove the whole herd down the cliff and drowned them. He did this so that you might know that the demons would have done the same thing to human beings and would have drowned them if God had allowed them to do so. But he restrained the demons, stopped them, and permitted them to do no such thing. Once they had gotten power over the swine, the demons made quite clear what they would have done to us. If they did not spare the swine, it is all the more sure they would not have kept their hands off us. Therefore, beloved, do not be swept off by the deceits of the demons but stand firm in your fear of God.
(7) But how will you go into the synagogue? If you make the sign of the cross on your forehead, the evil power that dwells in the synagogue immediately takes to flight. If you fail to sign your forehead, you have immediately thrown away your weapon at the doors. Then the devil will lay hold of you, naked and unarmed as you are, and he will overwhelm you with ten thousand terrible wounds.
(8) What need is there for me to say this? The way you act when you get to the synagogue makes it clear that you consider it a very serious sin to go to that wicked place. You are anxious that no one notice your arrival there; you urge your household, friends, and neighbors not to report you to the priests. If someone does report you, you fly into a rage. Would it not be height of folly to try to hide from men your bold and shameless when God, who is present everywhere see it?
(9) Are you not afraid of God? Then, at least, stand in some awe and fear of the Jews. How will you look them in the eye? How will you speak to them? You profess you are a Christian, but you rush off to their synagogues and beg them to help you. Do not realize how they laugh at you, scoff at you, jeer at you, dishonor you, and reproach you? Even if they do not do it openly, do you not understand that they are doing this deep down in their hearts?
IX
(1) Tell me, then. Will you put up with their jibes? Will you tolerate them? Suppose you had to suffer incurable ills; suppose you had to die ten thousand deaths. Would it not be much better to endure all that rather than have those abominable people laugh and scoff at you, rather than live with a bad conscience?
(2) My purpose in speaking is not to have you hear this for yourselves; I want you also to work to cure those who have this sickness. They are feeble in their faith, and for this I blame them. I also blame you for your unwillingness to set the sick ones straight. It is not in question that, when you come here to the church, you listen to what is said; you leave yourself open to condemnation when you fail to follow through with action the words you hear.
(3) Why are you a Christian? Is it not that you may imitate Christ and obey his Laws? What did Christ do? He did not sit in Jerusalem and call the sick to come to him. He went around to cities and towns and cured sickness of both body and soul. He could have stayed sitting in the same place and still have drawn all men to himself. But he did not do this. Why? So that he might give us the example of going around in search of those who are perishing.
(4) He gave us another glimpse of this example in the parable of the shepherd. The shepherd did not sit down with the ninety-nine sheep and wait for the lost one to come to him. He went out himself and found it. And after he found the lost sheep, he lifted it to his shoulders and brought it back. Do you not see that a physician does this same thing? He does not force patients who are confined to bed to be brought to his home. The physician himself hurries to the homes of the sick.
(5) You must do this, too, beloved. You know that the present life is short; if we do not earn our profits here, we will have no salvation hereafter. Gaining a single soul can often erase the burden of countless sins and be the price which buys us life on that day. Ponder on this question. Why were we sent prophets, apostles, just men, and often even angels? Why did the only-begotten Son of God come among us himself? Was it not to save men? Was it not to bring back those who had strayed?
(6) You must do this with all the strength you have. You must devote all your zeal and concern to bringing back those who have strayed. At every religious service let me keep exhorting you to do this; whether you pay attention or not, I will not stop saying it. Whether you listen or not, it is God's law that I fulfill this ministry. If you listen to me and do what I say, I will keep on doing this and feel great joy. If you disregard it and become indifferent to what I say, I will keep on saying it but I will great fear instead of joy.
(7) If you disobey, it will involve no risk for me hereafter. I have fulfilled my part. Even if there will be no danger for me because I have carried out my full fair share, I will feel sorrow for you when you are accused on that day. Even listening to me will be fraught with danger, when you fail to follow up my words with your deeds.
(8) Hear, at any rate, how Christ both reproved the teachers who buried the meaning of his message but how he also terrified those whom they taught. For after he said: 'You should have deposited my money with the bankers,' he went on to add: 'And on my return I should have demanded it back with interest.'
(9) What Christ showed by the parable was this. After hearing a sermon (for this is depositing the money), those who have received the instruction must make it produce interest. The interest from the teaching is nothing other than proving through deeds what you have been taught through words. Since I have deposited my money in your ears, you must now pay your teacher back the interest, that is, you must save your brothers. So, if you should just keep holding on to what I said and produce no interest by action on your own part, I am afraid that you will pay the same penalty as the servant who buried his talent in the ground. And for this he was bound hand and foot and cast into the darkness outside, because the words he heard brought no profit to others.
(10) So that we may not have this happen to us, let us imitate the servant who received five talents and the one who received two. Whatever you will be asked to spend to save your neighbor, be it words, money, bodily pain, or anything else whatsoever, we must not shrink back or hesitate. Then each of us, in every way, will multiply proportionately the talent given him by God. Then each of us will be able to hear those happy words: 'Well done, good and faithful servant; because you have been faithful over a few things I will set you over many; enter into the joy of your Master.' My we all gain this by the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ through whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father together with the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.
This material was uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2011, and derives from a translation of unknown origin formerly hosted at the Medieval Sourcebook. This file and all material on this page is believed to be in the public domain. For more details see the preface to the online edition.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_first_sermon.htm
John Chrysostom: First Sermon (2010)
John Chrysostom, First Sermon (2010)
Homily given by St. John Chrysostom on the day that he was ordained priest.
Foreword.
John was called to the priesthood and ordained by Flavian, bishop of Antioch, early in the year 386. So this is the date of his first discourse: he had not yet descended into the lists, as he himself puts it. In this essay, his modesty shines no less than his eloquence: he frequently calls himself a little boy μειρακίσκος; although, as his birth dated back at least to the year 347, he was then about forty years old. This shows that the terms, childhood, old age, and the like, so often used by the speaker, provide no data when it comes to working out the dates of his life. This point we have already made and solidly proven in the famous discourse on his mother.
HOMILY.
St. John Chrysostom speaks of himself, the bishop and the people.
1. Is what has happened to us true? Is what strikes us reality? Are we not in the grip of an illusion? Are these hallucinations of the night and of dreams, or the clear sight of day, and are we all awake at this hour? Who can persuade himself that in broad daylight, when men have all their intelligence and all their activity, a poor child, without any merit, is vested with such power and such an honour? That this might happen in a dream is not a wonder: awkward people, men so poor they do not have even necessary food, they sometimes dream that they take on strength and beauty, that they are seated at a royal table, but this alas! is just an effect of sleep, a trick of the imagination; we know that dream is a skilled craftsman of errors and wonders; it likes to trick us, it delights in a world of strange phantoms. Daytime is another matter, and nothing similar takes place in the world of realities. It is impossible, nevertheless, to doubt it: this is all too certain, everything is done, done, done before your eyes; the wonders of the dream are overwhelmed by the simple truth, and I see here now this great city, so many people, this astonishing multitude, who direct their eager eyes to my littleness, as if something remarkable and beautiful must come out of my mouth.
Well! even if my words could flow with the fullness and majesty of the great rivers, and I had in me the waves of eloquence, the sight of the crowd gathered to listen would stop them suddenly in there course and make them flow back to their source. And when we are so far from such an abundance, where our words can not even compare with the slightest rain, how could they not be withered by fear to some degree? How is it that the same phenomenon does not happen in the soul as in the body? What can I say? Does it not often happen that we seem to be afraid of the things that we have before us and that we have a firm grasp of, as if our nerves were paralyzed and our powers destroyed. This is what I fear at the moment: the thoughts that I have gathered with much trouble, although they are basically irrelevant and worthless, I tremble to see them escape my memory, fade and vanish, leaving my soul in a vacuum. I beseech you all, you who command, and you whom I must obey, the agony in which you have thrown me by your willingness to come and hear me: change it, by your fervent prayers, into a holy boldness; inspire me with the strength by your representations to He who fills intrepid pioneers of truth with his word (Psalm., 67:12), to put His discourses on my lips. Ephes., vi, 19. This will not be difficult for you, numerous as you are, and having so many merits to present to God, to strengthen a soul which is lacking experience and frozen with fear. In fact you will satisfy a duty of justice by fulfilling our wishes: for you and your charity, we will face up to the chances of a most violent and most tyrannical game, in addressing, despite our inability, the Ministry of the word, in coming to tread the burning arena of intellect, we who have never attempted this noble exercise, and always kept silent in the ranks of listeners.
What sort of man would be so cold, so insensitive as to remain silent in the face of such a meeting, even if he was not speaking to brothers whose sympathy is equal to their pious impatience, and if he was the most incompetent of men to speak in public? I promised myself, opening my mouth for the first time in church, to devote to God the first fruits of my word, this gift that comes to us from him. It must be so: if the first-fruits of the crops and the wine-press are owed to him, still more are those of the word: to him, thus, our first flowers! The more the fruits are blessed for us, the more they are acceptable to Him. The grape and the ear of corn grow from of the bosom of the earth, nourished by the waters of heaven and the labors of man: the sacred hymn of devotion born of the soul is nourished by a pure conscience, and God receives it into the heavenly granaries. As the soul is superior to the earth, so the latter result outweighs the first. As one of the prophets, a man eminent and sublime, Hosea, speaking to sinners who wanted to appease the wrath of God, advised them to make an offering, not whole herds of cattle, nor abundant measures of wheat, nor a turtle-dove, or pigeon, or anything similar, finally, and what then? what does he say? "Bring words with you." Hos. xiv, 3. — What kind of sacrifice is that? you may ask. — The greatest of all, O my beloved! the most beautiful, most perfect. Who says so? A man deeply versed in the science of religion, the famous, the magnanimous David. Rendering thanks to God one day for a victory he had won, he said: "I will praise the name of my God through a song, and I will honour him by my praises." Psalm., 68:31. And to show the excellence of this sacrifice, he immediately adds: "And this tribute will be more pleasing to God than the sacrifice of a young bull whose horns and nails have begun to grow." Ibid., 32.
And I too wanted to sacrifice some victims on this day, to water the spiritual altar with streams of mystical blood. But, alas! a wise man closes my mouth and stops me with these words: "Praise loses its beauty on the lips of a sinner." Eccli., xv, 9. Although a garland may be priceless, it is not enough that the flowers are pure, pure also must be the hand that has woven it. Likewise, although an anthem may be worthy of God, the devotion of the words must be united to the piety of the soul who offers them. And mine has no purity, no confidence, it is full of sins. Under these provisions, silence is not only commanded by this law, there is a still more ancient law that the prophet who spoke to us earlier of sacrifices gives: "Praise the Lord in the heavens, praise him on the highest peaks;" and further on: "Praise the Lord upon the earth." Psalm., 148:1 and 7. In calling for the same purpose the two types of creatures, those of the upper world and those of the underworld, things visible and invisible, those who fall within our senses and those that are perceived by the intelligence, in forming a single choir of heaven and earth to celebrate the King of the universe, David does not accept the sinner, he obviously excludes him from this divine harmony.
2. So that the truth is put in its true light, let us return to the main features of this psalm. Having said: "Praise the Lord in the heavens, praise him on the highest peaks," the Psalmist continues: "All you angels of the Lord, all ye Virtues of God, set forth his praises." You see the angels who praise the Creator, you see the archangels, you see the cherubim and seraphim, the supreme virtues. In this last word, all the people in heaven are included. Do you see the sinner? And let no one say: How could we see a sinner in heaven? —Well, descend to earth, pass to another part of the choir, the sinner is no more visible: "Praise the Lord, inhabitants of the earth, sea-monsters, and all who people the depths, beasts of the field, and cattle, reptiles, and birds that go through the air on your wings."
It was not without reason that I stopped once more, in repeating these words: confusion reigned in my thoughts, I could not restrain my tears, and I was about to burst into tears. What could be conceived more appalling, tell me? The scorpions, reptiles and dragons are called by the Prophet to praise him who gave them life: the sinner alone is excluded from the sacred choir. And nothing is more just. It is a perverse and cruel beast, sin; it works its malice, not on the body, its slave, but even on the glory of God, "Because of you, says the Lord, my name is blasphemed among the nations." Isa., 52:5. That is why the Prophet banishes the sinner from the concert of creatures, like a bad citizen is exiled from his homeland. A skilled musician removes from his lute a string that makes inharmonic sounds, so that it does not destroy the effect of the instrument; a doctor versed in his art does not hesitate to cut off a gangrenous limb, lest the evil is communicated to the healthy part of the body: the Prophet does the same, and makes dissent and decay disappear from the universe.
What conduct should we adopt? Expelled, cut off as we are, we should, it seems, condemn ourselves to silence. So we should not mention ourselves, I ask? Is it not permissible to celebrate the Lord by our hymns? Have we have in vain solicited the help of your prayers, called for the protection of your charity? I think not: I perceive, I have adopted another way to glorify God. Your prayers illuminate my perplexity like lightning in the darkness: I will praise those who serve the same God as myself. Yes, I can praise them, and these praises, directed to servants, turn to the honour of our common Master. It is impossible to doubt it, because the Saviour said: "Let your light shine before men, so that they shall see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Matth., 5:16. See then another kind of glorification which the sinner himself can use without violating the law.
3. But which of the servants of our God may we praise? And who else but our spiritual father, the minister of the Gospel charged with instructing the our land, and through our land the world? From him you have learned how to remain faithful to the truth unto death, and under his inspiration, you have taught the rest of mankind to give up life rather than piety. Would you like us to braid a garland for him, after that? This also was my desire, but I have before me a vast ocean of merits, and I fear that my feeble voice, once engaged in these depths, would no longer be able to return to the surface. It is necessary here to talk of brilliant deeds that are already long ago, of perilous journeys and long vigils, of dedicated care and judgments full of wisdom, of noble battles, victories added to victories, trophies to trophies: all things which are beyond the power not only of my tongue, but of human language, and which, to be celebrated with dignity, demand the voice and zeal of an apostle able to say and teach everything. But we will leave this difficult subject to deal with another that presents fewer dangers, a sea in which a small boat can venture. Let us talk simply of the austerity of his manners, his rigid temperance, his utter contempt for material well-being, the admirable simplicity of his table, and do not forget the grandeur and luxury that surrounded him in childhood. It is no wonder, indeed, that a man brought up in poverty as a practical way of life, is resigned to such harsh deprivation. Poverty itself, the constant companion of his pilgrimage, makes every day the burden lighter. But anyone who has been master of much wealth does not readily disengage himself from it, such is the swarm of many passions that have enveloped his soul. On the eyes of his intelligence weighs a cloud so thick of disordered appetite, that he can no longer see the heavens, that constantly he has his head and heart inclined towards the earth. Nothing blocks our rise towards heaven like riches and the evils of which they are the source.
It is not I who say this. Christ himself pronounced this sentence: "A camel will pass more easily through the eye of a needle than a rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven." Matth., 19:24. However a thing so difficult, or rather, impossible, offers only more difficulty. What Peter doubted in the presence of his Master, the problem that demanded a solution, we have now amply witnessed by experience. Not only do the rich go into heaven, but he has also led in an entire people. And that, despite his wealth and other obstacles that are not inferior to that one: youth, a premature independence as a result the death of his parents, things are so full of charms and so fruitful in poisons. Our father has triumphed over all, he has somehow taken possession of heaven, embracing the heavenly philosophy. No, he did not allow himself to be seduced by the splendour of this life, he has not turned his eyes to the glory of his ancestors. I am wrong, however; the glory of his ancestors, he has always had present to his mind. Not those to whom nature had united him by ties beyond his control, but those he himself chose in religion, and it is these that he has followed in his life.
He considered the patriarch Abraham, and the great Moses who, although high in the royal palace, accustomed from childhood to lavish meals, having lived among the parties of the Egyptians — and you know what were the manners of those barbarians, to what degree they heaped up pomp and pride — repulsed all these benefits to go knead clay, aspiring to become a slave, himself the son of his king and already sharing in the honours of the throne. Soon he reappeared, invested with a higher power than that of which he had deprived. After the exile, the servitude with his stepfather, the weariness of distance, he was on his return made the master, or rather the god of the king himself. "I have made you the god of Pharaoh." Exod., vii, 1. Without wearing the diadem, without wearing purple, or driving in a chariot of gold, trampling all this regal pomp underfoot, he eclipsed the splendours of royalty, "All the glory of the daughter of the king came from within." Psalm. 45:14. We saw him sceptre in hand, for he commanded, not only men, but also heaven, earth, sea, the very essence of air and water, lakes, springs, and rivers. The elements were transformed at Moses' command, nature obeyed his will, and it seemed a docile servant, eager, who, seeing the friend of its master, shows him its submission and renders him the duty that would be obtained by the master himself. This is the model on which he whom we are praising formed himself. He imitated it from his youth, if ever he was young. Myself, I do not think so, since the maturity of his intellect dates even from the cradle. Still young in the number of years, he embraced all the teachings of the divine philosophy. Scarcely had he understood that human nature is like a wild and uncultivated soil than he set vigorously to work, he cut short all the diseases of the soul. The word of piety for him was like a sickle to cut off all weeds, and his soul was just like pure earth ready to receive the divine seed; this seed, he buried deeply, so that it was neither withered by the rays of the sun, nor suffocated by the thorns.
This is how he has treated his soul. As for the flesh, he has checked its leanings by the remedies of temperance; seeing it as an impetuous horse, he pull on the reins by fasting, not afraid to bloody the mouth of the passions in order to master them and lead them to his goal. All the same he did so with a wise moderation, and was careful not to exhaust the body, lest, after having ruined the powers of the horse, he rendered it unserviceable. But he kept it no less from getting overweight and exuberant, so that it would not rise against reason, when responsible for his conduct; he did not want it either weak or recalcitrant. As he was in youth, so he showed himself later; and now that his age protects him against the storms of life, his vigilance is still the same. Youth, indeed, is like a sea of angry waves, constantly agitated by the winds, while old age is a quiet haven in which happy sailors whose courage has merited this noble repose enjoy profound security. Although, as I said, quietly sitting in the harbour, he watches with equal care. And this holy terror he received from Paul, who was transported into heaven, and on touching the earth again, exclaimed: "I fear that after having preached the Gospel to others, I myself may be reproved." I Cor. 9:27. Thus he keeps himself in perpetual fear, so as to be in perpetual security. He is always there at the helm, constantly observing, not the movement of the stars nor the rocks hidden beneath the waves, nor the dangers that threaten the ship, but the attacks of demons and the wiles of the devil, the struggles of the spirit and the tempests of the heart, looking out at all his army in order to make it invincible. It is not enough for him that the ship does not sink. He has left nothing undone so sedition or pirates cannot seize any of his traveling companions. Thanks to his care, thanks to his prudence, we pursue in peace the course of our voyage, setting out all our sails in the wind.
4. Certainly when we had lost the father that we had before, and who had formed himself for us, our state seemed deplorable to us, and we gave out inconsolable wailing, hoping that this throne would be occupied by a man like him, but as soon as his successor appeared among us, all this sadness vanished, our troubles vanished like clouds under the sun, and that not in a slow and gradual way, but with as much rapidity as if the blessed pontiff, rousing in the tomb, was back on his throne. What am I doing, though, what imprudence is mine? In my love for our father, in my admiration for his virtues, I have let myself be dragged beyond the limits, not of my subject, but those limits imposed on me by my youth; because I do not think that I have spoken an eulogy when I consider the merits which need celebration. No matter; let us bring our boat back into the port and confine ourselves to a respectful silence. It is not without regret, however, that my speech will stop. I long to take it further, and I feel a bitter pain to leave it incomplete. Children, it is impossible to appease our hunger. Let us cease to pursue what we never reach, and let us content ourselves with what we have said. When we have in our hands a rare and precious perfume, it is not just pouring it in the bowl, it's by dipping your fingertips in it that you change the air around you and anoint those present. This is what is happening to us right now, not by the powers of our eloquence, but the living emanations of his virtues.
Enough. Let us turn to prayer. Let us ask God that our common mother remains unshaken and unsullied, and that we shall long have this father, this pastor, this master, this pilot. I dare not speak to you about myself. I can hardly count myself among the priests, an abortion should not be counted among the children on whom nature has lavished all his gifts. But if you deign to remember me, as we remembers a miserable and wretched being, pray that a superabundant power comes on me from on high. I needed protection while I was living for myself, free from all other cares, and now I am obliged to appear in the church — is it by the favour of man, is it by the will of God? I have not said it to him, I should not discuss this matter before you, lest I be accused of hiding my thoughts — now that I belong to the people, and I submit, never more to shake off this heavy yoke, the more I need you all to extend a helping hand to me, that all pray for me so that I may restore intact to the Divine Master the deposit that he gave me. On that day each custodian will appear before the Supreme Court and give an account of his administration. Yes, pray that I do not experience the fate of those who were loaded with chains and plunged into the outer darkness, that I am counted with those to whom will be shown mercy by the grace and love of Jesus Christ Our Lord, to whom glory, empire, and adoration belongs, for the ages of ages. Amen.
This text was translated from the French translation of the abbé Bareille (1865) by Roger Pearse, 2010. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_in_kalendas.htm
John Chrysostom, In Kalendas - On the kalends of January (2010)
John Chrysostom, In Kalendas - On the kalends of January (2010)
[Translated by Seumas Macdonald]
1. Just as a chorus seeks the chorus leader, and a crew of sailors the helmsman, so also the assembly of these priests today seeks the high-priest and common-father. But in the case of the chorus and the ship frequently the absence of those in charge wrenches them away from good-order and stability; but it is not so in this case. For even if he1 is not present in the flesh, he is present rather in the spirit, and now is with us, though sitting at home, just as we also are with him there, though standing here. For such is the power of love, it is accustomed to bring together and bind those who are divided by a great distance. At any rate if we love someone who is spending time in a foreign place and separated from us by vast seas, we imagine them each day, so then when we are ill-disposed to someone, neither do we think it good to often see him near at hand. Thus when there is love, there is no harm from the division of place, but when love is absent, there is no gain from the nearness of place. Lately, when we were praising the blessed Paul, you so were prancing about, as if seeing him present; though his body lies in regal Rome, but his soul in the hands of God: For the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and torment will never touch them.2 Nonetheless the power of love placed him before your eyes. And I was planning to enter into the same subject again today, but the message moves us to other things pressing upon us, the sins committed today by the entire city. For they ought first to have been emulators of Paul's virtue, and worthy of such a lecture, those who are listening to the praises of Paul. Since then the father3 is not present to us, come - let us cleave to his teaching, relying on his prayers. For even Moses, not being present in the body with the combatants, contributed to that battle, not less than those fighting, but more by far even, urging on the actions of his men by the outstretching of his hands, and making them dreadful to their opponents.4 For just as the power of love is not separated by a division of place, so neither is the efficacy of prayer, but just as the former binds those removed from one another, so also the latter is able to greatly benefit those far off.
Having confidence therefore let us proceed. For the war is begun for us, not with the coming of the Amelikites, as then, nor with some other overrunning Barbarians, but with demons leading a procession in the forum. For the diabolical night-festivities that occur today, the jests, the abuse, and the nocturnal dances, and this comedy, absurd and worse than every enemy, took our city captive; and it is necessary to be restrained5 in these matters, to mourn, to be overcome with shame, both those having sinned and those not having sinned, those for whom they sinned, and those for whom they saw [their] brothers doing shameful things6; and our city has become exceedingly glad and joyful, and crowned, as a woman fond of adornment and extravagant, so the forum lavishly decked itself out today, putting on gold, and extravagant clothing, and sandals, and other such things, as of those in workplaces, each by the display of his own works surpassing his fellow worker in rivalry.7 But this is ambition, even if childish of thought, and imagining nothing great or lofty in mind, but nevertheless it does not attract such harm, but is a certain thoughtless eagerness, pouring down laughter on those eager for such things. For if one wishes to adorn oneself: [let it be] not the workshop, but his own soul; not the forum, but the intellect; so that the angels marvel, and the archangels approve the thing, and the Master of the Angels repay you with gifts from himself; as the example itself, now the event, brings both laughter and jealousy, laughter from the understanding of the loftier, jealousy and much envy from those suffering the same things.
2. But, as I said, ambition itself is not worthy of such accusations; those who happen today to game in the taverns, these cause especial pain, and are full of much profligacy and impiety; [full] of impiety, because those doing these things observe days8, consult auguries, and think that if one celebrates the new moon of this month with pleasure and happiness, then the whole length of the year will hold the same; of profligacy, because men and women having filled bowls and cups drink unmixed wine until dawn. These things are unworthy of our philosophy9, whether you do them, or you permit others to do them, whether servants, or friends, or neighbours. Have you not heard Paul saying, "You keep days and months and seasons and years; I fear lest I have laboured in vain for you"?10 Otherwise it is of the most extreme folly that from one day, if it be fortunate11, to expect this from the whole year; but it is not of folly alone, rather this is the judgment of diabolical activity, not to entrust the things of our life to our own haste and eagerness, but to cycles of the days. The whole year will be fortunate for you, not if you are drunk on the new-moon, but if both on the new-moon, and each day, you do those things approved by God. For days come wicked and good, not from their own nature; for a day differs nothing from another day, but from our zeal and sluggishness. If you perform righteousness, then the day becomes good to you; if you perform sin, then it will be evil and full of retribution. If you contemplate these things, and are so disposed, you will consider the whole year favourable, performing prayers and charity every day; but if you are careless of virtue for yourself, and you entrust the contentment of your soul to beginnings of months and numbers of days, you will be desolate of everything good unto yourself.
Which then the Devil perceiving, and hastening to make an end of our labours in virtue, and to extinguish our willingness of mind, taught success and failures to be inscribed on the days. For the one persuading himself that a day is evil and good, will neither have a care for good deeds on the evil day, as if performing all things in vain, and benefiting nothing on account of the necessity of the day; nor again on the good day will he do this, as if from his own idleness causing no harm, again on account of the good fortune of the day; and thus from each he promotes his own wellbeing12; and sometimes doing profitless things, sometimes superfluous things, he will pass his life in leisure and wickedness. Knowing which, he must flee from the wiles of the devil, and cast out this influence of thought, and observe not the days, neither to hate one nor to love one. For that wicked demon does contrive these things, not only in order to cast us into idleness, but also to revile the works of God, wishing to draw down our souls both into impiety and idleness at the same time.
But we are obliged to resist, and to know clearly, that nothing is evil but sin alone, and nothing good but virtue alone, and to please God always. Strong drink does not produce delight, but spiritual prayer; not wine, but a learned word; Wine effects a storm, but the Word effects calm; the former transports in an uproar, the latter expels disturbance; the former darkens the understanding, the latter lightens the darkened; the former imports despondencies that are non-existent, the latter drives away those there were13. For nothing is so accustomed to produce contentment and delight, as the teachings of [our] philosophy, [which is] to despise present affairs, to yearn for the things to come, to consider nothing of human affairs to be secure, and if you behold some rich man not to be bitten with envy, and if you fall into poverty not to be downcast by that poverty. Thus you are always able to celebrate festivals. For the Christian ought to hold feasts not for months, nor new moons, nor Lord's days, but continually through life to conduct a feast befitting him. What is the feast that befits him? Let us listen to Paul speaking, "Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not in the old leaven, nor by leaven of evil and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."14 If then you have a clean conscience, you hold a feast continually, nourished with good hopes, and revelling in the delight of the good things to come; then just as if you conducted yourself lacking boldness, and you were liable from many sins, and if there be ten thousand feasts and holy-days, you would be in no better state than those grieving. For what is the benefit to me of bright days, if my soul is darkened in its conscience? If then one wishes to gain some benefit from the new moon, do this. When you see the year ending, thank the Lord, because he had led you into this cycle of years. Stab the heart15, reckon up the time of your life, say to oneself: "The days run and pass by, the years fill-up, we have progressed much of the way; What good is there for us to do? Will we not depart from here, empty and deserted of all righteousness, the judgment at the doors, the rest of life leads us to our old age."
3. These things, from the new moon, contemplate, these from the circuit of the years, recollect: let us reckon the future day, no longer something spoken to us that, which was said to the Jews by the prophet, "Their days slipped away in vanity, and their years with haste"16 This is the feast which I mentioned, the continual one, and the one not delayed by the passage of years, not limited by days, both the rich and the poor will be able to celebrate in the same manner: For here there is no want of wealth, nor provision, but only of virtue. Do you not have wealth? But you have the fear of God, a treasure more fruitful than all wealth, not consumed, not changed, not spent-up. Look to heaven, and to the heaven of heavens, the earth, the sea, the air, the kinds of the animals, the manifold plants, the whole nature of human-beings; consider the angels, archangels, the powers above; recall that these are all creations of your Master. It is thus not poverty to be the slave of the providential Master, if you have him as your propitious Lord. The observation of days is not of Christian philosophy, but of Hellenic error. Into the city above you are enrolled17, into the polity18 there you are reckoned, you will mingle with the angels; where light does not give way to darkness, nor day fulfilled to night, but is always day, always light. To these therefore let us look continually. "For seek", he says, "the things above, where Christ is seated at God's right hand."19 You have nothing in common with the earth, where the courses of the sun are, and circuits, and days; but if you live rightly, the night will be day for you; just as then for those living in licentiousness and drunkenness and intemperance, their day is turned into the darkness of night, not with the sun's extinction, but the darkening of their mind by inebriation. To be passionately excited towards these days, and to receive greater pleasure in them, and to kindle lights in the forum, and to weave wreaths, is of childish folly. But you have been freed from this weakness, and come into adulthood, and been enrolled in the polity of the heavens. Do not therefore kindle sensate fire in the forum, but kindle spiritual light in your mind. "For let", he said, "your light shine before men, so they may see your good works, and they will glorify our Father in the heavens."20 This light brings you much recompense. Do not crown the door of the house, but display such a way of life21, so that you will receive the crown of righteousness on your head from the hand of Christ. Let nothing be done rashly, nor simply; thus Paul enjoins that all things be done for the glory of God. "For whether you eat," he said, "or drink, or do whatever, do all for the glory of God"22 And what is it, he says, to eat and drink for God's glory? Call the poor man, make Christ a participant of the table, and you eat and drink for God's glory. But not this alone does he enjoin us to do for God's glory, but all the rest as well, as to go into the forum, and to remain at home; let these both be done for God's sake23. And how are these both to be done for God's sake? Whenever you come into church, whenever you partake of prayer, whenever of spiritual teaching, the advance has occurred for God's glory. Again, it is to remain at home for God's sake. And how this?24 Whenever you hear disturbances, disorderly and diabolical processions, the forum filled with wicked and undisciplined men, remain at home, free from this disorder, and you remain for God's glory. Just as spending time at home and going-out is able to be done for God's sake, thus also of praise and censure. And what is it to praise something for God's glory, he says, and to accuse? You sit frequently in workplaces, you see evil and wicked men passing by, raising the eyebrows25, puffed up, trailing many parasites and flatterers, wearing expensive clothes, surrounded with some mystique, seizing all things, avaricious. If you hear someone saying, "Is he not enviable, is he not blessed?" Rebuke, accuse, silence, pity, weep; this is what it means to censure for God's sake.
Censure is teaching of philosophy to those meeting together and is so strong of virtue26, so as to no longer long27 for the things of everyday life. Say to the one saying these things: Why is this man blessed? Because he has a marvellous horse and a golden bridle, and possesses many servants, and wears bright clothing, and bursts28 each day in drunkenness and luxury? But for this reason he would be wretched and cursed, and worthy of a thousand tears. I see then that you are able to praise nothing of him, but all things external to him, the horse, the bridle, the clothing, of which nothing is his. What then, tell me, is more pitiable than this, when his horse, and the horse's bridle, and the beauty of his clothes, and the bodily vigour of his servants are marvelled, but he passes by unpraised? Who then could be poorer than this man, having nothing good of his own, nor anything which he is able to carry away from here, but is adorned entirely by external things? For adornment and riches are properly our own, not servants and clothing and horses, but virtue of soul, and wealth of good deeds, and confidence towards God.
4. Again, you see another man, a pauper, rejected, despised and passing his life in poverty and virtue, considered unhappy by his companions: commend this man, and the praise of this man as he passes by is exhortation and counsel of a useful and good way of life29. If they say, "He is wretched and miserable," say that this one is the most blessed of all, having God as his friend, passing life in virtue, possessing a wealth never failing, having a pure conscience. For what harm is there to him from the lack of possessions, when he is going to inherit heaven and the good things in heaven? And if you yourself philosophise in this manner, and instruct others, you will receive a great reward from both censure and from praises, doing both for God's glory. And that I do not allure you vainly saying these things, but that a certain great recompense exists with the God of all things for those whose intellect is thus disposed, and that the thing has been considered a certain virtue, [that is] the resolving to do such things, hear what the prophet says concerning those so living, and how he places things in an order of perfections, the despising of those doing wickedness, and the glorifying of those fearing God. For after recounting the other virtue of the one who will be honoured by God, also he says, of what sort one must be to dwell in the holy tabernacle, that is blameless, and performing righteousness, and wicked-less, and this he adds: For saying, "Who did not deceive with his tongue, and did no harm to his neighbour"30 he adds, "The one doing evil is set at nought before him, but those fearing the Lord he glorifies"31 showing that this is one of those perfections, that is to despise the wicked, and to praise and bless the good. And again elsewhere this same thing he makes plain, saying, "Your friends were exceedingly honourable to me, God, their beginnings32 became very strong."33 Whom God praises, do not censure: he praises the one living in righteousness, even if he be poor; whom God turns away, do not praise: he turns away the one living in wickedness, even if he be surrounded by much wealth. But if you praise, and if you censure, do both as God wishes. For there is even accusing unto the glory of God. How? Frequently we are vexed with our servants. How then is there accusing for God's sake? If you see someone drunk, or stealing, whether servant, or friend, or some other of those related to you, whether running into the theatre, or having no concern for their soul, or swearing34, or perjuring35, or lying: be angry36, punish, turn them back, correct; and you did all these things for God's sake. And if you see someone sinning against you, and omitting something of their service toward you, pardon them, and you are forgiven for God's sake. But now many do the opposite, both to their friends, and to their servants. For when they sin against them, they become bitter and unforgiving judges; but when they insult God, and ruin their own souls, they produce no rationale. Again, is it necessary to make friends? Make them, for God's sake. Is it necessary to make enemies? Make them, for God's sake. And by what means does one make friends and enemies for God's sake? If we do not attract those friends, whence money is taken, whence sharing of a table, whence obtaining of human patronage, but pursue and make those friends, those able always to order our soul, counsel necessities, rebuke sinners, expose trespassers, restore those fallen, and aiding by counsel and prayers to lead to God. Again, it is permitted to make enemies for God's sake. If you see someone undisciplined, abominable, full of wickedness, replete with unclean teachings, tripping you up and harming you, stand apart and turn away, just as also Christ commanded, saying, "If your right eye trips you up, pluck it out and cast it from you"37 commanding those friends, those being desirable in the rank of eyes38, and necessary in the things of everyday life, to cut off, and to cast out, if they harm you with regard to the salvation of the soul. If you share in their meetings, and you prolong your speech, do even this for God's sake, and if you keep silent, keep silent for God's sake.
And what is it to participate in the meeting for God's sake? If you are seated with someone, converse nothing concerning daily affairs, nor of simple things even vainly and nothing of those related to you, but concerning our philosophy, concerning Hell, concerning the Kingdom of the Heavens, but not superfluities and unprofitable things, such as, "Who entered authority?39 Who lost power? For what reason was so-and-so injured40? Whence did so-and-so profit and become better off? What did so-and-so dying leave behind to such-and-such? How did so-and-so miss out, expecting to be listed among the foremost of the heirs?" And many other such things. Let us not then discuss such things, nor bear others discussing [them]; but let us consider what-doing or what-saying is to please God. Again, it is to keep silent for God's sake, being maltreated, abused, suffering a thousand evils, if you bear them nobly, and emit no blasphemous word against the one doing these things to you. Not to praise and to censure alone, nor to remain indoors and to go out, not to utter and to keep silent, but also to weep and mourn, and to enjoy and delight is to God's glory.
For when you see either a brother sinning, or yourself falling into a transgression, [if] then you groan and mourn41, then you gain from the grief a salvation without regret, just as Paul says, "For grief according to God produces a salvation without regret"42 If you see another person being highly esteemed, then do not disparage him, but as for one's own goods give thanks to God, to the one making your brother illustrious, and you receive a great reward from this joy.
5. What then, tell me, is more pitiable than the envious, when it is permitted both to rejoice and to profit through joy, and they prefer rather to grieve upon the advantages of others, and with the grief to yet also attract a punishment from God, an unendurable retribution. And what need is there to speak of praise, and of blame, and of pain, and of joy, when indeed even from the least of these things and from the meanest43 events the greatest things are to be profited, if we do them for God's sake?
For what is more lowly than to be shorn? But even this is to be done for God's sake. For when you do not arrange your hair, nor adorn you appearance, nor decorate yourself for an enticement and beguilement of onlookers, but simply and as it happens and as much as necessity alone demands, you do this for God's sake, you will in all ways have your reward, because you have checked evil desire, and beaten into shape inopportune ambition. For if one giving only a cup of water for God's sake will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, let the one doing all things for God's sake consider how great the recompense he will enjoy. There is also to walk for God's sake, and to look for God's sake. What is it to look for God's sake, and to walk? When you do not run towards wickedness, when you do not busy yourself with other's beauty, when seeing a woman by chance44, you curb your eye, you fortify the visage with the fear of God, then you have done this for God's sake; when clothes not extravagant and making you soft, but able to cover you, let us wear these alone. And it is even up to the shoes that this law leads. For many have slipped to this point of slackness and wastefulness, as to adorn even their shoes, and to embellish them from every side, not less than others their faces: which is of an unclean and corrupted soul. For if even this seems to be small, but it is an evidence and proof of great ruination, both in men and women. Therefore it is lawful even to use shoes for God's sake, when we seek their use everywhere, and we make this the measure of their employment. And that both through walking and through clothing [we] are to glorify God, hear what a certain wise man says, "clothing of a man, and laughter of teeth, and step of foot, declare things concerning him."45 For when we appear, clothed and august, and full of reverence, and exhibiting much chastity on all sides: from the bare occurrence, the unbeliever, and the licentious, and the tumultuous, seeing this kind of thing will be amazed, even if he be unaware of everything. And if we marry a woman, let us do this for God's sake, so that we may be chaste, not so that we might acquire46 a more resourceful property47, [but] so that we might seek nobility of soul, not abundance of possessions, nor distinction of ancestors, but excellence and reasonableness of customs. Let us take a companion for life, not a business associate.
And why is it necessary to recount all things in detail? For it is permissible finally for you, from the things spoken, to methodically work through each of the things that occurs or is done, and to do for God's sake. And just as the merchants sailing the sea, and bringing to safe anchorage in cities, do not first depart the shore, nor go up into the marketplace, until they learn that there is some profit from the things laid up there. Thus also you nothing, neither do, nor say, unless it hold some profit regarding God. And do not say to me that it is not possible to do all things for God's sake. For when putting on your shoes, and [hair], and dressing of garments, and travelling, and appearance, and words, and meetings, both enterings and exitings, both gibes and praises, both censures and approvals, both friendships and enmities are able to happen for God's sake, what is left which is not able to happen for God's sake, if we desire it?
What is worse than a jailer? Does not [that] life seem altogether to be the worst? But it is permitted to the one wishing to profit even from there, when he spares the enchained, when he cares for those unjustly incarcerated, when he does not make business from others' misfortunes, when he sets before all prisoners a common threshold. Thus was the jailer, in Paul's case, saved48: Whence it is clear that in all things, if we wish it, we are able to be profitable.
6. What is worse than murder, tell me? But this shameless-deed was one able to birth righteousness for the one who did it: so great is doing something for God's sake whatever one does. And how was murder able to produce righteousness? The Midianites were once wishing to provoke God to war with the Jews, and by this expecting to be [superior] to them, if they might deprive them of the Lord's goodwill, beautifying girls and standing them before the camp, they enticed them and lead them into fornication, then from there into impiety. Phinehas, seeing this, having taken in hand a sword, and seizing two [people] fornicating, pierced them both in their sin, and checked the anger of God from his judgment. And the thing that happened was murder, but the outcome of that was the salvation of all who were being destroyed, whence also it brought righteousness to the one who did it.49
And not only did it not defile his hands, but that murder made them even more pure, and very rightly so: for not hating those he killed, but sparing the rest, he did this: he killed the two, and saves unlimited myriads. For just as doctors do, cutting off the putrefied parts of the members, they save the body whole and sound; thus also did he do. On this account the Psalmist says, "Phinehas stood and propitiated, and the slaughter abated, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness unto generation and generation, until eternity."50 Immortal then remains the memory of deed rightly done.
Again, another prayed, and offended God: so great a thing is it not to do something for God's sake: I mention the Pharisee51. But just as Phinehas committing murder was approved [by God], thus also this man, not from his prayer, but from his disposition with which he prayed, fell into offence. Thus when something is done not for God's sake, even if the matter be spiritual, it causes great harm; just as then when something is done for God's sake, even if it be carnal52, it benefits greatly the one doing it with a God-loving disposition. For what is worse and harsher than murder? But nevertheless it made righteous him who dared it.
What sort of defence will we have, saying that it is not possible to profit in everything, and to do all things for God's sake, when some profit was found even from murder? If we wish to pay attention, we will traffic in this spiritual profit, through all of life, whether buying something, or needing to sell; such as, when we do not ask for more than the customary price, when we do not observe the times of difficulty, and then give a share to those in need.53 "The one raising the price of grain is cursed by the people", he says.54 And what need is there to review each, to gather the whole from one example is needed? For just as builders, whenever they are about to raise a wall, stretching a small cord from corner to corner, thus construct the edifice, so that its appearance be not uneven; thus also we, in place of a small cord, stretching this word that was spoken, "Whether you eat, whether you drink, whether you do some other thing, do all for the glory of God."55 If we pray, if we fast, if we accuse, if we pardon, if we praise, if we censure, if we enter, if we exit, if we sell, if we buy, if we are silent, if we converse, if we do any thing else whatsoever, let us do all for the glory of God, and if something be not for the glory of God, neither let it be done, nor be spoken by us; but in place of a great staff, in place of arms and safeguard, in place of unspeakable treasures, wherever we might be, let us carry around this word with us, having inscribed it upon our understanding, so that doing and speaking and trafficking all things for the glory of God, we shall obtain the glory that is from him both in this world and after the journey here56. "For those that glorified me", he says, "I will glorify"57. Not therefore with words, but also through deeds let us glorify him continually with Christ our God, because all glory befits him, honour and worship, now and always unto the ages of ages. Amen.
1 The referent is Bishop Flavianus, and so throughout the opening section
2 Sirach 3:1
3 i.e., Flavianus
4 cf. Exodus 17
5 probably with a parallel sense, 'to be saddened'.
6 τοὺς μὲν ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐπλημμέλησαν, τοὺς δὲ ὑπὲρ ὧν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς εἶδον ἀσχημονήσαντας.
7 The Greek is difficult. Perhaps some social background will help: cf. Hom ad pop. Ant 16. (P.G. xlix. 173) ἐργαστήριον ἕν οἱκοῦντες ἄνθρωπο διαφόρως μεν ἐμπορεύονται, πάντα δὲ εἰς τὸ κοινὸν ἀποτίθενται. As found in Liebeschuetz Antioch, p55; Liebescheutz suggests that a scene of men working in the same worskshop, but as their own individual worker, but contributing to a common till; a kind of un-specialised factory situation.
8 i.e. they observe certain days as special or sacral, especially according to the pagan calendars.
9 philosophy, both here and throughout Chrysostom, refers to Christianity as both a distinct set of beliefs, and a set of practices or way of life. It highlights the rivalry between the Christian philosophy, and the philosophical schools of the Hellenism.
10 Galatians 4.10-11
11 i.e., auspicious, superstitiously-favourable
12 alt. 'salvation'.
13 i.e. the former brings new depondencies that previously were not there, but the latter drives away those that were present beforehand.
14 1 Cor 5:8
15 'Prick the heart' may be a better English idiom.
16 Ps 78:33 (Ps 77:33 LXX)
17 i.e. as a citizen.
18 politeia, like philosophy, is a key concept-work for Chrysostom. It refers variously to the body of Christians both on earth and in heaven, their way of life as citizens, and their ordered existence in the church. It is also a rival politeia to that of Plato's Republic and the like.
19 Col 3: b
20 Mt 5:16; Chrysostom has 'our Father' for 'your Father'.
21 'way of life' here correponds to citizenship above.
22 1 Cor 10:31. This verse provides the theme for the rest of the sermon.
23 διὰ τὸν Θεὸν and so throughout.
24 i.e. How will one glorify God in this action of staying at home?
25 A sign of haughtiness and importance
26 This first half of the sentence is as confusing in the Greek as in the English.
27 More literally, 'gape'.
28 Migne's Latin has solvitur which we might render 'dissolves', thus picking up the idea of moral dissolution in a wanton life. The Greek διαῤῥήγνυται is difficult to construe.
29 politeia
30 Ps 15:3 (Ps 14:3 LXX)
31 Ps 15:4 (Ps 14:4 LXX)
32 poss. authorities
33 Ps 138:17 LXX. Ps 139:17 MT differs radically from this reading.
34 i.e. swearing oaths
35 i.e. to swear falsely
36 ἀγᾰνακτέω, the same verb used for 'vexed' above.
37 Mt 5:29
38 Chrysostom's meaning seems to be 'those friends whom we hold as dear as our own eyes', which Migne's Latin also implies.
39 N elected officials would enter office on the Kalends, which presumably explains the kind of political conversation Chrysostom has in view.
40 Possibly with a technical or financial sense: fined, punished
41 These two verbs continue the protasis of the conditional
42 2 Cor 7:10
43 'Mean' in the sense of cheap, frugal, vulgar.
44 i.e. that you encounter when walking around
45 Sirach 19:30 (LXX; KJV), 19:27 (VUL). The sense of the phrase is that they 'declare concerning him'. The Vulgate gets at it more clearly (though Migne's Latin does not match the Clementine Vulgate)
46 Lit. 'work'
47 A difficult phrase to translate: τὴν οὐσίαν εὐπορωτέραν ἐργαζώμεθα
48 Acts 16:25-40
49 Numbers 25
50 Psalm 106:30-31, (Ps 105:30-1 LXX) both the MT and Migne have 'from generation to generation', whereas LXX, Chrys, and Vul have 'unto generation and generation.'
51 Migne references Luke 18, by which he must mean Luke 18:9-14, concerning the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.
52 βιωτικὸν earthly, of this world, not-spiritual
53 Chrysostom's drift seems to be equity in mercantile dealings, especially in light of scarcity. Not driving up prices in times of need or to those in need is, in effect, a gracious sharing with them of what would otherwise be exploitive profit.
54 Pr 11:26a. There is significant variation in this verse, as the following shows.
LXX: ὁ συνέχων σῖτον ὑπολίποιτο αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν;
Vul: Qui abscondit frumenta maledicetur in populis;
Mig: Maledictus enim, ille, qui frumenti caritatem auget;
Chr: Ὁ γὰρ τιμιουλκῶν σῖτον δημοκατάρατος
55 1 Cor 10:31. Chrysostom omits οὖν from his citation, presumably since the inferential conjunction would be out of place in his own discourse.
56 i.e. after this life.
57 1 Sam 2:30; (1 Reg 2.30 LXX)
This text was commissioned by Roger Pearse, 2010. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_against_theatres_and_circuses.htm
Chrysostom, Against the circuses and the theatre /Contra ludos et theatra (2012)
Chrysostom, Against the circuses and the theatre /Contra ludos et theatra (2012)
Homily of St John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, our sainted father:
Against those who have abandoned the church and deserted it for hippodromes and theatres.
[Translated by Mark Vermes]
272 Can this be tolerated? Can this be accepted? I want to call you to witness against yourselves. That is what God did with the Hebrews. He called them as witnesses against themselves when he said: "My people, what have I done to you? How have I hurt you or how have I annoyed you? Answer me." Again: "What fault did your fathers find in me?" I shall imitate this, and shall ask you again: Can this be tolerated? Can this be accepted? After hearing lengthy series of speeches and so much teaching, some people have left us, and deserted us for the spectacle of horse racing. They have become so frenzied that they fill the whole city with their shouting and disorderly racket, creating huge laughter or rather lamentation. Meanwhile I, sitting at home, hearing the outbreak of shouting, have suffered more grievously than seafarers in a storm. For in the same way as those seafarers, when the waves break against the side of their ship, fear that their lives are in danger, so too have I, when those more dreadful cries have broken over me, cowered to the ground and covered myself up. The spectators higher up behave so disgracefully, while the ones further down in the middle of the crowd cheer on the riders and shout worse than the first group.
What shall I say? Or what explanation shall I give, if a visitor arrives from somewhere and challenges us and says: "Is this the city of the Apostles? Is this the city that received so great a teacher? Is this the people who love Christ, who is the genuine, spiritual, spectacle?" You have not even shown respect for the very day on which the sacraments of the salvation of mankind were celebrated. But on Good Friday, when your Lord 273 was being crucified on behalf of the world, and such a sacrifice was being offered, and paradise was being opened, and the robber was led back to his old country; when the curse was being undone and sin was made to vanish, and the ancient war was ended and God was reconciled towards men, and everything was being transformed - on that very day, when it was necessary to fast and give glory, and to raise prayers of thanksgiving for the good things in the world to the one who created them, instead you left the church and the spiritual eucharist, and the assembly of the brothers, and the solemnity of the fast, and as a prisoner of the devil were you dragged off to that spectacle? Can this be tolerated? Can this be accepted? I shall not stop saying these things constantly, and assuaging my pain that way, not by suppressing it with silence, but by bringing it out into public view and putting it in front of your eyes.
How will we be able to propitiate God from now on? How can we mollify his anger? Three days ago a stormy raincloud burst and soaked everything. It snatched their food from the very mouths of the farmers, so to speak, flattened the waving cornfields, and ruined everything else due to the abundance of water. Processions and supplications were held, and our whole city like a torrent ran to the places of the apostles. We claimed as advocates St Peter and the blessed Andrew, and the famous pair of apostles, Paul and Timothy. After that, when the anger eased, we crossed the sea and mastered the waves, and ran to the chief apostles, Peter the foundation of our faith, and Paul the instrument of divine election. We conducted a spiritual gathering, and proclaimed their struggles, their achievements and their victories over the demons. And yet, unalarmed by dread about what had happened, and not learning from the magnitude of the apostles' achievements, at once within the space of a single day, do you jump around and shout, not seeing that your own soul is being dragged into captivity by its base pursuits? If you were addicted to watching the circuit of wild beasts, why did you not yoke the wild passions in yourself, namely fury and desire, and place on them the bridle of philosophy, which is virtuous and light, and impose the correct argument, and drive them towards the prize of a higher vocation, not running from defilement to defilement, but from earth to heaven? That type of horse race produces great benefit as well as pleasure. But you simply put down your business and left it as it was, and sat watching other people's victories, frittering away such a day idly and in vain and for a base purpose.
274 Do you not know that just as when we hand over money to our servants, and we demand accounts from them down to the last obol, in the same way God will demand an account from us of the days of our life, as to how we have spent each day? What then shall we say? What shall be our defence, when we are requested to give our accounts of that day? For your sake the sun rose, and the moon brightened the night, and the intricate pattern of the stars shone forth. Winds blew for your sake, and rivers flowed. For your sake seeds sprouted and plants grew, and the course of nature preserved its own order. Day appeared and night followed. And all of this happened for your sake. But do you, when all creation serves you, satisfy the desire of the devil? You have rented such a home from God, I mean this world, but you have not paid the rent. And you were not satisfied with the first day, but on the second day, when you should have paused for a while from the evil that was enveloping you, you returned again this time to the theatre. You ran from smoke into fire, descending into another pit that was even worse. Old men shamed their grey hair, and young men threw their youth away. Fathers brought their sons, from the beginning guiding inexperienced youth into the pits of depravity, so it would not have been a mistake to call those men child killers rather than fathers, as they surrendered their children's souls to evil. What kind of evil, you ask. Because of it I am in agony, because although you are ill you do not know you are ill or call the doctor. You have become filled with adultery, and you ask "What kind of evil?" Have you not listened to Christ when he said: "Anyone who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her"? "What if I do not look at her with desire?" you ask. How will you be able to convince me? For if anyone cannot control what he watches, but is so enthusiastic about doing so, how will he be able to remain virtuous after he has finished watching? Is your body made of stone? Or iron? You are clothed with flesh, human flesh, which is enflamed by desire as easily as grass.
Why do I talk about the theatre? Often if we meet a woman in the marketplace, we are alarmed. But you sit in your upper seat, where there is such an invitation to outrageous behaviour, and see a woman, a prostitute, entering bareheaded and with a complete lack of shame, dressed in golden garments, flirting coquettishly and singing harlots' songs with seductive tunes, and uttering disgraceful words. She behaves so shamelessly that if you watch her and give consideration, you will bow your head in shame. Do you dare to say you suffer no human reaction? Is your body made of stone? Or iron? I shall not refrain from saying the same things again. Surely you are not a better philosopher than those great and noble men, who were cast down merely by such a sight? 275 Have you not heard what Solomon says: "If someone walks onto a fire of coals, will he not burn his feet? If someone lights a fire in his lap, will he not burn his clothing? It is just the same for the man who goes to a woman that doesn't belong to him." For even if you did not have intimate relations with the prostitute, in your lust you coupled with her, and you committed the sin in your mind. And it was not only at that time, but also when the theatre has closed, and the woman has gone away, her image remains in your soul, along with her words, her figure, her looks, her movement, her rhythm, and her distinctive and meretricious tunes; and having suffered countless wounds you go home. Is it not this that leads to the disruption of households? Is it not this that leads to the destruction of temperance, and the break up of marriages? Is it not this that leads to wars and battles, and odious behaviour lacking any reason? For when, saturated with that woman, you return home as her captive, your wife appears more disagreeable, your children more burdensome, and your servants troublesome, and your house superfluous. Your customary concerns seem to annoy you when they relate to managing your necessary business, and everyone who visits is an irritating nuisance.
The cause of this is that you do not return home alone, but keeping the prostitute with you. She does not go visibly and openly, which would have been easier. For your wife could have quickly driven her away. But she is ensconced in your mind and your consciousness, and she lights within you the Babylonian furnace, or rather something much worse. For it is not tow, naphtha and pitch, but her qualities mentioned above that provide fuel for the fire, and everything is upside down. It is just like people suffering from a fever, who have no reason to rebuke those who attend them, but because of the affliction of their illness are unpleasant to everyone, reject their food, insult their doctors, are bad tempered with their families and furious with those who care for them. Just so those who suffer from this dread disease are restless and vexed, and see that woman at every turn. What a terrible state of affairs! The wolf and the lion and other beasts when they are shot at flee the huntsman. But a man, though the most intelligent, when wounded pursues the woman who has wounded him, so as to receive a much more deadly missile and revel in the wound. What is most sickening of all, is that he makes the disease incurable. For if someone does not hate the injury and does not want to be free of it, why would he summon a doctor? Therefore I lament and am in torment, because after receiving such a brutal outrage you return from the theatre, and for the sake of a small pleasure you undergo continual pain. For even before the punishment of Hell, you demand the ultimate penalty here. Tell me, does it not merit the final punishment, to nurture such a desire, to be constantly enflamed, and to carry everywhere the furnace of unnatural love and the condemnation of your own conscience? How will you climb those sacred steps? 276 How will you touch the heavenly table? How will you hear the sermon about temperance, when you are full of such injuries and wounds, and your intellect is the slave of your passion? Why should I say anything else? From what is now going on amongst us it is possible to see the pain of your intellect. Now just as I am speaking these words I can see some people beating their foreheads, and I am very grateful to you for being such a compassionate people. In fact I think many of those who have never sinned are beating themselves, because they suffer pain from their brothers' wounds. Therefore I lament and grieve, because the devil is tormenting this flock. But if you want to we can quickly block his entrance. How and by what means? If we could see those who are diseased becoming healthy. If we could unfurl the nets of our doctrine and go around seeking those who have been captured by wild beasts, and snatch them from the lion's throat. Do not say to me "There are only a few who have been taken from the flock." Even if there were only ten, it would be no ordinary loss. Even if there were five, or two or one. That famous shepherd left behind the ninety nine sheep for the same reason, and ran after the one sheep, and did not return until he brought it back with him, and completed the defective number of one hundred through the restoration of that one which had wandered away. Do not say "It is only one." But consider, it is a soul, on whose account everything that can be seen came into being: laws, penalties and punishments, and countless wonders, and the infinitely varied works of God. On that soul's account he did not spare his only-born son. Consider what a price has been paid even for the one man, and do not undervalue his salvation, but go away and bring him back to us, and persuade him no longer to fall into the same mistakes. Then we have a sufficient defence. But if he should not give in, either to our advice or to your entreaties, then I shall thereafter use my power, which God gave us not for destruction but for construction.
Therefore I make this proclamation, in a clear and loud voice, that if anyone after this exhortation and teaching deserts back to the unlawful disgrace of the theatre, I shall not receive him within these precincts, I will not let him share in the sacraments, I will not let him touch the sacred table. Just as shepherds separate the sheep that are afflicted by mange from the healthy sheep, so as to prevent the rest from catching the disease, so I shall act in the same way. For if in ancient times the leper was ordered to sit outside the camp, and even if he was a king, was expelled along with his crown, so much more should we expel from this sacred camp the one who has leprosy in his soul. Just as in the beginning I used exhortation and advice, so now after all this exhortation and teaching it is necessary from now on to deploy exclusion. For it is a year since I entered your city, and I have not ceased from frequent and constant reminders to you about this. 277 But since some have persisted in the putrefaction, well then from now on we should introduce exclusion. If I do not possess an iron sword, at least I have a word which is sharper than iron. If I cannot touch fire, I have a doctrine which is hotter than fire, and can burn more fiercely.
Do not scorn my decree. Although we are worthless and most pitiable, nevertheless we have been granted a status by the grace of God that can achieve these things. Let such people be ejected, so that those of us who are healthy may become more healthy, and those who are sick may restore themselves from serious illness. If you shudder when you hear this decree (and I see that you are all looking gloomy and flinching), let them repent, and the decree will be cancelled. For just as I have received the power to bind, so I have the power to release, and to recall them back. I do not wish to excommunicate our brothers, but to dispel the disgrace of the Church. For as things stand even the pagans will laugh at us, and the Jews will mock us, when we overlook our own members sinning in this way. But in the other case they will greatly praise us, and admire the Church, and respect our laws. So let not a single one of those who remain in this prostitution set foot in the church, but let him be censured by you, and let him be a common enemy. For if anyone, as it is said, will not heed my word set out in my letter, mark him out and do not associate with him. But do this: do not share conversation, or receive him into your home, or share your table, or your going out or going in, or visit the forum with him. In this way we will easily win them back. Just as hunters chase their difficult prey not just from one direction but from all sides, and so drive them into the net, so too shall we herd together those who have been driven into a frenzy, and quickly hurl them into the nets of salvation, we on one side and you on the other. In order that this will happen you too will share our anger, or rather suffer pain on account of God's laws, and soon retrieve those of the brethren who are diseased in this way and breaking the law, so that you will keep them for ever. For it will be no ordinary charge against you, if you ignore such destruction, but you will be subject to the greatest penalty. In men's households if one of the servants is caught stealing silver or gold, the thief himself is not the only one punished, but also his conspirators and anyone who did not report him. So much more does the same thing happen in the Church. For at that time God will ask you: "When you saw no silver or gold vessel being robbed from My house, but temperance itself being stolen, and the one who had taken the venerable body, and shared in so great a sacrifice, departing into the place of the devil and committing such sins, how could you keep silent? How did you tolerate it? Why did you not report it to the priest?" And you will be subjected to extreme chastisement. For that reason I too, though it will cause me pain, will not fail to use any of the more grievous penalties. 278 For it is much better that we should suffer pain here and be freed of the coming judgement, rather than use indulgent words here and be punished then alongside you. For it is not safe or without danger for us to tolerate such things in silence. Each of you will give an account of himself. But I am liable to account for the salvation of all of you. For that reason I shall not cease doing and saying everything, even if I have to cause you pain or appear hateful, or tiresome, so that I will be able to stand before that awesome tribunal, without a stain or a blemish or any such thing. May it be with the help of the prayers of the saints that those who have been lost may quickly return, and those who have remained unharmed may advance towards greater propriety and temperance. In this way you may be saved, and we may rejoice, and God may be glorified now and always, and for unending ages upon ages. Amen.
This text was commissioned by Roger Pearse, 2012, and translated by Mark Vermes from the Patrologia Graeca text (PG 56, 263-270). This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_homily_2_on_christmas.htm
John Chrysostom, nd Homily on the birthday of our Savior, Jesus Christ (2013) Translation
John Chrysostom, nd Homily on the birthday of our Savior, Jesus Christ (2013) Translation
John Chrysostom: On the Birthday of our Savior Jesus Christ, a Sermon.1
[Translated by Bryson Sewell]
I see a strange and novel mystery: shepherds sound all around my ears, not piping a barren tune, but singing a heavenly hymn. Angels are singing, archangels are dancing, the cherubim are hymning, the seraphim are glorifying, all are celebrating, since they see God upon the earth, man2 in Heaven. [I see] the one who is on high lower because of His plan,3 the one who is below on high because of His love for humanity. Today Bethlehem resembled Heaven: in place of stars it received angels hymning, in place of the sun it contained the righteous One4 without confining [Him].5 And do not ask how: for where God wills it, nature's order is overcome. For He willed it, He had the power, He came down, He saved - all things follow upon God.6 Today, He who Is7 is born, and He who Ιs becomes what He was not. For being God, He becomes human, though He did not cease from being God. For He hasn't become human by separating8 from His divinity,9 nor again has He become God by advancing10 from a human. But, being Word, because He could not suffer [as Word], 11 He became flesh, His nature12 remaining unchanged. But when, on the one hand, He was born, Jews denied the strange birth, and Pharisees misinterpreted the divine Books, and scribes spoke what was in opposition to the Law. Herod13 sought the [child] who was born, not in order to honor Him, but to destroy Him. For today they saw [that] all things [were] opposed [to them]. For the psalmist says, "it was not hidden from their children for another generation."14 For kings came, in astonishment at the heavenly King, for He had come upon the earth without angels, without archangels, [M. 387] without thrones, without dominions, without powers, without authorities, but walking a foreign and untrodden path, He came forth from an uncultivated15 womb, neither leaving His own angels deprived of His authority, nor having ceased from His own divinity in His incarnation with us. But kings came to worship the heavenly King of glory, while soldiers [came] to serve the commander-in-chief of power; women [came to see] the one who was born from a man, in order that He might change the woman's grief16 into joy; the virgins [came to see] the child of the virgin, because the Creator of milk and breasts, who makes the fountains of breasts to produce naturally flowing streams,17 received a child's nourishment from His virgin mother; the infant [came to see] the one who became an infant in order to furnish praise from the mouths of infants; the children [came to see] the child who produced witnesses because of Herod's madness; the men [came to see] the one who was incarnated and healed the woes of slaves;18 the shepherds [came to see] the good shepherd, who lays down His life for the sheep; the priests [came to see] the one who became the high priest in the order of Melchizedek; the slaves [came to see] the one who took the form of a slave in order to honor our slavery with freedom; the fishers [came to see] the one who makes hunters of people from among fishers; the tax collectors [came to see] the one who appointed an evangelist from among the tax collectors; the prostitutes [came to see] the one who offers His feet to the tears of prostitutes; and, that I may speak but briefly, all sinners came to see the lamb of God who takes upon himself the sin of the world, Magi accompanying,19 shepherds praising, tax collectors speaking the good news, prostitutes bearing perfume, Samaritans thirsting for the fountain of life, the Canaanite woman with undoubting faith. Since everyone else, then, is exulting, I too want to exult, I want to dance, I desire to celebrate. But I dance, not by striking a lyre, not by shaking a thyrsus, not with flutes, not by lighting torches, but, in place of the musical instruments, I bear20 the swaddling-clothes of the Christ. For these are my hope, these my life, these my salvation, these my flute, these my lyre. And so I come bearing these, so that, after receiving [the] power of words by their power, I may say together with angels, "Glory in the highest be to God!,"21 and with shepherds, "And peace on earth, and good will among men."22 Today, the one who was inexplicably begotten from [the] Father is born from a virgin, inexpressibly for my sake. But at that time, on the one hand, He was begotten from the Father before [the] ages, as the one who begot [Him] knows. But today, against nature, He was born again, as the grace of the Holy Spirit understands. And His birth on high23 is real, and His birth below not false, and He was begotten as God from God, and truly the same one was born a human from a virgin. On high He alone is the only begotten from the Only, below the same one, alone, is the only begotten from [the] only virgin. For just as in the case of His birth on high it is impious to conceive24 of a mother, so also in the case of His birth below it is blasphemous to conceive25 of a father. The Father begot [Him] without change, and the virgin bore [him] without corruption. For God did not submit to begetting with fluxes,26 for He begot [Him] in a manner fit for God. And the virgin didn't submit to corruption when she was giving birth, for she gave birth after a spiritual manner. And so His begetting on high has no explanation, nor does His [M. 388] coming forth in later times endure to be investigated unduly. For today I know that, on the one hand, the virgin gave birth, and today I believe that God begot [Him] out of time. I have learned to honor the manner of the birth with silence, and I have undertaken27 not to inquire unduly with words. For in the case of God, one ought not to give attention to the nature28 of the deeds, but to believe in the power of the one who brings [them] about. For there is a law of nature, whenever a woman, after being joined in marriage, gives birth. But when a virgin, after giving birth, without experience in marriage, again appears as a virgin, the deed is beyond nature. Consequently, then, let that which is in accord with nature be investigated, but let that which is beyond nature be honored with silence, not as something that ought to be avoided, but as something inexpressible and worthy of being honored with silence. But grant me pardon, I beg you, if I want to end my sermon in the introduction. For since I am lowly in respect of the inquiry of those who are greater, I do not know how and where I shall turn the rudders of my words. For what am I to say, or what am I to speak? I see the woman giving birth, I perceive the [child] who was born, yet I do not comprehend the manner of the birth. For nature is overcome, and the boundary of order is overcome, where God wills [it]. For the deed did not occur in accord with nature, but the miracle is beyond nature. For nature was nullified, and the will of the Master brought [it] to pass. Oh the unspeakable grace! The only begotten before [the] ages, the intangible and the simple and the incorporeal entered into my contemptible and visible body. Why? So that, by being seen, He might teach, and that by teaching He might lead us to what is not seen. For since humans consider29 the eye more trustworthy than the ear, they doubt what they do not see, and for this reason He endured to present a spectacle of Himself to their eyes through the body, so that He might destroy their doubt. And He is born from a virgin who is ignorant of the matter. For she did not help bring about what occurred, or contribute to what was done, but she was a mere instrument of His inexpressible power, only knowing what she learned from Gabriel when she asked, "How will this happen to me, since I do not know a man?"30 And he says, "Do you wish to understand this? The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will over shadow you."31 And how was He with her, and then only a little later from her? [It is] just like when an artist finds great material, He fashions a most beautiful vessel. In this way, too, Christ, when He found the body and soul of the virgin holy, fit out a living temple for Himself, framing the person in the virgin in the manner He willed and, after entering into it, He came forth today, feeling no shame for the ugliness of the nature. Nor did it bring hubris to Him to wear His own work. And the thing that was fashioned gave a harvest of greatest glory, since it was a garment of the artist. For in this very way, in the first molding, it was impossible to frame the human before the mud came into his hands. In this way also it was impossible for the perishing vessel to be altered unless it became [the] garment of the one who made it. [M. 389] But what am I to say, or what am I to speak? For the miracle strikes me senseless. The Ancient of days has become a child, He who sits on a high and lofty throne is placed in a manger, the intangible and simple and uncompounded and incorporeal One is turned about by human hands, He who tore the bonds of sin asunder is entwined in swaddling-clothes, since He will this. For He wants to make dishonor honor, ill-repute to put on glory, the boundary of hubris to show the way of virtue. And so He enters my body so that I might contain his Word. And after receiving my flesh, He gives me His own Spirit, so that by giving and receiving He might procure the treasure of my life. He receives my flesh to sanctify me, He gives me His spirit to save me. But what am I to say, or what am I to speak? "Behold, the virgin will conceive."32 No longer is it said that it will happen, but it is wondered at that it has occurred. For it occurred among Jews, among whom it was also spoken, yet it is believed by us, among whom it wasn't professed. "Behold the virgin will conceive." The written character belongs to the synagogue, but the possession belongs to the church. The former33 discovered the writing-tablet, the latter34 discovered the pearl. The former dyed the wool, the latter put on the purple robe. Judea bore Him, and the world received Him. The synagogue reared and suckled Him, and the church held him and enjoyed the fruit of the harvest. The branch of the grape-vine is with the former, and the grape-cluster of truth is with me. The former gathered in the grape-cluster, and the gentiles35 drink the mysterious drink. The former sowed the seed of the grain in Judea, and the gentiles harvested the crop with the sickle of faith. The gentiles piously clipped the rose, and the thorn of unbelief remained over for Jews. The nesting flew away, and the senseless [parents] lie near the nest. The Jews interpret the foliage of the written character, the gentiles cull the fruit of the Spirit. "Behold, the virgin will conceive." Tell me, O Jew, tell me, finally, to whom did she give birth? Have confidence in me, as if with Herod. But you do not have confidence [in me]; I know why: because of the plot. For you spoke to him36 that he might kill Him. Yet you do not speak to me, lest I should worship Him. To whom did she give birth? Whom? The Master of nature. And even if you are silent, nature cries aloud. For she gave birth, just as the one who was born wanted to be born. It was not permitted by nature, but, as the Master of nature, He introduced a foreign manner of birth in order that, even though He became human, He should not be born as a human, but is begotten as God. Today He came forth from a virgin who overcame nature and passed over marriage. For it was fitting for the ruler37 of holiness to come forth from pure and holy offspring. For He is the one who, long ago, formed Adam from virgin earth, and from Adam formed woman without a wife.38 For just as Adam produced a woman without a wife, in this way also today the virgin gave birth to a man without a husband.39 For He is a human, he says, and who will recognize Him? For since Womankind owed a favor to humankind, since Adam, without a wife, produced a woman, [M. 390] for this reason today the virgin gave birth without a husband, paying off the debt owed to men on Eve's behalf. For, lest Adam should become arrogant (since he produced a woman without a wife), for this reason the virgin also gave birth to a man without a husband, in order that by the shared miracle40 He might show the equality of nature. For just as He removed the rib from Adam and in now way lessened Adam, in this way also He formed for Himself a living temple in the virgin, and He did not dissolve her virginity. Even after the removal of the rib, Adam remained whole. And the virgin, too, after the infant came forth,41 remained uncorrupted. For this reason He didn't fashion a temple for Himself from some other place, nor did He fashion and put on another body, lest He should seem to insult the dough42 of Adam. For since the human, after being deceived, became a tool for the Devil, for this reason He recovered him who had been overthrown as a living temple, in order that, on account of the relationship43 with his Maker, He should remove him from the Devil's acquaintance. Nevertheless, even though He became a human, He is not born like a human, but is begotten as God. For if He came forth from a common marriage, like me, He would be considered a lie by the many. But as it stands it was for this reason that He is born from a virgin, and even being born He keeps the womb unchanged and guards her virginity without loss, in order that the unusual manner of the conception should become an agent of a great faith for me. And so if a Greek or a Jew asks me whether the Christ, being God in accordance with nature, has become human against nature, I will say, "Yes," calling as a witness of the argument the undefiled seal of her virginity. For in this way God is overcoming the order of nature. In this way He is the potter of the womb, and the originator of virginity, because He kept the manner of His birth undefiled, and inexpressibly built a temple for Himself, in the manner He desired. Tell me then, O Jew, did the virgin give birth, or not? If on the one hand she did give birth, confess the unusual birth.44 If she did not give birth, why did you deceive Herod? For you told Herod, when he was inquiring where the Christ was born, that it was in Bethlehem of Judea. Did I know the village or the place? Did I know the worth of the one being born? Didn't Isaiah mention Him as God? For he says, "she shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel."45 Did you not, senseless enemies, relate the truth? Didn't you, scribes and Pharisees, the strict observers of the Law, teach us all the things concerning Him? Did we know the language of the Hebrews? Didn't you interpret the Scriptures? And after the virgin gave birth, and before she gave birth, lest it seem that you interpret what is said as a favor to God, did you not, when asked by Herod, bring in Micah the prophet as a witness, in order that he might ratify your word? For he says, "And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, in no way are you least among the leaders of Juda; for from you shall come a leader who will shepherd my people Israel."46 The prophet spoke "from you" well. For He came forth from among you and He came into the world. For He who Is is advancing, "but he who is not"47 is created, or is becoming. For Ηe both was, and was before, and always was. But, on the one hand, He always was as God, managing [M. 391]
the world. But today Ηe came forth, on the one hand as a human, shepherding His people, while also as God, saving the world. Oh good enemies! Oh philanthropic accusers! Who, unawares, made known God born in Bethlehem, who pointed out the Master hidden in a manger, who unwillingly revealed the one lying in a cavern, who, not willing it, were benefactors,48 who, desiring to conceal, revealed [Him]. Did you see your unlearned teachers? They do not understand what they teach; though they hunger, they offer nourishment; though they thirst, they give water; though they are poor, they enrich. Come, then, let's hold a festival, come, let's celebrate. For the manner of the festival is foreign, since the word of the birth is also novel, for today the temporal bond was broken, the Devil was put to shame, the demons fled, death was broken, Paradise was opened, the curse was destroyed, sin has gone out of the way, error has been driven off, truth has returned, the word of piety was spread about everywhere and ran. The citizenship of those above was planted in the earth, angels have fellowship with humans, and humans speak confidently with angels. Why? Because God came to earth, and man in heaven. All things have become mixed-up. For He came to earth, while being whole in heaven. And, being whole in Heaven, He is whole upon the earth. For being God, He became human, while not denying that he was God. Being the impassible Word, He became flesh - for the sake of dwelling among us, He became flesh. For He did not become God, but He was [God]. For this reason He became flesh, so that a manger should receive Him whom Heaven could not contain. For this reason He was placed in a manger, so that He who nourishes all might receive a child's nourishment from a virgin mother. For this reason the Father of the coming ages holds fast to the virgin arms as an infant at the breast, in order that He might become accessible to Magi. For the Magi came today, and, after they made a beginning in denying the tyrant, Heaven boasts, revealing its own Master by a star, and the Lord, sitting upon the body of a light cloud, hastens to Egypt, to one appearing to flee Herod's plot, but in truth fulfilling what is spoken by Isaiah, "For on that day Israel will be third among the Assyrians, and among the Egyptians my people will be blessed in the land which [the] Lord of hosts blessed, saying, 'My people in Egypt, among the Assyrians, and in Israel will be blessed.'"49 What do you say, O Jew? Has the first become third? Were the Egyptians and Assyrians placed before, and the firstborn in Israel counted afterwards? Yes. The Assyrians will reasonably be first, since they worshipped Him first through the Magi. And the Egyptians are after the Assyrians, since they received Him when fleeing Herod's plot. And Israel is counted last, since they recognized Him after the ascension from the Jordan through the Apostles. And He entered into Egypt, shaking what had been made by human hand in Egypt, but not indiscriminately, when He closed off the gates of Egypt by the destruction of the firstborns. It is for this reason that He came in today as the firstborn, so that He [M. 392]
might put an end to the grief of the ancient gloominess. And Luke the Evangelist witnesses that the Christ is called the firstborn, saying, "She gave birth to her firstborn son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him the manger, because there was no place for them in the inn."50 Therefore He entered into Egypt in order to put an end to the grief of the ancient gloominess, in place of whips imposing joy, instead of night and darkness giving [the] light of salvation. At that time the water of the river was profane because of the slaughter of the unripe infants. And so He who long ago had turned the water crimson entered into Egypt, and He made the river's streams to produce salvation, after He purified their defilement and profanity by the power of the Spirit. The Egyptians were in an ill plight, and in their madness denied God. And so He entered into Egypt and filled up God-loving souls with the knowledge of God. And He permitted the river to raise witnesses more endurable than crops. But, on account of the brevity of time, I wish to end my sermon here. And thus I shall end, having completed my sermon, that, the Word, being impassible, became flesh, His nature remaining unchanged. What am I to say, or what am I to speak? I see a craftsman and a manger, and an infant, and swaddling clothes, a virgin's birth lacking the necessities, all things cleaving to beggary, all things full of poverty. Did you see wealth in great poverty? How He, being rich, became poor? How He had neither a couch nor a bed, but was cast upon a dray manger? Oh poverty, fountain of wealth! Oh immeasurable wealth, bearing the pretence of poverty! He lies in a manger, and He shakes the world; He is entwined in swaddling-clothes, and He will tear the bonds of sin asunder; He hasn't yet let out an articulate voice, and He instructed the Magi - and moved them to conversion. What am I to say, or what am I to speak? Behold, the infant is entwined in swaddling-clothes, and lies in a manger. Mary is also present, a virgin and a mother. Joseph, too, was present, a father in name. He is called a "husband;" she is called a "wife" - lawful names that lack a union. Understand [this] with me only as far as words are concerned, but not deeds. He51 was only betrothed, and the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. And so Joseph, confused, did not know what to call the infant. He did not dare to say [that the infant came] from adultery, he couldn't pour down blasphemy against the virgin, and he didn't endure to say that the child was his own. For he knew well that he new neither how or from where the child was born - and for this reason a message from Heaven was given to him in his confusion about this matter through the voice of am angel: "Do not be afraid, Joseph. For what is born from her is from the Holy Spirit."52 For the Holy Spirit overshadowed the virgin. And why is He born from a virgin, and keeps her virginity undefiled? Because, long ago, the Devil deceived Eve while a virgin; for this reason Gabriel shared the good news with Mary while a virgin. But Eve, when she was deceived, on the one hand, gave birth to a word53 [that was the] cause of death. But, in contrast, after Mary was told the good news, she bore the Word54 in flesh, the agent of our eternal life. Eve's word pointed out a tree, through which she thrust Adam from Paradise. [M. 393] But the Word from the virgin pointed out the Cross, through which He led the bandit55 (representing Adam) into Paradise. For since the Greeks didn't believe, or the Jews, or the children of heretics, that God begot [Him] without change and without suffering, for this reason today, coming forth from a body liable to suffering, He maintained the body that was liable to suffering as impassible, in order to show that just as He didn't dissolve her virginity after He was born from the virgin, in this way also God, His holy substance56 remaining without flux or change, begot God in a manner fit for God as God. For since humans, after forsaking Him, carved images in human form which they served to the assault of the Creator, for this reason today the Word of God, being God, was seen in human form, so that He might break the lie and secretly bring worship57 to Himself. And so, let us give glory to Christ, the one who, from pathless ways, made a way, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and forever, and into eternity.58 Amen.
[End]
1 This translation was commissioned by Roger Pearse and translated from the text printed in the Patrologia Graeca, vol. 56, cols. 385-396. The translation has been placed in the public domain. The homily is transmitted under the name of Chrysostom, but scholars have usually considered that it is probably not authentic. According to J. Quasten, Patrology 3, p.454-5, its authenticity was defended by C. Martin, Un centon d'extraits de l'homelié in Salvatoris Nostri Jesu Christi Nativitatem de saint Jean Chrysostome, Museon 54 (1941), 30-33 and 48-52 (Greek text).
2ἄνθρωπος.
3Δι᾽οἰκονομίαν. Possibly, "Because of His ordering" or "dispensation."
4 Literally, "the one of righteousness."
5 i.e. Bethlehem contained God but did not limit Him.
6 Or, "all things are in agreement with God."
7ὁ ὢν.
8 Literally, "in accordance with a separation from divinity."
9Θεότης.
10 Literally, "in accordance with an advancement from a human."
11Διὰ τὸ ἀπαθές.
12 Φύσις.
13 i.e. Herod the Great. See Matt 2:1-23.
14 Psalm 78:4.
15 I.e. never having experienced sexual intercourse.
16 Pl.
17αὐτόματα ῥεῖθρα.
18 Or, "servants." Similarly with other references to slaves in this column.
19 Or, "waiting upon [Him]."
20 Literally, "bearing."
21 Luke 2:14.
22 Luke 2:14.
23ἡ ἄνω γέννησις.
24ἐννοῆσαι.
25ὑπολαβεῖν.
26ῥεῦσιν.
27 Literally, "I undertook," the aorist.
28 Φύσις.
29 Or, "make."
30 Luke 1:34.
31 Luke 1:35.
32 Isaiah 7:14.
33 i.e. "the synagogue."
34 i.e. "the church"
35 Or, "nations."
36 Herod.
37 Πρύτανις.
38 Or, "woman." Similarly in this section for other instances of "wife."
39 Or, "man." Similarly in this section for other instances of "husband."
40Τῷ κοινῷ τοῦ θαύματος.
41 Literally, "the coming forth of the infant."
42 Or, "mixture."
43Συνάφεια.
44 Possibly, "offspring."
45 Isaiah 7:14; Matt 1:23.
46 Micah 5:2, though the text as quoted here differs drastically from the Septuagint text.
47ὁ μὴ ὢν.
48 Or possibly, "committed a kind service."
49 Isaiah 19:24.
50 Luke 2:7.
51 Joseph.
52 Matt 1:20.
53ῥῆμα. There is a play on words here between "word," ῥῆμα, which here means a spoken word, by which death entered the world and humankind was cast from the Garden, and Word, Λόγος, through which humankind can again enter into paradise.
54Λόγος.
55 The repentant thief who was crucified at the same time as Christ. See Luke 23:39-43.
56Οὐσία.
57 Λατρεία.
58 Literally, "into the ages of ages."
This text was commissioned by Roger Pearse, 2013. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: chrysostom_on_the_earthquake.htm
John Chrysostom, Homily after the earthquake (2003).
John Chrysostom, Homily after the earthquake (2003).
John Chrysostom, Homily after the Earthquake.1
[Translated by Bryson Sewell]
[M. 713] Even if feebleness hindered us2 from celebrating with you3 the spiritual chorus, nevertheless the labor of your journey did not make you faint. For even if that effort led you, dripping with much sweat, to this place,4 nevertheless the lesson of the sermon changed our feebleness into health, and, through the singing of psalms, it eased your labor. For this reason, I, though unwell, did not bind my tongue in silence, nor did you, though weary, remove yourselves from hearing. However, as soon as the sermon appeared, your labor receded; as soon as the teaching appeared, your weariness fled. For, while illness and labor belong to the body, instruction is the perfection and healing of the soul. And to the degree that the soul is better than the body, by so much are its5 achievements more valuable. And so for this reason, not only with illness hindering me, but also in the face of countless other obstacles, I did not withdraw from being entwined in your love, I was not deprived, not today, of this good celebration. But while we6 were, until just now, fixed to our bed, God did not permit that we should be destroyed completely by the famine. For just as it is a famine for you not to hear, so for me it is a famine not to speak. In this way, too, a mother, though she is often sick, would prefer that her breast be stretched by her child, rather than to see him wasting away because of a famine. May my body also be strained! For who would not gladly shed even his own blood for you, men so ardent in piety, so ardent in observance, who have shown such repentance in a small space of time.7 You do not know day and night, but you make both times into day, not by dismissing the gloom, but by enlightening the nights with vigils; your nights are sleepless, and the tyranny of sleep has been destroyed. For yearning for Christ has overcome the inferiority of nature. You were released from being human in your bodies by mimicking powers, exhibiting sleeplessness, earnest fasting, great labor because of your journey, labor with respect to nature, [but] relaxation with respect to choice. This is the fruit of fears, this is the advancement of the earthquake, an advancement that is never spent up, an advancement that makes even the poor rich, and enriches the wealthy. It does not know poverty, it does not know wealth. The earthquake came, and it did away with the unevenness of life. Where, now, are those who wear silken robes? Where is the gold? All of those things have gone away, and they were torn asunder more easily than a spider's web, and they disappeared8 more [quickly] than spring-time flowers. But since I see that your mind is prepared, I wish to set before you a more plentiful table. I see your bodies worn down, but your soul renewed. The fountains of sweat are many, but they wipe the conscience clean. For if athletes drip with blood for the sake of leaves of laurel, which is given today and tomorrow withers away, how much more ought you, who enter into the trial of virtuous actions, not to surrender in the labors for virtue, nor to grow soft. You as my audience are my crown, [M. 714] and one of you as a hearer is equivalent to the city. For some, on the one hand, crowned mixing-bowls, while others convened satanic symposiums, and still others prepared a sumptuous table. But you completed so great a vigil, and you cleansed all the city by the stepping of your holy feet, having measured out the market-place with your walking, and having made the air holy. For the air becomes holy from the singing of psalms, just as today you heard God saying to Moses, "The place where you are standing is holy ground."9 You sanctified the ground, the market-place, you made our city a church.10 And just as a flowing torrent, carried by a great stream, overturns all things - in this way also the spiritual torrent, the river of God, which gladdens the city of God, was filled with water, and cleansed away the mire of impiety. No one is licentious, or rather, if someone is licentious, he is changed. He hears the voice, and his mind is reformed, the melody comes in, and his impiety is changed, he flees the passions of greediness. For even if he does not flee, but just as beasts in winter lurk in dens, so his impious mind is buried in the earth, and just as serpents, when frost stiffens their bodies, enter the lower regions, so too these passions, servile and slavish, are thus covered up as if into some abyss. And of course those who carry them11 are ashamed. For on the one hand they carry them, yet [the passions are] dead. For in place of winter, your melody comes to them. The voice comes into the hearing of greedy men, and even if he does not cast the passion out, yet the passion dies. [The voice] comes into the hearing of the licentious and the arrogant man, and even if he does not put to death his licentiousness and arrogance, he buries his licentiousness and arrogance. It is not a small [matter] not to speak wickedness boldly. I also said yesterday that the fruit from the earthquakes is great. Do you see the love for humanity of the Master12 who shakes [the] city and who makes [the] mind firm? He who rocks [the] foundations, and strengthens [our] thoughts? He who makes the city cracked, and makes our judgment strong? Set your minds on His love for humanity. He shook for a little while, He strengthened continuously. The earthquake [lasted] for two days, but let piety remain into all time. You were distressed for a little while, but you were rooted continuously. For I well know that, by the fear of God, your piety took root; and if an abatement should occur, the fruit remains. No longer are the thorn plants choking, nor an over-whelming rain washing away: the fear cultivated you well, it became an ally to my words. I am silent and the foundations send forth a sound; I remain silent and the earthquake sends forth a voice more sonorous than a trumpet, saying this: "The Lord is compassionate and merciful, patient and rich in mercy."13 I was present, not in order to overwhelm you, but in order to strengthen you." The earthquake says these things, and sends forth a voice: "I scared you, not in order to grieve [you], but to make you more exact. Pay exact attention to the sermon. Since the sermon was too ineffectual, help called out; since the instruction grew weary, [M. 715] fear fought as an ally. I come speaking those things to you only for a short time, and I do my part. Whenever I bind you tight, then I give you to the sermon, lest the sermon should come to no effect; finding stones and thorn bushes springing up, I make the land clean, so that the sermon may scatter its seeds with a liberal hand."
How were you harmed by being grieved for a short time? You became angels instead of humans. You were moved toward heaven, even if not in place, at least in character. And as to the fact that I do not say these things in flattery, the facts give testimony. For in which respect did you fall short with regard to the sermon of repentance? You cast out envy, you got rid of your slavish passions. You planted virtue, you endured the whole night through with your holy vigils, great love, and eager disposition. No one remembers interest, no one speaks about greediness,14 nor are the hands alone pure from sins, but the tongue, too, is freed from lawlessness and abuse. No one assaults his neighbor, no one goes off to satanic symposiums. The houses are pure, the marketplace has been cleansed. Evening arrives, and nowhere are there choruses of young men singing the songs of the theater. Yet there are choruses, though not of licentiousness; choruses, but of virtues. And it is possible to hear the singing of psalms in the marketplace, and [to hear] those sitting at home, one singing psalms, another hymning. Night arrives, and all [run] to the church, the waveless harbor, the calm that has been freed of waves. I was thinking that, after the first or second day, sleeplessness had overcome your bodies. But as it is, your yearning increases to the degree that your sleeplessness is strained. Those who were singing psalms to you grew weary, and you are renewed. Those singing psalms to you grew exhausted, and you were strengthened. Tell me: where now are the wealthy? Let them learn the philosophy of the poor. For they15 sleep, but the poor do not sleep on the ground, but bend their knees, mimicking Paul and Silas. But [M. 716] they sung psalms and shook the prison; you sung psalms, and made the city that was shaken firm. The outcomes16 are contrary to the circumstances, yet both are for the glory of God. For he shook the prison, in order to shake the mind of the unfaithful, in order to loosen the jailor, in order to proclaim the Word of God. You yourselves made the city firm, in order to undo God's wrath. Both those affairs and these were administered differently. But nevertheless I rejoice, not because the city was made firm, but because it was through your prayers that it was made firm, because your singing of psalms became [the] foundations. The wrath is from above, your voice from below. The voice, sent up from below, restrained the wrath, flowing from above. The heavens were opened, and a judgment17 was brought down, the whetted sword. The city [is] on the earth, the wrath is inevitable. We have need of nothing but repentance, tears and lamentations, and all things were dissolved. God appeared, and we dissolved his wrath. One would not err should he call you the caretakers and saviors of the city. Where are the rulers? Where are the great saviors? Of the city you are the truly the towers, the wall, and its security. For they,18 on the one hand, through their own wickedness allowed the city to rot, but you, through your own virtue, made the city firm. And if someone should be asked why the city was shaken, even if he wouldn't say [it], it has been agreed19 that it was because of sins, because of acts of greed, because of injustices, because of acts of lawlessness, because of acts of arrogance, because of pleasures, because of deceit. Whose? The rich. Again, if someone should be asked why the city was made firm, it is agreed that it is because of the singing of psalms, because of the prayers, because of the vigils. Whose are these? The poor's. The reasons that shook the city belong to them,20 while the reasons that made the city firm are yours - and so you became the saviors and the caretakers. But let us end the sermon here, remaining in our vigils, our singing of psalms, sending glory up to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and into eternity.21 Amen.
1 CPG 4366, De terrae motu. BHGn 1700y. This translation was commissioned by Roger Pearse and translated from the text printed in the Patrologia Graeca, vol. 50, cols. 713-716. The translation has been placed in the public domain. The work perhaps refers to the earthquake of 398 AD. The question of its authenticity is discussed by Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom - Provenance: Reshaping the foundations, 2005, p.27, 126, and answered in the affirmative. Update: Sever J. Voicu on the other hand, has long argued that this homily is not authentic Chrysostom and has challenged Mayer's claims in "Un errore di Montfaucon e altre note pseudochrisostomiche," in Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia: Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l' honneur de Paul Géhin, edited by André Binggeli, Anne Boudhors and Matthieu Cassin (Leuven - Paris - Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2016), 597-614; on pp. 602-604.
2 Us = Chrysostom, a pl. used for a sg.
3 You = the congregation.
4 Possibly meaning to the church.
5 i.e. the soul's achievements.
6 Probably a plural for a singular, i.e., "while I was...fixed to my bed...."
7 Literally, "from a small turning of time," ἀπὸ μικρᾶς καιροῦ τροπῆς.
8 Literally, "they were tested," from ἠλέγχθη. The problem is that, in this context, "they were tested more than spring-time flowers" makes little sense. The point might be that gold, which has been tested (i.e. with fire), offers no lasting security, but, like flowers in spring time, it too passes away.
9 Exodus 3:5; Acts 7:33.
10 Or, "you made the city a church for us."
11 i.e. the passions.
12 i.e. God.
13 Psalm 103:8; Septuagint, Psalm 102:8.
14 Or, "No one speaks greedily."
15 i.e. the wealthy.
16Τὰ τέλη.
17ἀπόφρασις.
18 i.e. the rich and the rulers.
19 Possibly, "confessed."
20 i.e. the rich.
21 Literally, "into the ages of ages."
This text was commissioned and uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2013. Added update to note 1, 2019. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: severian_of_gabala_genesis_01.htm
Severian of Gabala, Sermons on Genesis (2010) - Sermon 1
Severian of Gabala, Sermons on Genesis (2010) - Sermon 1
SEVERIAN OF GABALA
ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.1
[Translated by J. Bareille]
SERMON 1.
On the first day of Creation.
1. There is no subject of piety that does not produce edification of our souls, and it is to procure our salvation that all the teachings of religion combine. Salvation, this is what is wrought by the word of God, which the law of Moses commands, which the spiritual language of the prophets preaches, which the apostles proclaimed without ceasing. Everything is for us, all is directed to us, so that, working in every way to our improvement, we may acquire true piety. As I said earlier, there is no holy book that does not have as its purpose the salvation of our souls. However, this book on the creation of the world is the principal, the source and foundation of all that contain the law and the prophets. If a building can not exist without solid foundations, the various things created also can not shine in all their glory if the creation was not in the beginning. I know that many of our holy Fathers have treated this subject of the creation of the world, they said on this some great and beautiful things, according to the measure of grace which the Holy Spirit dispensed to them. However numerous, great and admirable may have been their considerations, we should not keep silent for that, and not expose the thoughts the grace of the Spirit suggests to us. Just as our predecessors were not silent out of respect for those who preceded them, so we will not do so for the sake of authors belonging to previous generations; especially more so as for us as for them and their predecessors, it is one and the same grace that gives us the power of the divine Spirit. "All these things," it is written, "are the work of one and the same Spirit, who distributes to each as he wishes."2. So, without rejecting what our fathers have said, we will set out our own thoughts. Although their work is great and ours small, we will all compete in building the same building. If a large stone used in a construction starts to move, a small stone placed underneath will suffice to strengthen it; likewise the teaching of our forefathers, joined by our feeble additions, ensures the expansion of the edifice of the Church. I beseech your charity to consider especially the foundation of our discourse; look, not whether the thoughts are new, but whether they are solid; for what is old is not always true for all that, and what is new is not thereby always false: in all circumstances it is necessary to search whether what is advanced is true or an error. What I am asking is not to accept without our language without hesitation, as a friend would do, or reject it because of what may be strange, as would an enemy, but that you always ask whether our words are the truth.
2. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."3 This story is the work of the legislator Moses and a revelation of the Holy Spirit. It describes the creation of the world carried out by the power of God, in which Moses had been instructed by a revelation and a prophetic grace. For Moses, in this book does not speak as a historian, but as a prophet: what stated he did not see, what he says, he did not witness. We have previously distinguished three kinds of prophecy: one in word, another in deeds, another both in word and deed: similarly, we distinguish three specific types of it today: one concerning the present, another the future, the third the past. Thus a prophet, Isaiah for example, was not present at the events that happened in the time of Moses, but as the spirit of Moses was in him and revealed them to him, Isaiah spoke of them as a prophet. Similarly, for prophecy concerning the present: for example, when in the presence of a prophet someone is trying to conceal something and the prophet divines it, as happened to Gehazi, whose secret thought Elisha discovered and to whom he told the future. Moses prophesied of the past, as others did about the future, and that is why we must listen to his story, not as an ordinary story, but as a true prophecy, whose author is the Holy Spirit himself. What is the purpose of the prophet? Moses suggests two things, to set forth a doctrine and to formulate laws. Although a legislator, he begins, not by setting out his legislation, but by recounting the creation. And why does he first want to show us God as the author and the ruler of the universe? It is because unless he first showed God as the author of the world, he could not establish his authority as legislator of the world: to impose laws on those who are not your subjects is tyranny, while it is natural to issue subjects the rules that they must follow. Also John the Evangelist does he not set forth the law of Christ after establishing His sovereignty in these terms? -- "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made by him and without him absolutely nothing has been made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. He came to his own, and His own did not receive him."4 Only after presenting him as the author and the architect of creation does he present him as the teacher and universal legislator.
Another element in Moses may be mentioned. The blessed Prophet speaks of heaven, earth, the sea, the waters and of the beings that come from these, why does he not mention the angels, archangels, seraphim, and cherubim? Because he wanted his legislation to be in harmony with the circumstances in which he was living. He knew too well those to whom it was addressed, to a people recently come out of Egypt and instructed in the errors in that country about the sun, moon, stars, flowers, fountains, and waters. Leaving aside the creation of invisible beings, he only deals with visible beings, to teach those who worshiped them that these beings, far from being gods, were instead the work of one God only, so there was no need to discuss angels and archangels; that would instead have only fueled their disease. If, although they had not seen them, the Hebrews spoke about angels, still more, if they had been informed of angels and archangels, would they have taken them for gods. He therefore concerns himself with heaven, earth, the waters, mountains and all the beings that inhabit them, to lead his listeners to the knowledge of things visible than invisible, from the work to the Author. This was also the behavior of the three young men in Babylon. Finding themselves amidst a people hostile to God, in a country where the true God was unknown and idols adored, they sang in the flames of the furnace: "Works of the Lord, bless the Lord."5 Why did they not say: Angels, heavens, earth, fire, cold, waters, heat, etc.; why not list all the parts of the whole creation? To purify all creatures, all the works of the Creator, and not let in even a glimmer of godlessness. In the same way Moses, in the text quoted, wishing to extirpate from the Jewish way of thinking all the errors of Egypt, said that the heaven and the earth were created, thus bringing into the light the works and their author. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
3. Lend me now your attention: one thing that strikes me is that John and Moses begin in the same way. "In the beginning God created...," said one; "In the beginning was the Word...," said the other. This language is appropriate in any case, and extremely accurate in the other. Isn't it of the creation that Moses uses the term: "made"; is it not of the Creator that the evangelist said: "Was"? However, there is clearly a notable difference between these expressions, "made" and "was". "In the beginning God made. — In the beginning was the Word." God is, the creatures are made, as the Evangelists very pertinently signals. It said of the Saviour that he says: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. This was in the beginning. In him was life, and the life was the light of men." Six times the sacred writer repeats the word "was" to impress upon us the being of God. After announcing that he was, and that he came to be a servant, after speaking of John, he adds: "He became man." He was God, and he became man. What if someone dares to speak about the Saviour in these words: "The Saviour has also been made by him, he would be like the earth." Apply yourselves, I pray you. If a heretic speaks like this: The Christ has been made, He was not before being made, how could the Son prevail on the earth? For Moses also says: "The earth was." So if we understand these words: "In the beginning was..." of a genuine creation and not an eternal nature, the Saviour will be in no better condition than the earth. Both the Word of God was, and the earth was: only one was in the beginning, not having been made, existing from eternity, while the earth was created. Indeed, the historian does not say: "The earth was," before he said: "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." He began by putting: "God made," prior to: "was." We know very well, brothers, that these considerations are somewhat subtle for many; but it is right that in the days of fasting, while souls are more vigilant, we undertake higher subjects.
"In the beginning was.... In the beginning God made...." I proposed, in showing the identity of these two beginnings: "In the beginning... in the beginning..." to show you that there is only a single source for religion, and the same light that led the legislator has also informed the theologian. The two Testaments are brothers: they issue from the same father, and that is why they express themselves in similar terms. They have almost exactly the same appearance, the same traits. Just as there many points of similarity between two brothers, whom the same father brought into the world, there is the same close relationship between the two Testaments, whose origin is the same. In the Old Testament, the law appeared first, followed by the prophets; in the New Grace, the Gospel is first and the apostles follow. Here we find twelve prophets, namely Hosea and others: then the four famous ones, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. In turn the New Testament gives us twelve apostles and four evangelists. It is by brothers that the voice of God in the Old Testament is made known; because Moses and Aaron were the first ones charged to set forth the will of the Lord: similarly, in the Gospel, the first that were called were Peter and Andrew. There was only a regular grace, here a grace two times more precious. There the were two brothers were called Aaron and Moses; here there are two brothers twice, Peter and Andrew, and James and John. It was the intention of Christ to offer us an image of love in the Holy Spirit, and to make us brothers at the same time by feeling and spirit: in consequence he takes nature as a foundation; he joins to it the tender feelings of humanity, and with that he built the foundations of his Church. In the Old Testament, the first miracle that appears is the changing of the waters from a river into blood; the first miracle that we see in the New is the changing of water into wine. But as this is not the time to push through this parallel, we will resume the proposed topic.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In six days God made everything. However, there is a profound difference between the first day and the following ones: on the first day, God made everything from nothing: starting from the second day, he made no more from nothing, and he merely changed as he wished the elements created on the first day. Now you who want to, repeat what is being said, give your consent then if you find it truth; condemn it, on the contrary, if you do not discover then that it is the truth. And I will respond to your criticisms, especially because it is very easy for me to justify myself.
4. On the first day, therefore, the Lord created the raw material of his creatures; on the other days he gave them their shape and ornament. For example, he made the heavens that previously did not exist, not the current heavens, but the heavens which are above it; the other he made on the second day. He made the upper heavens about which David sang: "The heaven of the heavens is the Lord's."6 This heaven forms in a certain way the upper stage of the firmament. As in any two-story house, there is an intermediate stage; well in this building which is the world, the Creator has prepared the sky as an intermediate level, and he has put it over the waters; from where this passage of David: "It is you who covered with water its upper part."7 So God made the sky which did not exist before, the earth which did not exist before, as well as the depths of the sea, the winds, air, fire and water. On the first day, the material of everything which appeared afterwards was created. Here someone may certainly exclaim: Yes, they will say, it is written that God created the heavens and the earth, but it is not said that he made the water, air and fire. And first, my brothers, it is not just a question of heaven and earth, it is question of what they contain. Similarly in saying: "God made man from a handful of dust taken from the earth,"8 Scripture clearly indicates the whole man, yet it does not list his members and does not add: God made the eyes, ears, and nose; all the bits were sufficiently within the concept of man; also, saying that God created the heavens and the earth, that embraces everything, and it indicates clearly enough the creation of darkness and the abysses. "The darkness was upon the face of the abyss."9 'Abyss' is used here to mean the great masses of water. However the Bible says that the abyss was created in this passage: "Before he formed the abyss, before he created the earth."10 Therefore, the abysses were created. Regarding the creation of the air, listen to this: "And the Spirit of God was moving over the waters." There is no question here of the Holy Spirit, because the created and uncreated are not put together; this means the movement of air. We read about this in the prophet Elijah, "that he obscures the sky by clouds and by the spirit,"11 namely by the wind; so in this place the word 'spirit' means the air. It remains to show the creation of fire.
"God said: Let there be light," and fire was therefore created. The fire of the earth is not the only one that exists; the powers above are also of fire, and there are close links between the fire from above and that down here. However, why is one up there and not the other? God made the angels as spirits, our souls also are spirits, only our souls are united to bodies, while the angels have no body. But what we notice in our souls and in the angels is also noticeable in fire; the one above is separate from matter, the lower one is inseparable, the one above is close to the angelic nature as are our souls themselves, for if the angels are spiritual, our souls are spiritual, according to these words of the three young men: "Bless him, spirits and souls of the righteous;"12 and these others: "It is he who makes his angels spirits."13 But the soul reveals itself only through the body, just as fire through the means of tallow, brushwood or other flammable materials. That fire is of a foreign nature, the facts themselves indicate: many times, actually, we use the heat of the sun to light a fire, and we get fire, yet if the fire of heaven was of a different nature, how can it communicate to us the terrestrial fire? Moreover, in heaven there is so much immaterial fire that, when Sinai was covered with flames one day, obviously the Lord had detached from the immaterial fire a chunk of it for a spectacle, as the flames were not fed by any fuel. So Moses said: "The Lord has heard his voice from heaven, and he has showed his treasures of fire,"14 declaring then how the fire of Sinai was just a little in comparison. Consequently the stars, lightning, sun, moon are simply that fire, and fire of a similar nature to that of terrestrial fire. It's not just in the words by which the lightning and the stars are identified, which participate in this natural resemblance, ἀστραπή and ἀστέρες, ἀστραπή and ἄστρα. In support of this affinity between lightning and fire, the Saviour said in his Gospel: "The eye is the flame of the body, if your eye is clear, your body will be in the light."15 And elsewhere he adds: "In this way, this torch will illuminate you by its light,"16 calling light of the torch light the light which it casts.
5. So everything was made, the fire was made, the abyss also, the winds also, the four elements as well, namely earth, fire, water, air. What he has failed to mention, Moses discusses later in a strange way: "In six days, he said, God made heaven, earth and all things therein."17 For, just as he did not name all the members of the body, so he did not list all the creatures, although they were made at the same time as the universe. If the fire had never been given to the earth, we would not today get light whether from a stone or from wood, the rubbing of wood making flames. Keep up your attention! "The darkness was upon the face of the abyss." Did the Lord create the darkness? you ask. This is, I know, a difficult issue, but since we are at a meeting where one part is listening sympathetically and where another would be glad to catch us out in a default, it is essential to examine this text in order not to give little, after promising much. So where does the darkness come from? God did not make it, it is said; he is the author neither of darkness, nor of obscurity. And first, what is the darkness? The shadow of heaven, answer a few. When the upper heaven was created, they say, as the stars did not exist, the earth was lacking in everything and the darkness covered everything. But the upper heaven was bright and not shrouded in darkness and there was then no sun, moon, stars, it shone sufficiently by itself; and as it was over the earth, and it shone on it and illuminated it with its light, and the darkness could not come in. This is my feeling: the earth was covered entirely by water, and mist and dense vapours were piled up above the water, as still happens today above the rivers; these vapours intercepted the light, forming clouds, which thickening produced darkness. The Scripture says that clouds produce darkness in this passage: "And the sky was obscured by clouds."18
However we should not ignore the fables of the heretics. Some of them have dared to say that the darkness was the devil, the demons and the abyss. When God said: "Let there be light," it is of the Son that he spoke. So that not only is he his equal in dignity, but he is even older. This impious fable is definitely not worth repeating; if we have talked about it, it is to keep you informed of what was said. The darkness then was produced by clouds. Similarly, the darkness of Egypt did not come from the night, but from the obscurity that had taken the place of day. Likewise again on Sinai, the darkness which covered it came not from the night, but the obscurity produced by clouds. And finally the darkness that covered the earth when Christ was on the cross, was due to the interposition of a barrier between the earth and the light, not the onset of the night. So we must not touch the sacred texts without thinking.
"And the Spirit of God was moving upon the waters." The term 'spirit' means 'wind' here, as in this passage: "By the violence of your spirit, you break the ships of Tarshish;"19 a passage where the word spirit means clearly the movement of air. For do not imagine that the air is one thing and the wind another; the agitation of the air is what produces wind, as experience shows. Just a few sheets can stir the air, and by shaking them you can produce wind. To show that the wind is the air in motion, the sacred writer uses the expression "was moving over." To move over the world is, indeed, something that characterizes the wind. "God says: Let there be light." Why did Moses not add: "God said: Let the sky be, let the sea be...., " why in one case: "God made," and the other: "God said?" With us, the word always precedes action, we say first what we want to do, and then we do it. This is what God began by doing: the world was made in less time than it takes to pronounce a word. When the Lord created matter by his power, Moses puts: "God made." When the Lord merely wants to embellish his work — and light is the chief ornament, — then Moses uses terms related to this purpose. The first of these works was light, and the last, man, so God made the first with his word and the last with his own hands, thus beginning and ending with the light.
6. How is man "light"? Like this: light is what makes things visible. Now man is the light of the world. No sooner did he enter it than he illuminated you with the light of art, the light of science. The light reveals the wheat; the intelligence of man is the bread: the light reveals the grape; intelligence turns grape juice into wine: the light shows us the wool; intelligence transforms it into clothing: the light shows us the mountain; intelligence extracts diamonds from it. The Saviour, does he not call his apostles a light, when he said: "You are the light of the world?"20 Why does he call them that? This is not only to honour them, it is more to strengthen the hope of resurrection. Just as the light, disappearing into the night, does not vanish for good, and appears again after being hidden for some time, so man goes down into the tomb in the evening of his life, to participate in the blessing of the resurrection. "Let there be light." Moses affirms the fact of creation; in what way it happened, he does not indicate, he did not even know. That light has been made, I know without a doubt, he says; how it was made is a matter that I do not know. As the Saviour said to his Apostles: "It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father has appointed in his power."21 If it is not for us to know those times and those dates, how could human reason understand the Sovereign of time and the Creator of the ages? "God said: Let there be light: and there was light." O all holy and unlimited power! O ineffable wonders! "And there was light. And God called the light day and the night darkness."
Why this name for the day, ἡμέρα? The word ἥμερον designates all that is cheerful and friendly, hence the name of ἡμερότης to describe kindness and ἥμερα given to domestic animals. "And God called the light day and the darkness night." Why "night"? Because night recalls man to the thought of death, of which sleep is the image. Know, O man, what you are. You are mortal, subject to the law of sleep; why do you worry about what is beyond you? Night means compunction; and this is why David said: "Whatever you say in your hearts, weep it with compunction upon your bed."22
Indeed, during the night, isn't a man lying in a state that is neither life nor death? Ask the heretic: In what state is he? Is he dead or alive? If he answers, "living": how so, do you object, when he does not hear or speak or walk? And if he answers that he is dead, say this: But he breathes, yet he who breathes is not dead. On the other hand, he who does not feel is not living, so it follows that you do not understand your own views, and that you are worrying about something that is beyond you. But that is quite enough on the first day; see it is evening. However difficult the explanation may be, we have done our best to set forth what relates to the first day. To teach the faithful to understand more deeply what they have been told, and to seek further.
7. For we who are the children of sacred fasting, and amid bodily privations taste heavenly delights, let us apply ourselves to observing the holy fast. "Sanctify the fast," it is written.23 Is it we who sanctify it, or it that sanctifies us? It is for we who observe it faithfully that the prophet speaks this way. Similarly, when we say in our prayers: "Let your name be sanctified,"24 we do not pray for the benefit of the divine name, which in fact is the source of all holiness. But because that name has been applied to us, since we are called Christians, of even the name of Christ, we say; "Let your name be sanctified by us." Everything must be holy for him who is holy; things which are not holy have no access to God because God is holy, and he love to recline among the saints. The heaven he lives in is itself holy; "He will answer him from his holy heaven," said the Psalmist.25 The angels also are holy, according to this gospel word: "The Son of Man will come in his glory with his holy angels."26 The earth on which God is honoured is holy. "He will destroy their alliance in the holy land which belongs to him." David speaks of the holy court of the the Lord: "Worship the Lord in his holy court."27
Isaiah describes the temple of God as holy. "Your temple is holy," he says again, "and admirable in fairness."28 The sheep offered him in sacrifice are also referred to as holy, although devoid of reason: "Like your holy sheep in Jerusalem." The Testament is holy. "And he will confirm with many his holy Testament."29 Jerusalem was called the holy city: "...And over the holy city of our fathers, Jerusalem...."30 Again, nothing comes to God which is not holy, which is why the Apostle speaks of "the holiness without which no man shall see God."31 We have abstained from bread, let us refrain from iniquity. You do not eat bread, do not devour the entrails of the poor, lest God say to you also: "They devour my people like they devour bread."32 You do not drink wine; don't let anger intoxicate you any more, so that the legislator does not apply this text: "Their anger makes them like serpents; — their life is like the breath of dragons."33 When you have oppressed and forced the poor man to lament, he has been found eating bread before God in tears, and the Lord says about this; "You cover my altar with tears."34 Is God angry with those who weep before his altar, he who has said: "Priests, enter and weep?"35 No, God is not angry with those who weep, but because he sees before his altar the oppressed, the orphans and widows. To show that it is these he is concerned with, he adds: "With tears, groans and sorrow."36
We must also take a look at the spiritual offerings. The food of the soul is set forth, namely the word of God. Fasting sanctifies the body, the soul is corrupted without bread. Let the body the fast from sins; let the soul instead feast on divine teachings. You can not eat at the same time the bread of Christ and the bread of tears, it is Paul who tells you this: "You can not sit at both the table of Christ and the table of demons."37 Let whoever fasts refrain from food, but especially to refrain from sin. Every day the angels note those who set out to renounce greed, impurity, and iniquity. The angels take heed of these fasts, and God holds them in his treasury. As the officers responsible for receiving petitions addressed to the emperor, communicate to him all their information, so the angels of the Lord convey to the Lord everything that happens, certainly not to teach him things of which he is ignorant, but to perform the duties that their place in creation imposes. In my opinion, he who does not fast is incomparably superior to one who, while fasting, commits iniquity. I say this, not to disparage fasting, but to recommend piety. This is not a bad thing to eat; it is to sin. So the Lord has said justly: "Does your father, while taking food, not do my will? — The fourth, the fifth, the tenth fast will be for you a subject of joy, contentment and celebration; only love truth."38 Light is perceptible to us in order to proclaim the author of light. Evening has come to put an end to the course of the day. To a good beginning, let us add a good end. Do not reject the truth; give ear to this advice from David: "At the end, do not give in to corruption."39
May the God of light who enlightens us by his word, his law and his faith, by justice and by chastity; in Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father and the Holy Spirit in the ages of ages. Amen.
1. This translation has been made from the French of Bareille: Bareille, J., OEuvres complètes de S. Jean Chrysostome, traduction nouvelle, Paris, 1865, 20 vols.
Bareille begins his translation of the six sermons on Genesis with the following words: "The following discourses, which are given in the Vatican manuscript and several other manuscripts as discourses by Chrysostom, are unquestionably by Severian, Bishop of Gabala. Cosmas the Egyptian in his Christian Topography provides conclusive evidence; there he quotes long fragments extracted from the works of Severian. However, these fragments are found word for word in the speeches that follow. We need not expect the eloquence of the works of Chrysostom, although in this respect Severian has been compared by his contemporaries to our great orator. It is not eloquence that the discourses on creation offer us, but rather verbiage: ineptitude and futility erupt at every step. So the orator uses the text: "This is bone of my bones" to prove that Adam had the spirit of prophecy, in the following way: "How could he know that he had bones, without the aid of the prophetic spirit, because he had never seen his bones?" Similarly, he said, the first man was named Adam, because the letters of his name are the first words that in Greek designate the four cardinal points, ἀνατολή, east, δύσις, west; ἄρκτος, north: μεσημδρία, south" These speeches were delivered during Lent, as Severian himself tells us in the first discourse."
It is unfortunate that Bareille was unable to perceive the splendour of Severian's oratory, and the kind of golden halo with which he begins so many of his sermons, and that must have contributed greatly to his reputation. That he was a speaker that men wanted to hear, even when they disagreed with him, is evident from this sermon.
Likewise he was an original thinker. Not content to accept the traditional approach of the early Christian writers to Genesis, he contrived to come up with an original theory. His approach to demands for blind acceptance of authority are interesting; he accepts that the Fathers are holy, but denies that this means that they are always right. This sane approach would be held by everyone today. His preaching demands that his listeners question their assumptions. He uses scripture in ways that might not be usual, but that are difficult to show are mistaken. In a way he is a late representative of the Greek philosophical tendency to investigate.
It is unfortunate that his name is associated indelibly with the Flat Earth. He owes this to the uncritical enthusiasm of Cosmas Indicopleustes, whose Christian Topography has attracted derision since its composition. But Severian undoubtedly was not thus committed to his own idea. It was orthodox, it was biblical, it was possible. Whether it was right was for his listeners to determine.
2. 1 Cor. 12:2.
3. Gen. 1: 4.
4. John., 1:1-2.
5. Dan., 3:57.
6. Psalm. 115:16. The references given by Bareille can be hard to find in an English version of the Psalms. Some have been checked and adjusted. Those which have not have been left in Roman numerals.
7. Psalm. 103: 3.
8. Gen. 2:7.
9. Gen. 1:2.
10. Prov. 8: 24-26.
11. III Kingdoms, 18:45.
12. Dan. 3:86.
13. Psalm 103:4 (???).
14. Deut. 4:36.
15. Matth., 6:22.
16. Luke., 11:36.
17. Exod., xx, 11.
18. III Kingdoms 18: 45.
19. Psalm 48:7.
20. Matth. 5: 14.
21. Acts 1: 7.
22. Psalm.4:4 (??).
23. Joel 1: 14.
24. Matt. 6:9.
25. Psalm. 20:6.
26. Mark, end of 38. (?)
27. Psalm. 96:9.
28. Psalm. lxiv, 5-6.
29. Ezech. 36: 38.
30. Dan., 9: 24-27.
31. Hebr. 12:14.
32. Psalm.xiii, 4.
33. Psalm.lvii, 5; Deut., xxxii, 33.
34. Malach., 2: 13.
35. Joel 1:3.
36. Joel 2: 12.
37. I Cor. 10: 21.
38. Zech., 8: 19.
39. Psalm. 74, heading.
This text was turned into English by Roger Pearse, 2010. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: philip_of_side_fragments.htm
Philip of Side, Fragments (2010)
Philip of Side, Fragments (2010)
Fragment 1 - On Adam and Eve.
Fragment 2 - On Athenagoras and the heads of the Alexandrian catechetical school.
Fragment 3: 1-5 - Fragments contained in De gestis in Perside / Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden.
Fr. 3.1 - From the Story of Cassander
Fr. 3.2 - Aphroditianus' Story
Fr. 3.3 - Prophecies of "Learned Greeks"—Ophianus, Elibatus, Trachelaphius
Fr. 3.4 - Virtuous Pagans
Fr. 3.5 - The Shepherdess and Coatus
Fr. 4.1 - 4.7 - Expansions of Eusebius' HE / Fragments of Papias, Hegesippus, Pierius. [Attribution questionable]
Fr. 4.1
Fr. 4.2
Fr. 4.3
Fr. 4.4
Fr. 4.5
Fr. 4.6
Fr. 4.7
Fr. 5.1 - 5.7 - Constantine and the Council of Nicaea [Attribution questionable]
Fr. 5.1 - The Beginning of Constantine's Reign: Relations with Barbarian Tribes
Fr. 5.2 - Discussion of the Plausibility of the Sign that Appeared to Constantine
Fr. 5.3 - Constantine and Crispus against Licinius
Fr. 5.4 - Succession of Bishops in Alexandria—and Arius
Fr. 5.5 - Constantine Speaks at the Council of Nicaea
Fr. 5.6 - Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea
Fr. 5.7 - The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man
Fr. 6.1 - 6.7 - History from Diocletian to Constantine [Attribution to Philip questionable at best]
Fr. 7.1-2 - Chemical processes for treating copper and iron [Attribution to Philip questionable at best]
Fr. 7.1 - 5.4 Berthelot
Fr. 7.2 - 5.5 Berthelot
The fragments of Philip of Side
[Translated by Andrew Eastbourne] 1
A catalogue of the fragments is given by Katharina Heyden, who lists all the fragments and discusses them: Die Christliche Geschichte des Philippos von Side: Mit einem kommentierten Katalog der Fragmente, in M. Wallraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik (Berlin, 2006), pp. 209-243.
Fr. 1
[On Adam and Eve]
[From Cod. Bodl. gr. 120, fol. 300r and Paris. Suppl. gr. 685, fol. 10r. — Greek text printed by D. Serruys, "Autour d'un fragment de Philippe de Side," in Mélanges d'archéologique et d'histoire 26 (1906), pp. 335-359 (p. 336 for the text of these two mss.; on p. 346, Serruys prints the parallel material from Paris. gr. 1712, where Philip's name is not cited). Wirth, Aus orientalischen Chroniken, pp. 208-9, had earlier printed somewhat more text as the fragment from Paris Suppl. gr. 685.]
Paris. gr. 17122
Bodl. gr. 120
Paris. Suppl. gr. 685
Some say, from tradition, that Adam spent one hundred years in Paradise. Others, that he was formed at the third hour, transgressed at the sixth, and was cast out at the ninth...
...and this took place through seven years, as some of the presbyters / elders declared.
(1) Note that Philip of Sidde in the twentieth tome of the Christian History says that Adam spent one hundred years in Paradise, and was cast out. And after another hundred years3 he knew Eve his wife and produced Cain, and after three years [produced] Abel, and after thirty years, Seth.4 This [information] is from the tradition.5
(2) But others say that he worked6 seven years in Paradise7 and from the transgression, from the first hour8 of that day until the sixth hour, he was cast out.9
The Hebrews have 22 letters, and 22 books, and 22 generations from Adam to Jacob. And on the sixth day of the second week, it is said that Eve was created, and 40 days after Adam's creation he entered in order to work10 in Paradise.11
(1) But Philip of Side in the 22nd tome of Christian History says that Adam spent 100 years in Paradise. And after being cast out, he spent another 100 years12 and he knew Eve and produced Cain the accursed, and after three years [produced] Abel, and after 100 years, Seth.
Fr. 2
[On Athenagoras and the heads of the Alexandrian catechetical school]
[From Cod. Barocc. 142, fol. 216r line 40 - 216v line 15 (i.e., following the material classified by Heyden as Fr. 4 and Fr. 6). — First edited by H. Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum (Oxford, 1689), p. 488; Greek text more recently edited by G. C. Hansen in Theodoros Anagnostes Kirchengeschichte, GCS 54 (Berlin, 1971), p. 160; cf. text and tr. by P. Nautin, "La continuation de l'Histoire Ecclésiastique d'Eusèbe par Gélase de Césarée," Revue des Études Byzantines 50 (1992), pp. 175-8. — For a thorough consideration of the manuscripts (with facsimiles), and the historical accuracy of the information provided, see B. Pouderon, "Le témoignage du Codex Baroccianus 142 sur Athénagore et les origines de l'école d'Alexandrie," Chapter 1 of D'Athènes à Alexandrie: Études sur Athénagore et les origines de la philosophie chrétienne (Québec, 1997), which appeared earlier (with different pagination) in G. Agroud, Science et vie intellectuelle à Alexandrie, Ier à IIIe siècle après J.-C. (Saint-Étienne, 1994), pp. 163-224 and in Archipel égéen (Tours, 1992), 1: 23-63.]
As Philip of Side says in the 24th logos:13 Athenagoras was the first to lead the school14 in Alexandria; he flourished in the times of Hadrian and Antoninus,15 to whom also he addressed his Embassy-speech16on behalf of the Christians—a man who lived as a Christian in the very philosophers' cloak, and who was at the head of the Academic school.17 This man—before Celsus—was eager to write against the Christians, but when he read the divine Scriptures in order to make his arguments more precisely, he was seized by the Holy Spirit in such a way that, like the great Paul, he became a teacher instead of a persecutor of the faith which he was persecuting. Philip says that Clement, the author of the Stromateis, became a student of this man, and Pantaenus [a student] of Clement. And Pantaenus himself was also an Athenian, and a Pythagorean philosopher. But Eusebius says that Pantaenus became Clement's teacher—and he mentions him as a teacher in his Hypotyposeis. And this Pantaenus, according to Philip, had Origen as student and successor in the headship of the school after him. But according to Eusebius, [it was] Clement and after Clement, Origen. Still, in one way or another, Origen was fourth head of the Christian school.18 After Origen, Heraclas; after him, Dionysius; after him, Pierius; after Pierius, Theognostus; after him, Serapion; after him, Peter the Great, the bishop, who became a martyr. After Peter, Macarius, whom his fellow-countrymen called "Politicus"; after him, Didymus; after Didymus, Rhodon, who moved the school, according to Philip, to the city of Side, the same [as Philip's home city], at the time of Theodosius the Great. Philip says that he was a student of this Rhodon, concerning whose knowledge of literature / argument,19 both our own and that of those outside [the Church], he provides copious attestation.
The teachers:20 Athenagoras (1); Pantaenus (2); Origen (3); Heraclas (4); Dionysius (5); Clement (6); Pierius (7); Theognostus (8); Serapion (9); Peter the martyr (10); Macarius Politicus (11); Didymus (12); Rhodon (13).
Fr. 3.1-5
[Fragments contained in De gestis in Perside / Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden]
[The exact delineation and attribution of the fragments are uncertain and depend on one's interpretation of the role Philip of Side's material played in the composition of the Religionsgespräch, which should be examined in full for a complete picture of the testimonia and fragments in context. Fr. 3.1 and 3.2 are more certainly to be connected with Philip of Side; Fr. 3.3-5 are classified by Heyden as "mit zweifelhafter Zuweisung." — Greek text edited by E. Bratke, "Das sogenannte Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden," TU 19.3 (1899)—the standard reference point; but now most recently, and with a more extensive survey and collation of mss., P. Bringel, Une polémique religieuse à la cour perse: le De gestis in Perside. Histoire du texte, édition critique et traduction (diss. Sorbonne, 2007). Page numbers in the text below refer to Bratke's edition; section numbers refer to Bringel's edition (unless otherwise stated, her edition of the "long recension"—pp. 288-494); references to "Bringel's text" normally introduce my own translation of her Greek text, not her (French) translation, and general references to Bringel's comments refer to footnotes ad locc. in her edition.]
Fr. 3.1
[From the Story of Cassander]
[p. 5]
11. Cassander died, leaving behind a sister, called Doris; she was the daughter of Pylades, who had been killed in Greece.21 Attalus the king of the Lacedaemonians22 lusted after her; and when they went to bed together, she, having a sword inside [the room], planted it in his heart and took control of the kingdom. And once this had happened, she acquired23 great fear. And his brother Philip went to live in Achaea24 and there taking as wife the sister of Calliopus their general, named Alisbis [p. 6], he was seeking to destroy Doris and her people. And they were afraid. For all the peoples around her, being enamored of her beauty, were helping her. For she would not give herself in marriage to just anyone.
But since they were all afraid of her—for she had attacked many and had destroyed them all—the Achaeans decided at that time to send an embassy to Delphi and to receive an oracle there about this matter. And they, after setting out, asked Euoptia the priestess at the water of the Castalian [spring], for themselves to know the object of their coming.25 She, having tasted the spring water, answered thus: "Philip,, will strike the higher ring that circles everything with his all-powerful arm."26
12. But they, deriding and cursing her, said: "Thrice-accursed one, we asked about a woman; we did not ask about a man who came from Macedonia, did we?" But she said to them that unconquerable times27 had begun to arise; for indeed she herself [i.e., the woman] and that man, and those with him, would vanquish everyone.
And they departed, with insults for the prophetess, and went off to the temple of Athens. And while a priestly cloth was being woven and fine purple was being applied to it, they came with a will and burst in. The priestess, Xanthippe, said to them with a burst of anger: "You have entered here at an evil hour, you reckless and unruly28 ones!"—and they, becoming displeased in turn, mistreated her and said: "You are unworthy of any honor; [p. 8] you are foreign to the priestly disposition—and you are disgracing the purple, which the gods granted to royalty, by which those who wear it possess honor and glory. Stop speaking strange things! Depart from your wineless drunkenness, you arrogant huckster!" But she said to them: "You have brought these charges not against me, but against those who cannot be insulted.29 Nevertheless, receive a secure oracle and go your way: 'A certain youthful man, who is the effectual conception of a mingling bed, having the unconquerable weight of God's unconquerable scale,30 will circle the boundless world like an egg, capturing31 all with his spear.'" But they, blowing on her,32 withdrew, speaking unlawful things against the gods. And they said, "We do ourselves no good, if we do not go to Phoebus Apollo the Great!"
13. And they went to the temple of Apollo and said by way of entreaty: "You victorious and pure well-pleasing33 gods, why do you treat your servants in this way—asking34 to win a womanly war? You throw us into a warlike war! Do not act this way, you immortals, true masters, who have granted to us the greatest material things as gifts; instead, give us clear signs.35 What, then, will happen to us?" And immediately a voice came in invisibly speaking as follows: "The tripod turning a third turn, the prophet is the root;36 [p. 9] for [there are] three-fold of these [oracles]; a certain light-bringer, heaven-sent to earth's plain, passing by,37 dwells within matter, forming for himself a body in the womb of a maiden. And her name is twice seventy-six.38 He, demolishing the lordships and every holy object of your reverence,39 will transfer the reward of all glory to the heights of his all-blessed wisdom."
Fr. 3.2
[Aphroditianus' Story]40
[p. 11]
19. Christ was known to Persia41 from the beginning. For nothing escapes the learned jurists of that country, who investigate all things with the utmost care. The facts, therefore, which are inscribed upon the golden tablets,42 and laid up in the royal temples,43 I shall announce—for it is from the temples there, and the priests connected with them,44 that the name of Christ has first been heard of. The temple of Hera, surpassing even the royal palace, which temple King Cyrus, who was knowledgeable in all piety, built, and erected golden and silver statues of the gods in it, and adorned it45 with precious stones—not to digress with a detailed description of that ornamentation...
Now about that time (as the inscribed tablets testify), the king having entered the temple, with the view of getting a dream-interpretation, was addressed by the priest Prupippus46 thus: "I congratulate you,47 master: Hera has conceived."
And the king, smiling, said to him, "Has she who is dead conceived?"
And he said, "Yes, she who was dead has come to life again, and begets life." [p. 12]
20. And the king said, "What is this? Explain it to me."
And he replied, "In truth, master, you have come here at just the right time. For over the whole night the images, both the males and the females, continuously danced, saying to each other, 'Come, let us congratulate48 Hera.' And they said to me, 'Prophet, come forward; congratulate Hera, for she has been loved.' And I said, 'Who was able to be loved49—she who does not exist?' They reply, 'She has come to life again, and is no longer called Hera, but Urania.50 For the mighty Helios has loved her.' Then the females say to the males, disparaging the matter, 'Pege51 is she who was loved; for it was not Hera, was it? She espoused a carpenter.' And the males say, 'She has rightly been called Pege, we admit. But her name is Myria;52 for she bears in her womb, as in the sea, a vessel conveying a myriad. And if she is also [called] Pege, let it be understood thus: This stream of water sends forth a perennial stream of spirit; it contains but a single fish, taken with the hook of divinity, and with its own flesh sustaining the whole world, while it dwells [there] as though in the sea. You have well said, "She has a carpenter"53—but not a carpenter whom she bears from a marriage-bed.54 For this carpenter who is born, the child of the chief carpenter, framed by his most sagacious skill the triple-constructed celestial roof,55 and established by his word this dwelling with its triple habitations.'56 Thus, then, the statues continued to dispute with each other concerning Hera and Pege, and [at length] with one voice they said: 'When the day is brought to completion, we all, male and female, [p. 13] shall know the matter clearly.' Now, therefore, master, tarry for the rest of the day. For the matter shall certainly receive full clarity. For that which has emerged is no common affair."57
21. And when the king remained there and was watching the statues, the harpers of their own accord began to strike their harps, and the Muses began to sing; and all the creatures that were within [the temple], whether quadrupeds or birds (made of silver and gold), were uttering their own characteristic voices. And as the king shuddered, and was filled with great fear—he was about to withdraw, for he could not endure the spontaneous tumult—the priest said to him, "Remain, O King, for the full revelation is at hand which the God of gods has chosen to make plain to us."
22. And when these things had been said, the roof was opened, and a bright star descended and stood above the pillar58 of Pege, and a voice was heard to this effect: "Mistress Pege, the great Sun59 has sent me to make the announcement to you, and at the same time to serve you in your giving birth—as he produces blameless offspring with you, who are becoming mother of the first of all ranks [of being], bride of the single divinity with three names. And the child born without seed is called the Beginning and the End: the beginning of salvation, and the end of destruction."
When this voice had spoken, all the statues fell upon their faces, with Pege alone still standing, on whom also a royal diadem was found to have been fastened, having on its upper side a star set with precious stones of carbuncle and emerald. And up above [i.e., in the sky], the star stood still.60
23. And the king forthwith gave orders61 to bring in all the wise interpreters of signs, as many as were under his dominion. And when the heralds hurried them along with their trumpets, they all assembled in the temple.
And when they saw the star [p. 14] above Pege, and the diadem with the starry stone, and the statues lying on the floor, they said: "O king, a divinely inspired and royal root has risen, bearing the stamp of a heavenly and earthly king. For Pege is the daughter of Karia the Bethlehemite,62 and the diadem is a kingly mark, and the star is a celestial announcement of marvels on the earth. Out of Judah has arisen a kingdom which shall destroy all the memorials of the Jews.63 And the prostration of the gods upon the floor anticipated the end of their honor. For he who comes, being of more ancient dignity, shall shake those who are new in it [i.e., dignity]. Now therefore, O king, send to Jerusalem. For you will find the Son of the Omnipotent God being carried in bodily form in the bodily arms of a woman."
And the star remained above Pege, who has been named Urania, until the magi went forth, and then it went with them.
24. And then, in the depth of evening, Dionysus appeared in the temple, unaccompanied by the satyrs, and said to the statues: "Pege is no longer one of us, but stands far above us, since she gives birth to a human being who was conceived by divine Fortune. O priest Prupippus! What are you doing sitting here? An action, indicated in writing, has proceeded against us, and we are going to be convicted [p. 15] as false by a person in action. The apparitions we produced, we produced; and that which we ruled, we ruled.64 No longer do we give oracular responses. Removed from us is our honour. We have become without honor and glory. There is one, one alone, out of all, who has received again his proper honour."
25. They said: "Do not be disturbed.65 No longer do the Persians exact tribute of earth and air. For he who established these things is at hand, and he brings tribute of actions to him who sent him—he who renews the ancient image, and puts image together with image, and brings the unlike to likeness.66 Heaven rejoices with earth, and earth itself boasts at receiving heaven's boast.67 Things which have not happened above, have happened below. He whom the order of the blessed has not seen, is viewed by the [order of] the miserable. Flame threatens those; dew is present for these. It [was] the good fortune of Karia to give birth to Pege in Bethlehem, and it [is] Pege's grace to become heaven-desired and to conceive grace of grace.68 Judaea has bloomed, and our affairs are withering immediately.69 To Gentiles and foreigners, salvation has come; to the wretched, relief is provided in abundance. Rightly do the women dance, and say, 'Lady Pege, Stream-bearer, you who have become mother of the heavenly light-giver, you cloud that brings the world dew after heat, remember your servants, dear mistress.'"70
26. The king then, without delay, sent the magi under his dominion71 with gifts, with the star showing them the way. And when they returned, they narrated everything to the men of that time—those very things which were also written on leaves of gold, to the following effect:
27. For when we came to Jerusalem, the sign, together with our arrival, [p. 16] disturbed everyone. They say, "What is this? Wise men of the Persians are here, and along with them an appearance of a star?" And the foremost of the Jews asked us what was going to happen, and the reason for our coming. And we said: "He whom you call 'Messiah' has been born." And they were confounded, and dared not oppose us. But they, for their part, said to us, "Justice of Heaven! Tell us what you know." And we said to them: "You have the disease of unbelief; and neither without an oath nor with an oath do you believe, but you follow your own ill-advised intentions. For the Christ, the child of the Most High, has been born, putting an end to of your law and synagogues. And it is for this reason that, struck as it were by a most excellent oracle72 as with a dart, you do not hear with pleasure this name which has come up against you suddenly." And they then, taking counsel together, urged us to accept their gifts, and tell no one such a thing [as the news] from this land [of theirs], lest a revolt rise against us.73 But we said: "We have brought gifts in his honor, with the view of proclaiming those mighty things which have happened in our country on occasion of his birth—and you bid us take your gifts, and conceal the things which have been made known to us by celestial divinity, and neglect the commandments of our own king? Or do you not know what an experience of the Assyrians you once received?" And they became afraid, and after beseeching us repeatedly, they sent us away.
When the one who was ruling over Judaea sent for us [p. 17] and had some converse with us, and asked us questions, we said to him [things] at which he was thoroughly disturbed.74 We departed from him, without giving any greater heed to him than to any worthless person.
28. And we came to that place to which we had been sent, and saw the one who had given birth and the one who had been born, the star indicating to us the lordly babe. And we said to the mother: "What are you called, O renowned mother?" And she says: "Mary, masters." And we said to her: "Where do you come from?" And she said: "From this district—[the district] of the Bethlehemites." "Have you not taken a husband?" She says: "I have only been betrothed, with only pre-nuptial arrangements having been concluded; but my thoughts are divided. For I had no wish at all to come to this [state of affairs]. But while I was giving very little concern to it, at the dawn of a certain Sabbath—at the rising of the sun—an angel straightway appeared to me bringing me the good news of offspring, all of a sudden. And I was disturbed, and cried out, 'Let it not be so to me, Lord, for I do not have a husband.' And he persuaded me to believe, that it was by the will of God that I would have the son." And we said to her: "Mother of mothers, all the gods of the Persians have called you blessed: Your grounds for boasting are great, for you have transcended all women of renown, and you have become manifestly more queenly than all queens."
29. The child, moreover, was seated on the ground, being, as she said, nearly two years old, and having in part the likeness of the one who bore him. For she was small in stature even when holding her head up, and had a delicate body; and she was the color of wheat; and she had her hair bound up with a simple, very beautiful hair-style. And as we had along with [p. 18] us a servant quite skilled in painting, we brought back with us to our country a likeness of them both; and it was placed in the temple in which the oracle was given,75 with the following inscription: "In the heaven-sent76 temple, the power of Persia dedicated this to Zeus Helios, the great God, King Jesus."
And taking the child up, and bearing him in our arms, each of us in turn, we saluted him and worshipped him, and presented to him gold,77 addressing Him thus: "[We give] to you what is your own; we lavish you [with gifts], O powerful one in heaven. Things unordered would be ordered in no way other than by your presence. In no other way could things above be brought into conjunction with things below, but by your descent. Service is not carried out to such a degree, if only a servant is sent, as when the [master] himself is present; neither [can so much be achieved] when the king sends only his satraps to war, as when he is there himself. It was quite fitting for your methods, for you to deal in this manner with the rebels."78
And the child smiled and leaped at our fawning and our words. And when we had bidden the mother farewell, and when she had shown us honor, and we had glorified her as was necessary, we went to the place in which we lodged.
30. And when evening came, there appeared to us someone terrifying and awesome,79 saying: "Get away quickly, lest you fall prey to a plot." And we, in fear, said: "And who is it that is plotting against so august [p. 19] an embassy, O general of God?" And he replied: "Herod—but get up immediately and depart in safety and peace." And we speedily mounted our strong steeds and departed from there in all earnestness; and we reported all that we had seen in Jerusalem.
Behold, then, such great things have we told you regarding Christ; and we know that Christ has become our Savior.80
But you, by your ways, are opposed to him, slandering his pain and suffering all the time. For speaking unworthy things, and doing still more unworthy things, are a mark of hatred.81
...
[p. 45]
84....And the same presbyter [i.e., Philip] recounted82 that the day on which the star appeared in the temple—that same day, every year, until the Lord was taken up [into heaven], all the statues would produce83 their characteristic utterance, and so that entire city there was transfixed, beholding the great marvels and the yearly appearance of the star.
Fr. 3.3
[Prophecies of "Learned Greeks"—Ophianus, Elibatus, Trachelaphius]
[p. 31]
52. "Why should I unfold84 the Hebrews' prophecies and not our own? Ophianus [p. 32] Pertillaeus85 spoke in his 'Laws' as follows: 'Oh my! How the Caspian Gate has been adorned—it has received a mountain stone, which hands did not hew out, but rather grace discovered, and narrowed the whole Gate all around by means of it. Not only did it strengthen it, but it also opened it when it had been closed—the stone having become way and door. The door leads to an august door, and the way draws one to a pure way, as all those who see it shout: "Great is the dominion of the gods, whose will for action is more easily realized."'86 And Elibatus, who wrote down innumerable laws, when speaking On Eucles towards the end,87 says, 'A frightful cloud settled upon a mountain and cast a single stone upon the earth, and strengthened all its foundations. And how shall a single stone prevail over the entire [earth]? Did not one God alone create the universe?' And Trachelaphius, speaking Against the Falsely-Named, demonstrates his mastery also in the following solid reasoning:88 'Who deceived those who trust in Dionysus so as to say about him that he, being forever without a beginning, was born from an unravished virgin? They clothe him with another's dignity. For the one without a beginning, being89 of the substance that is forever without beginning, takes hold of mortal substance without receiving it as a violation. For that which he formed, he shall not consider an violation, when he takes it up. There, a virgin—[p. 33] unsullied in her body and having no falsehood in her tongue—supplies virginal flesh; [this process is the] activation of all grace dwelling within [her].90 I marvel at the flux-bound taking hold of the flux-free—knowing this: that some have been deified on account of their promulgation of laws; others, because of their nobility of life and their conspicuous purity in other respects, because of which it is fitting to honor them; but to go after heavenly honors is beyond all audacity and above all blasphemy.'"
Fr. 3.4
[Virtuous Pagans]
[p. 19]
32...."There have been Christians [p. 20] indeed, but there have also been pagans,91 who practiced the utmost virtue. King Cyrus had very attractive female bodyguards92 where he slept: he was sharpening his desire, but also correcting it by such trials. He used to say that all glory was worthy of the heavenly power alone. He loved his fellow man so much that there was no poor man or even the least captive in Persian territory, because of his constant bestowing of benefits upon everyone. And Concencrates,93 who was truly a philosopher, possessed one single rough cloak—he lived near the peak of Masgabala, being terribly worn out by the snow and cold; and the wise Neoctetius said to him: 'You will perish, wise man, and die because of the heat and cold.' And he said: 'If I die to those here [on earth], I shall live by my future hope.' He asked: 'What [hope] is that?' And the other said, 'Truly, I am directing my attention to a certain other life, and offering myself myself to it. For the Providence of God will not disregard those who have labored during the day: in the evening it will deem them worthy of reward and rest. Every day I see the heavens and the things of earth that seem good diminishing and decaying. And this takes place because of our "exasperations,"94 which show beforehand that everything here below perishes. But those who have acquired the virtues above do not die, as they are spoken about and answered with eternal remembrance by them.' This man only ate fruit, and drank a little water once a day, not wishing to know anything else [p. 21] of what belongs to the world, [but] practicing death every day. And this is sufficient. And Dichorianus, who published so many things about God, and who used to say that he was nourished by these things, and not by those which harm the body—after preserving impassibility of body and mind for 90 years, while he was dying said: 'Glory to you, righteous Justice, who changed my [mind] regarding what was honorable.' And there are many others of whom the book-lovers know—both Christians and true philosophers. But let us leave off for today, and tomorrow we [will] inquire into the rest. If it is desired by the will of heaven that we come this far, we [will] achieve resolution of further questions in turn."
Fr. 3.5
[The Shepherdess and Coatus]
[p. 42]
80...."...I once learned of a woman, a shepherdess, in the settlement of the Arigbanes. One Coatus, son of Coatus, fell in love with her and sent her gifts, so that she would come to an agreement with him. But she, seeing the gifts, laughed and said to the messenger, pointing to her sheep: 'Behold my gifts and my children, from which I am nourished by divine grace.' And he came away to her and with splendid promises he urged her to accept him. She said to him: 'Shall I defile the undefiled cloak which grace has given to me?' Coatus said: 'Miserable girl, this law has been established from above for the propagation of the race.' The shepherdess: 'A law has been established for me not to acquire more than I have.' After much pleading to no effect, he ordered that she be starved to death. And so, on the third day, when she was about to expire, she uttered cheerful words as follows: 'O heavenly Father of your genuine children, O unsullied bridegroom of those who are in the bloom of beauty, I come to you, thrice-desired Lord, giving back to you without complaint that which you gave to me—virginity, forgiveness of sins, an existence without property, a truthful tongue, a heart unacquainted with wickedness—ever intent on the hope that is to come, which I have honored and whose joys I am now by all means going to meet.' And thus she expired. [p. 43] His father, learning this, ordered that he be hung head-downwards on a tall post in the middle of the city, so as to be eaten by birds."
Fr. 4.1 - 4.7
[Expansions of Eusebius' HE / Fragments of Papias, Hegesippus, Pierius]
[Attribution questionable]
[Found interspersed with extracts from Eusebius in Cod. Barocc. 142, fol. 212r-216r, i.e., preceding in this ms. the material classified by Heyden as Fr. 6 and Fr. 2; Cod. Oxon. misc. 61 (Auct. E.4.18), fol. 136r-143r (unedited); nos. 3-6 also in Cod. Athous Vatopedi 286 fol. 91r-218r. — Greek text edited by C. de Boor, "Neue Fragmente des Papias, Hegesippus und Pierius in bisher unbekannten Excerpten aus der Kirchengeschichte des Philippus Sidetes," TU 5.2 (1888), pp. 169-71. — De Boor (pp. 173-4) argued that these are fragments of Philip of Side, and that the use and expansion of Eusebius observable in them is consistent with what we know of his method; but his argument for this is partly tied to his attribution of the material labeled by Heyden as Fr. 6, now more convincingly attributed to Gelasius of Caesarea. Pouderon, "Le témoignage," pp. 10-11, 62-63, and Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes, pp. xxxvii-xxxviii, point out that at the very least De Boor's case for these fragments remains unproved. Heyden, p. 224, however, revives De Boor's appeal to the reference to John Chrysostom in no. 6 as one remaining point in favor of Philip of Side's authorship; and as another, notes the fact that Gelasius of Caesarea is not otherwise attested as providing information on the pre-Constantinian period, and thus any attempt to attribute this material to him would be problematic. — In the translations below, the italicized material is directly from Eusebius, whether verbatim or paraphrased; the normal text represents the additions made by our author to Eusebius' history.]
Fr. 4.1
Africanus, in a "Letter to Aristides," has written the best treatment concerning the apparent discrepancy in the genealogy, as regards the family lines,95 in the evangelists Matthew and Luke.96 And Africanus was from the village of Emmaus in Palestine, to which Cleopas and company travelled,97 and which later, through Africanus' embassy, received the status of a city and was renamed Nicopolis.98
Fr. 4.2
Philip, the one who baptized Candace, the Ethiopian,99 was not an apostle, but one of the seven servers / deacons who had been appointed to serve alongside Stephen, the first martyr. And he says that Candace was the first100 of the Gentiles to be baptized.101 Philip [means] "mouth of torches";102 Herodias [means] "deceived";103 Herod [means] "glory of skin"104—according to Pierius.105
Fr. 4.3
Domitian, the son of Vespasian, having demonstrated many wicked [qualities / acts] to the Romans who were governmental officials, was the second to conduct a persecution against the Christians, surpassing Nero's savagery. During this, he also banished the Apostle and Evangelist John to Patmos. But after meeting the sons of Jude (the Lord's brother), and coming to know the men's virtue, he called a halt to the persecution against us.106 And Hegesippus also makes reference to their names, and says that the one was called Zôkêr, and the other James.107 And he also gives other indispensable information.
Fr. 4.4
The majority of the ancient [Christian writers] do not accept the Epistle of John, since they consider it to belong to some other John. But the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" and the [Gospel] said to be "of Peter" and [the one said to be] "of Thomas" they completely rejected, saying that these are the writings of heretics.108 And there are other false Gospels as well, the [Gospel] "according to the Egyptians," and [the one] "according to the Twelve," and [the one] "according to Basilides."109
Fr. 4.5
Clement, in the third book of the Stromata, by way of combating those who disallow marriage, asserts that Peter and Paul and Philip had wives. And in the seventh Stroma he says that Peter's wife was even made perfect through martyrdom.110 And Pierius too, in his first discourse111 of those On the Pascha, asserts strongly that Paul had a wife and dedicated her to God for the sake of112 the Church, renouncing his association with her.
Fr. 4.6
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a hearer of John the Theologian, and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of the Lord's logia.113 In these, he enumerated the Apostles after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, and recorded Aristion and a second John—whom he called a "presbyter"—as disciples of the Lord;114 and thus, some think that the two Epistles, the short and general ones, which are in circulation under the name "John," belong to this John, because the ancient [Christian writers] only accepted the first [Epistle of John as genuine]. And some erroneously considered the Apocalypse to belong to this [John] as well; and Papias is also mistaken regarding the Millenium—as is Irenaeus, because of him.115 Papias in the second book says that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews. The aforementioned Papias related, as something he had heard from the daughters of Philip, that Barsabas, who was also called Justus, when he was being put to the test by the unbelievers, drank a viper's poison in the name of Christ and was preserved unhurt.116 He also relates other marvellous stories, in particular the one about Menahem's mother, who was raised from the dead.117 Concerning those who were raised from the dead by Christ, [he relates] that they lived until Hadrian. And Chrysostom, in the st Homily of the second section on the st Epistle to the Corinthians, says that both those who were raised from the dead at the time of the cross [i.e., the crucifixion of Jesus] and those [who were raised from the dead] before them—all died.118
Fr. 4.7
Pierius, a presbyter of Alexandria,119 flourished at this time, and in Pontus, Meletius the bishop—men who were amazing with respect to their learning.120 And Pierius, in his first discourse... renouncing his association with her.121 And I also read quite a number of his other indispensable works and especially the one Concerning the Mother of God and the one On the beginning of Hosea. And Theodorus, a certain court-pleader in Alexandria, writing in epic verse, says in his 13th book that Pierius and Isidorus his brother suffered martyrdom122 and have a very large shrine in Alexandria. And in his discourse On the Life of the Holy Pamphilus, Pierius himself provided very much help in the divine Scripture.
Fr. 5.1 - 5.7
[Constantine and the Council of Nicaea]
[Attribution questionable]
Fr. 5.1
[The Beginning of Constantine's Reign: Relations with Barbarian Tribes]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 1.4.2-5 [p. 7, lines 7-28 Hansen]123
And first he determined to call back to himself those cities that were rebelling against Roman overlordship—some by words, others by force of arms, and others by good treatment and kindness. For he decreed a lighter tax-burden for them, and gave them equal rights of commerce; he put an end to their rebelliousness and madness wisely, more by calmness than by frightening them, since he knew that the peoples of the Sauri124 and the Frangi125 and the Germani were lovers of novelty and had a strong inclination toward rebellion against their rulers, and often treated their own thoughts as law. He also subdued the Spani and the Brettani and the islands in that area, and the remaining tribes and all those who are witnesses of the setting of the sun—who, they say, know whether it is really submerged in the Ocean or goes around the water and returns back to us by another route. And he took the barbarian tribes there by force of arms, making use of a side-task to further his [primary] task. For, subduing some, making others subject to tribute, and making others friends instead of opponents and intimates instead of ancient enemies, he brought them in as allies, not causing distress or laying siege to anyone, and being eager for the salvation of others. For where God acts as one's ally, everything is rightly guided and he raises up on high the human reason. With this sort of God-loving thought, Constantine, most faithful in all things, crossed to the right-hand side of the Rhine, passed many mountains, many unnamed rivers, with a small army, conquered many barbarian peoples, brought over to his side ten tribes of Gauls and Frangi and Spani, and finally brought his army to the mountains of Italy.
Fr. 5.2
[Discussion of the Plausibility of the Sign that Appeared to Constantine]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 1.5.2-7 [p. 8, line 15 - p. 9, line 20 Hansen]
This story seems to the unbelievers to be a myth and a fiction composed to flatter our opinions, but to those who have become accustomed to believe the truth, the proof of the event is manifest. For God, the "painter" of this omen, demonstrated afterwards through the outcome that the gracious gift of the writing [in the sky] was truthful. But if I am not yet persuading [you about] what I write (for I am transcribing histories of earlier [writers], because of my task [mentioned] a little earlier of collecting the useful events of that man's life), still you should not fail to believe in the subsequent events—that which, in our own generation, those who stood in battle with Constantius the son of Constantine saw with their own eyes and [thus] cured ancient unbelief with more recent sights. If those who dispute these things are Hebrews, the stories that are contained in their books and are believed are much more unbelievable than these—marching in the sea, water forming a wall, walking in the water, and God speaking in a bush, a flame giving laws, the resounding of a trumpet in the desert without an actual instrument, angels ranged together for battle and the "chief generals of the Lord's forces"126 fighting on behalf of the army, and "stones of hail"127 and missiles of fire being cast instead of the usual spears—and yet, all of us who are right-minded give assent [to these stories] without [skeptical] examination. For nothing is impossible when God wills it. If, on the other hand, those who do not accept this marvel are Greeks, I can cite many things which I do not wish to speak about—how many prophecies the oracle-mongers proclaimed for Alexander, when he was preparing to cross over for the battle at the Granicus and the contest with Darius (and yet their fictions do not have manifest proofs); and how a "daimonion"gave prior indication to Socrates the philosopher regarding the outcome of things that should not be done; and the things written about Pythagoras of Samos by that man's disciples. I will leave unmentioned the fictions of the poets, and how they related that some of the famous [heroes] in them128 even fought side by side with some of those who were considered gods by them,129 so that no one will think that I am comparing mythical events with true events, things that were never done with things that were. For the grace of Christ, ever since it bloomed among men, has been, is, and will continue to be a medicinal remedy and a source of healing, in heaven and on earth and in the sea, in plants and trees, and in clothes—those who have experienced it know this, and I will set forth [such occurrences] at the appropriate time as my history proceeds.
Fr. 5.3
[Constantine and Crispus against Licinius]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 1.11.19-21 [p. 18, line 18 - p. 19, line 2] and 1.12.1 [p. 21, lines 1-9 Hansen]
1.11
(19)...But the others,130 as many as agree with the true account of Eusebius Pamphili,131 say that both the Father, Emperor Constantine, and the son, Emperor Crispus, dividing the army, rushed out against the impious tyrant—the son, Crispus, to the region of Asia, marching with the army that was with him, while the father, Constantine, in Europe, accomplished his journey with the bodyguards [i.e., the Praetorians] around him. (20) But the God-hating one, full of all impiety and savagery, came from the East, arrogantly drawing up against them with as large an army as possible. And arriving at Nicomedia, and recognizing and knowing that the soul of God-loving Constantine revered the priests of God, and that he held them in honor at all times, he paid off the bishop of Nicomedia, Eusebius, who had long since defected to his side in opposition to the pious Emperor Constantine. [Licinius] thought that by using him and his associates he would destroy Constantine—who was hedged around by the invincible weapons of God. (21) The extraordinary132 Eusebius made a compact with him, being prevailed upon by promises from Licinius, his equal in impiety...133
(32)...But from here I shall move on to the events of the Ecclesiastical History that lie before us.
1.12
(1) So, when Licinius rushed out from Nicomedia to Byzantium with the army that was with him, against the Emperor Constantine who was there at that time, and the contingents of soldiers on the one side were surrounding the Christ-bearing Emperor, then Licinius—that sinner—seeing this, and contemplating the fact that he was bereft of his own armies, which had deserted to the protection of the stronger side, at first was anxious to hide in Chrysopolis134 in Bithynia (this is the sea-port of Chalcedon)—but since he could not do this, and saw that he was now lying face-down under the feet of the Emperor Constantine, he gave himself up...
Fr. 5.4
[Succession of Bishops in Alexandria—and Arius]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.1.13f. [p. 23, line 28 - p. 24, line 9 Hansen]135
2.1
(12) So, when the Church of Christ our Savior throughout the world was enjoying deep peace, this [peace] having been obtained for it by God, the universal King, through his servant Constantine and his children, (13) after the death of the divine Peter, bishop of the Alexandrian Church, who had been made perfect by the very act of martyrdom and had bound his brow with the incorruptible crown of the contest, the Church there was bereft [of a leader] for one year. And after this year, the throne of that same holy martyr Peter was allotted to Achillas, (14) a man who was strong, noble, holy-minded, and pre-eminent with very great piety and wisdom, as the ancient unerring writings describe; he, after frequent urging, received Arius and made him a deacon. (15) But after this man [i.e., Achillas] had lived on only five months, the authority of high-priest136 over the Church of Alexandria was received by Alexander, a man who was honored in every respect by both the clergy and laity of the church; small in stature, generous, well-spoken, capable, loving God, loving his fellow man, loving the poor, good and gentle to all as much as anyone ever has been. He himself too installed Arius into a position—that of presbyter, nearest to himself...
Fr. 5.5
[Constantine Speaks at the Council of Nicaea]137
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.7 [p. 34, line 17 - p. 42, line 9 Hansen]
2.6
(2) To them,138 the most praiseworthy Emperor directed a discourse of moral exhortation and teaching, for praise and glorification and thanksgiving to the God of all, who had granted him such favors; he spoke somewhat as follows:139
2.7
(1) Many most manifest paths toward well-doing have been laid out for the human race by the nurturing righteousness of Almighty God, not least that one which is quite conspicuous, most spectacular—that one which he prepared for us all, more grandly than any marvel, in the main point140 of the most holy law of the universal Church: the Lord's prayer-house of Faith.141 (2) We see that the peak of this [building] has gone up all the way to the sparkling stars, while we recognize that its foundations—even as the work is still only beginning—are so deeply and faithfully rooted, by God's will, that the whole inhabited world perceives it. (3) Now then, from the aforementioned peak that completely overtops all others, through to the end of the exit, there is seen a smooth and level course, endowed with the brilliance of light. Its façade, adorned with a star-shaped seal, is supported by columns, twelve in number, brighter than snow, immoveable in their placement in Faith—eternally, by the power of our Savior's divinity. (4) When we also receive the righteous faith that comes from the soul, the Architect of this amazing work brings home to our minds the awesomeness of his everlasting law. Whoever wishes approaches the gates of this [structure], but in no way other than with the impulse of a holy and pious desire, with only the confidence of a pure mind. (5) And the Savior's plan has added to this [building] a certain marvellous brightness of ornament. What I mean is that on the inside, people's faith, honored over the entire course of the wall of the Lord's house with blooming garlands,142 assembles immortality's fruit, brings the holy products of human life into the open and makes them manifest—and next, in turn, the heavenly glory on the outside, which is [also] garlanded, as the struggle is constantly arising, or rather constantly rising,143 sketches out the prizes; and the depictions [of these] adorn the full completion of this same work with the appropriate praise. (6) And this same house of the Lord is protected by only two guards; divine fear144 on the one hand comes into the thoughts of some, as an inducement to self-control, and on the other hand for those who are right-minded their praise directed toward God is ever-present, as a prize for understanding. For as these two [guards] are placed at the front doors of the most holy place, righteousness is received by wide-open gates, and this [righteousness] having been given a home within, it remains there in purity; but unrighteousness is not allowed to approach the gates, but is shut out from this place and banished.
(7) O brothers most honored, and worthy of all praise, these facts so clear have led me into the brightness of the eternal and immortal light, so that I will not stand far away and be rendered out of harmony with the truth by any wavering faith. (8) But what shall I proclaim first? The pattern of blessedness,145 which has been compressed and hidden within my breast? Or the divine benefits in my regard by Almighty God? Of these deeds, which are numerous, it would seem sufficient for now to say that this same God of ours, the Father of all, quite rightly made my mediocrity146 subject to himself. Believe me, most honored brothers, and apply an unprejudiced faith to what I say; even if my mind, having been satiated with God's favors, seems very much to be blessed,147 nevertheless, as the proof of the truth shows, neither voice nor tongue are fully able to carry out the mind's commands—and rightly so. (10) For since the greatness of his benefits is without measure, although the mind, which is an exalted thing, possesses the lower "places"—the body—the path of the tongue, being confined in a truly narrow place, being more or less reprehensible,148 remains altogether silent. For which of us is so ready for reasoning that he would utter such a self-confident speech, whereby he would presume to pronounce glorious praises easily, and worthy praises perfectly, to the all-powerful God and creator of all the most beautiful things? (11) If someone were to think only about the magnificence of the one who ordained the law of his birth, he would consider with full knowledge that nothing can be found which would be able to be spoken as something worthy of God. (12) Then what should the devotion of my mediocrity speak about, except that which the divine Word of truth makes manifest? The greatest act of worship must consider wisely whether it will be able to reach his greatness in the very things that are spoken about him, whether some error will not cause him to stumble. (13) And would that a liberal abundance of speaking would suffice for me, your fellow servant, to render him those praises (which are worthy of proclamation) that our divine Savior, the guardian of all things, made known by the calm assent of his divinity, in the "prologue" of his presence here, when for the sake of our benefit he deigned to receive the dwelling-place of a holy body from a virgin, thus displaying the proof of his own compassion.
(14) Where, then, shall I begin? With his teaching and his dignity? Or rather, with the divine teachings of which he himself appeared as sole teacher on his own account, with no one teaching him? Or rather, with how so many people revived through his wise provision,149 as many as cannot be encompassed by a number, with a small amount of nourishment and the tiniest loaves of bread and only two fish? By his divine provision he also caused resurrection, using a certain short staff,150 after the death of Lazarus, and brought him back again into the brightness of the light. (16) But how could I speak of his holy divinity, by virtue of which, when he saw that a certain woman was a hidden, deeming her worthy of simple contact with himself, he rendered her well again, and free from all disease? (17) And who could worthily speak about his immortal deed, by which a certain man who had been worn out by a major chronic wasting disease, lying there with all his limbs hanging loose and splayed out, was suddenly strengthened by divine healing and put upon his shoulders the very pallet on which he had lain; and, pouring forth praise and thanksgiving, he ran through the country and local territory? (18) Or rather, his divine and steady walking, when he stepped upon and trod down the savage sea on foot, and stilled the fluidity of the deepest sea with his divine feet, and made his way in the midst of the waves, bounded by no measure of depth, as though he were on dry land? (19) Or rather, his gentle patience, by which he, being conqueror in all things, tamed the stubbornness of the foolish people and, once it was tamed, removed it far from them and subjected their savagery to [his] law? (20) Or rather, the clearest, the greatest [attributes] of his divinity, by which we live, in which we are well-pleased, we who not only look forward to the hope of the coming blessedness, but in some way as it were already possess it? (21) What more do I dare to say, even with my exiguous cultivation of discourse, except this—what the purity of my devoted soul ought to understand: What the omnipotent God, who dwells in heaven, is like in relation to the whole human race, and especially and preeminently in relation to righteousness, which is most beatiful and greater than any praise—considering that he deigned a body—the holiest, as befitted his divine spirit—and to dwell in it, and thus to work salvation for [all] human bodies.
(22) Therefore, since concerning the all-powerful order of God, so entirely holy and salvific, the measureless madness of the enemies,151 thrown into confusion as though by some cloud, does not hesitate to offer an interpretation, perverse and destructive, I shall attempt to set forth [my views] briefly, as far as the faith and devotion of my soul have abundant resources for speaking. (23) For indeed, the malice of these men, of the pagans, puts on display such a kind of shamelessness that they are not afraid to say, with an impious mouth, that the all-powerful God did not do, did not wish to do, all that is revealed in the divine Law. (24) O, such impious speech, that calls down on itself and deserves every extreme punishment: It desires, truly insanely and rashly, to make the glory of this divine benefaction—a glory that cannot be comprehended by any human being—disappear. (25) For what is more worthy of God than purity? This has come forth from most holy association with the source of righteousness, passed like a flood through the whole circumference of the world, and put the powers of the most holy virtues on display for the human race. But they, considering these virtues at first to be hostile to themselves, suffered of the Assyrians—and with these leading the way as a bad example, the other nations were persuaded to go along with them. (26) In these things, just as we perceive it in our own experience, we see that the divine compassion of God our Savior has been at work, when the same [Savior] day by day and year by year commanded many of them, who were being plagued by the sting of fiery madness, to rise to the patient endurance of the Savior's healing. And yet not even so is the greatness of such generosity able to come with favor in the eyes of the others, human ignorance of the fact that the divine lordship is able to raise up every people, and to make it secure once it has been raised to a height, likewise, to demolish and destroy. (27) But things would have turned out more adversely for human affairs, if God, who is all-powerful, had given himself the task of doing everything, by the quiet nod of his own divinity. For human madness would have become even more long-lived, and human stubbornness, which knows no bounds, would have destroyed all souls, nor would the other most numerous things,152 which in the disorder of the world still perform their orderly duties, have been able to appear—(28) rather, all things would have quickly perished, together with [human] ignorance of God; and the unrighteousness of malice and jealousy would have remained, not as in a few people, but rather, no one would have been found opposed to jealousy, with the [various] religions diffused largely and broadly into the souls of men to such an extent that through the baseness of these men, the light of this brightness of ours would have been obscured for them, and they would always have been deprived of it. (29) Therefore, no word that has been spoken will be able to drag my faith out of my soul; for, when nothing base stands in the way, it is accompanied by a perfect power, the living Word of truth, which is alone all-powerful, the guardian of all things and protector of our salvation. Thus he [i.e., God] seems, in a certain manner, lavishly to bestow intimacy with his most holy Word, to preserve 153 of the one who frees [us], and to provide for us the brightness of the light. (30) So then, for what reason do the people of all the nations even now fail to discern the heavenly light, despise the most glorious Holy One, and go after earthly things,154 which have no substantial truth, no brilliance of pure brightness, no authority of celestial divinity? (31) What unworthy behavior! Even to this day, not at all falling short in impiety, and not looking toward their duty, they fail to see that they are falling down because of their wretched error; they do not cease to defile the brightness with these filthy works of the world—that is to say, by setting up wood and stone and bronze and silver and gold and these sorts of earthly for worship, and promising themselves a hope of life from these, building temples for them with striking ornaments, and in this way increasing and adding to their worship because of the fact that the greatness of the buildings (constructed by them!) produces a sense of wonder worthy of their own gaze. (32) So then, when they are seen to do this, it is clearly discerned—even if for the most part they themselves in their arrogance do not perceive or see it—that they are caught openly boasting over their own works. Thus, we do not see how great and how vast is God, the ruler of all, who is also master and judge of all, whom some [of us] unwittingly155 with their very confidence in their own virtue (as they see it). (33) For it was by virtue of his arrangements that the form of our bodies received its due shape. The same [God] bound together the connections of all our limbs with the strongest sinews, so that in every action we pursue we might keep the vigor of our united parts156 without tiring. Then, when this had been brought to completion by his saving arrangement, he also breathed spirit into us, so that all these [physical parts] would be able to move and flourish, and granted vision to our eyes, set them in our head for our understanding, and within this place [i.e., the head] he enclosed the reasoning process of all our thinking. (34) For this reason, if any right-minded person were to examine the logic of these arrangements, and leave off the rest—which cannot be comprehended either with words or numbers—he would be able, with a little reflection, to see and to understand the eternal and salvific authority of the immortal God. And a man will not be able to trap that one [i.e., God] with the snares of any kind of error, when it is possible for him to see that everything that has come to be is [as it is] by the power of God, as he himself has wished all these things to be. (35) But so that we may be able to see that a certain unlawful way of life in the world brought about people's ignorance of God, the reasoning process of sin having first been produced in the wretched souls of those stupid people because of the Enemy's deception, we can receive clear proof concerning this from the divine law. (36) For ever since that time, when the divine and holy command was not kept with the appropriate diligence by those two people who had been formed in the beginning, after that, the flower of this name157 was born. And it became continual and increased still further, from the time when the aforementioned two were cast out by God's will. (37) And the physical world itself was brought along with human stupidity to such a point that he pronounced sentence against the Orient and the lands of the Occident. And the very excess of the Opposite Power took possession of human thoughts and made them dim. (38) Yet even in this situation, the untiring compassion of the all-powerful God is both holy and immortal. For in all the days and years that have passed, God has been setting free from this burden—through me, his servant—numberless multitudes of people who had been enslaved; and he will bring them out into the perfect brilliance of the eternal light. From these [facts], most beloved brethren, by virtue of a certain special providence and the glorious favors of our immortal God, I am confident that in future I shall be even more highly regarded for my very pure faith in him.
(39) Therefore, let this most holy gathering of your sanctity receive me, and do not suffer the most chaste Church and the the doors of the pure mother common to us all to be set in opposition to me. Even if the reasoning power of my soul, while it very much even now is seeking the complete purity of the universal faith, does not think it right for this to be granted too easily, nevertheless it urges and reminds me—and it has displayed its own reverential brow as a seal of the most beautiful virtues; and it has begun to lay hold of the gates of immortality and to knock on them—so that you too will consider it right to grant me straightway the goodwill of your brotherhood, with a view only to the harmony and peace of the universal Church. (40) For this is fitting with respect to God, harmonious with respect to the faith of the universal Church, and beneficial with respect to our common affairs,158 so that [in the end] we may all together offer a response, worthy of the most highly honored peace that has been granted to us by God, to the one who has favored us with it.
(41)159 For it would be truly terrible—most terrible!—if, when our enemies have been destroyed and no one is still daring to resist, we attack each other and provide pleasure and laughter to those who are ill-disposed, and taking different sides in discussion of divine matters while also having the teaching of the all-holy Spirit in written form. For the Gospels and Apostolic books, and the utterances of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what it is necessary to think concerning the divine. Therefore, throwing off all belligerent strife, let us receive the resolution of our questions from the divinely inspired words [of Scripture]."
Fr. 5.6
[Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.12.8-10 [p. 47, lines 5-19 Hansen]160
(8) When these things were expressed by them—or rather, through them, by the Holy Spirit—those who endorsed Arius' impiety were wearing themselves out with murmuring (these were the circles of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, whom I have already pointed out earlier), and yet they were looking with favor on the "hirelings" of Arius, certain philosophers who were indeed very good with words; Arius had hired them as supporters of his own wickedness, and arrived with them at that holy and ecumenical council. (9) For there were present very many philosophers; and having put their hopes in them, as I have said just now, the enemies of the truth were reasonably caught, along with the one who actually taught them their blasphemy. The Holy Scripture was fulfilled in him and in them, which says, "Cursed is everyone who has his hope in a mortal man, and whose heart has departed from the Lord."161 (10) For truly, the blasphemous heart of the fighter against God, Arius, and of those who shared in his impiety, departed from the Lord—they dared to say that the Son of God, the creator of the universe and the craftsman of both visible and invisible created natures, is something created and something made.
Fr. 5.7
[The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.13 [p. 47, line 20 - p. 50, line 5 Hansen]162
2.13
(1) A certain one of the hirelings of Arius, a philosopher, who was marveled at much more than all the others, contended much, indeed very much, on Arius' behalf with our bishops for very many days, with the result that there was a great lecture every day arising from their verbal encounters: the crowd of those who were gathering would rush together, and the philosopherwould put forward the impious blasphemies of Arius against what was said by the holy council, saying about the Son that "there was a time when he was not," and that "he is a created being, made from nothing, and from a different substance163 and existence164 [than the Father]." (2) On behalf of these abominable doctrines of Arius, he had a great struggle, and [sent forth] his "showers" of arguments, as he raved against the Son of God and attacked the chorus of those holy priests165--the enemy of human salvation was speaking in him and through him. (3) But the defenders of the truth, our bishops, calmly brought to bear against him the necessary and appropriate counter-arguments, on behalf of the Apostolic doctrines, imitating the great prophet and king, David, who said, "I was made ready, and I was not disturbed."166 For they burned through the philosopher's convoluted propositions by means of the divine word, as though with fire through hempen fibers. (4) But even so, the philosopher continued to be confident in his diabolical facility with arguments, and began to shoot his arrows against the truth proclaimed by the bishops, applying good and glib responses to all the considerations advanced against him—so he thought—and, slippery as an eel, he struggled to solve the issues raised. For in the midst of what he thought he was contriving for his own benefit, slipping out of the logical arguments that were being brought quite powerfully against him, he was caught, on the basis of is own words, and collapsed along with them. (5) But even so, in an arrogant frenzy, he moved against the most peaceful council, hoping to defeat the invincible power of the unconquerable Spirit of Christ that was in them. (6) But God, "who catches the wise in their cunning,"167 in order to demonstrate that his kingdom does not stand "on talk but on power,"168 not only powerfully silenced the wicked demon that was speaking in the philosopher, but even cast it out, through one of his servants who was there. (7) For a certain man, one of the holy confessors who was present at the council, with as simple a nature as any other of the saints [has had], and one who knew nothing "except Jesus Christ, and him crucified"169 in the flesh according to the Scriptures, was with the bishops and saw the philosopher swooping down to attack our holy bishops, and arrogantly engaged in his malicious disputation; he asked the bishops, the priests of God, to give him an opportunity for discussion with the philosopher. (8) Then, the holy bishops on our side, perceiving the man's simplicity and his lack of experience with letters, tried to persuade him not to put himself into the fray, for fear that it would provoke laughter among the malicious enemies of the truth. (9) But he, not content with this, approached the philosopher and said to him, "In the name of Jesus Christ, the Word of God who is always with the Father, listen to the doctrines of truth, O philosopher." And the other said to him, "Go ahead and speak." And the saint said to him, "There is one God, who created the heavens and the earth and the sea, and all things that are in them, who also formed man from the earth and subjected everything to his Logos and to the Holy Spirit.170 (10) This Logos, O philosopher, we know and worship as the Son of God, believing that for the sake of our redemption he was made fleshand was born and became a man, and that through the suffering of his flesh on the cross and his death he freed us from eternal condemnation, and that through his resurrection he procured eternal life for us; and we have hope that as he went up into the heavens he will come back and will judge us concerning all that we have accomplished. Do you believe in these things, O philosopher?" (11) And the philosopher, as though he had never had experience of words spoken in opposition to him, was dumbfounded and fell silent just like that, as though he were mute and speechless, after saying to him, in a most pitiable voice, only the following: "I too think this is so, and I think no differently that as you have just said." (12) And the old man said to him, "If you believe that this is so, O philosopher, stand up and follow me, and let us hurry to the church, in which you will receive the sign of this faith." (13) And the philosopher, transforming his whole self toward the true reverence for the God of the universe, stood up and followed the old man and, turning around, said to his disciples and to all those who had gathered to hear [the discussion], "Listen, men. As long as I was enthusiastic for arguments, I would place words in opposition to words and would overturn the matters presented to me by my skill in speaking; (14) but now that instead of words, some divine power has come forth from the mouth of my interlocutor, my words no longer had the strength to resist this power. For neither is a human being able to stand in opposition to God. Therefore, if any of you is able to understand, as I have now come to think, he shall believe in Christ—and let him follow this old man, in whom God spoke.
(15) In this way, the philosopher recovered and, being illuminated and becoming a Christian, rejoiced to have been beaten by the old man.
And when this philosopher had been baptized and was joined to the Church of God and found relief and exulted, the council rejoiced over the mighty acts of God.
Fr. 6.1 - 6.7
[History from Diocletian to Constantine]
[Attribution to Philip questionable at best]
[Originally known in part from Cod. Barocc. 142 (= B), fol. 216r, lines 11-39; thus, directly precedes in this ms. the passage classified by Heyden as Fr. 2, and follows Fr. 4. Other mss.: Cod. Paris. gr. 1555A (= P); Cod. Athous Vatopedi 286 (= V). — De Boor, "Neue Fragmente," pp 165-84, attributes this sequence of excerpts to Philip of Side; at p. 173 he stresses the mention of Philip of Side by name, but this relates primarily to the fragment on the Alexandrian school; De Boor, "Zur Kenntnis," p. 487 n., interprets the phrase that begins fr. 2, "as Philip of Side says...," as a phrase of attribution for the material here classified as fr. 6, but that is unlikely. More convincingly, Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes: Kirchengeschichte, GCS (Berlin, 1971), p. xxxviii, and Nautin, "La continuation," pp. 178-81, argue for attribution of all but no. 1 here to Gelasius of Caesarea, pointing to (a) the parallel between no. 2 and Photius's description (Bibl. cod. 89) of Gelasius of Caesarea's prologue, and (b) parallels with Theophanes' Chronography, especially because Theophanes cites material from no. 3 here explicitly as from Gelasius, and (c) parallels with the text of "Gelasius of Cyzicus." Cf. also Pouderon, "Le témoignage," pp. 11-12. — Greek text printed by De Boor, "Neue Fragmente," pp. 182-4; newly edited by Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes, pp. 158-9, but omitting the material before no. 2, and with a different numeration; Nautin, pp. 174-8, prints Greek text with a French translation.]
Up to this point Eusebius writes.171
1.172 Constantius the Great, the father of Constantine, produced these sons from his two wives: Constantine, son of Helena; Dalmatius; Constantius.
[Diagram—remains of family tree in bottom margin of Barocc. 142 fol. 216r]173
[This first part is on the left-hand side of the page:]
---------------------------------------------
| | | |
Helen wife Constantine Constantius Constans
of Julian
[This part is mid-way between left- and right-hand sides of the page; no connection is indicated with the previous chart:]
/\
Gallus Julian
2.174 Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem, was the maternal uncle of Gelasius of Caesarea, and he himself when he was dying obligated175 Gelasius in writing to [compose] the history of the events after Eusebius and of those about which Eusebius did not write.
3.176 Diocletian and Maximian Herculius both reigned over the Romans together, and with shared counsel they laid aside their royal power and took up again the rank of private individuals; and in the sight of the army they installed as emperors Constantius the father of Constantine, and another Maximian, [also called] Galerius. But when they changed their minds and wished to rule again, they were killed177 by a common decree of the Senate.
4.178 Theotecnus, who was plotting against the Christians in Antioch, entered the cave in which Maximian used to sacrifice to the demons and indeed received oracles. On the basis of a demonic oracle he [i.e., Theotecnus] enjoined on him [i.e., Maximian] the persecution against the Christians. And Maximian, in obedience to this man, rekindled the persecution against us. And he also urged on his fellow-tyrants to do the same, bringing forward the demons' oracle as though it were indeed some great commandment.
5.179 When Diocletian went to war against the usurpers in Alexandria,180 he had Constantine, who was very young, as an ally and counsellor. When he [i.e., Diocletian] saw that he [i.e., Constantine] showed excellence, he was moved with devilish envy and was eager to destroy him by treachery. But God preserved him and returned him safe, after escaping the plot, to his father, who was on the point of death. And in the sight of the army, his father proclaimed him as emperor, giving him many commands on behalf of the Christians, and thus he "fell asleep"181 in peace.
6.182 When Constantius died, the following were left behind as rulers: Constantine the Great administered the territory of his father183—this was from the edge of Europe as far as the Ionian Sea; Maxentius held Rome and [the territory] as far as the Ocean; Severus having died of an illness, the Roman Senate voted Licinius emperor, by way of doing a favor for Constantine, who had made Licinius his brother-in-law through his sister Constantia. And Maximian held sway over the region of the East.
7.184 Licinius, for fear of the emperor Constantine, worked his treachery against us secretly. But later, he drew up his forces against us openly. At that point, Constantine grew angry against Licinius. And after war had occurred between them, Licinius was taken alive in Chrysopolis. He [i.e., Constantine] commanded him [i.e., Licinius] to live quietly in Thessalonica, but when he was plotting rebellion again, and was going to take up arms, he ordered him killed.
Fr. 7.1-2
[Chemical processes for treating copper and iron]
[Attribution to Philip questionable at best]
[For the text, see Berthelot, Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs (Paris, 1888), Livraison [= vol.] 3, Greek text pp. 346-7; French tr. pp. 330-332. (Note that the Greek texts and French translations follow independent page numbering, in each case continuing the numeration of the previous volumes.). — P. Lambeck (Lambecius), Commentatorium de Augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi, nd ed. A. F. Collarius (Vienna, 1780), vol. 6, pp. 406-7, attributed them to Philip of Side on the basis of the mention of a "Philip" (cited by Heyden, p. 228 n. 95), but this seems quite unlikely. Heyden, p. 228, sees a reference to Philip II of Macedon; Berthelot, Fr. tr., p. 331 n. (continued from p. 330), interprets it instead as a reference to a successor of Alexander (e.g., Philip V).]
Fr. 7.1
[5.4 Berthelot]
"Dyeing" of the copper found among the Persians, recorded from the reign of Philip.185
(1) Take the upper thuthia,186 as much as you wish, and pound it finely and sift it with a very fine sieve. Put it into an earthenware vessel, and put on top of it oil of whatever sort you wish, whether common or sesame-oil. Take it up again in your hands; mix the oil with the thuthia and grind it in the earthenware receptacle until the thuthia is saturated with the oil and does not absorb any more of the oil. And when you see that it has absorbed enough, add again and mix in still more of the same oil, until it becomes like mud. And [then] take some of the crimson/palm-paste,187 the red [pigment] called natêph by the Arabs, one-fifth of the amount of thuthia, and place it on top of the previously softened thuthia in the earthenware vessel, after breaking it [i.e., the pigment] up into small pieces—not too many, nor too large. Heat an oven with the most intense fire; put the vessel in the oven; then, cover the opening of the oven with mud until the following day, because the thuthia is going to be burnt and become black. And the next day, take it out, crush it and sift it with a fine sieve.
(2) And when you wish tο dye the above copper—no better is dyed in Persia—take two parts of fine Cyprian copper, and one of the powder that has been prepared with the thuthia beforehand. Break up the copper into very small parts, as many as you can, and mix the powder in with it; put both into a crucible, and use the bellows vigorously, until the copper bubbles up along with the powder. When it bubbles, add further coals, together with much bellows-work, until the two are united together. And if you wish to make sure of the beauty of the color, take an iron implement with a bent end, and pull out [some of the material] with its end, and look at it. If the color is pleasing, stop using the bellows; but if if is not yet pleasing, keep up the bellows-work and add more coal. For the more you use the bellows and coal, the better your material is rendered.
Fr. 7.2
[5.5 Berthelot]
"Dyeing" of the Indian iron, recorded at the same time.
(1) Take 4 pounds of soft iron and cut it up into small pieces. Take bark of the palm-nut—called elileg among the Arabs—15 mil.188 in weight; and also belileg, with the insides similarly cleaned out, that is, the bark alone—4 mil. in weight; and amblag, similarly cleaned out—4 mil.; and of the above-mentioned glass-makers' magnesia (feminine magnesia),189 2 mil. Pound all this together, not too finely, and mix it in with the 4 pounds of iron. Put it into a crucible—and level out the place of the crucible before applying the flames; for if you do not do this, so that it does not move this way and that, there will necessarily be problems in the melting process. Then, after this, add the coals, and heat up the crucible until the iron melts, and the [other] materials are united with it. And the 4 pounds of iron require 100 pounds of coals.
(2) Note that if the iron is quite soft, it does not need the magnesia, but only the other materials. For the magnesia dries it out to excess, and it becomes fragile. But if it is soft, there is need of it [i.e., the magnesia?] alone, so that it is higher. For this accomplishes everything.
(3) This is the first, the royal work, with which they are concerned to this day, and on the basis of which they fashion the "marvelous" swords. It was discovered by the Indians, and was passed on to the Persians, and from them it came to us.
1 This translation was commissioned by Roger Pearse and made public domain 19th March 2011.
2 This ms. represents an unpublished Byzantine world chronicle, the so-called "Ps.-Symeon," running from Adam to A.D. 963. It was a source of George Cedrenus, in whose text this same parallel phrasing appears, ed. Bekker, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1838), p. 12. For Ps.-Symeon and the relationship with Cedrenus, cf. M. Wallraff et al., Iulius Africanus: Chronographiae, GCS n. F. 15 (Berlin, 2007), p. xlvi.
3 Gk. χρόνοι.
4 According to the LXX, Adam was 230 when he begot Seth, by contrast with the MT, which puts his age at 130.
5 Since the details of Adam's chronology do not all agree with an extant canonical or non-canonical account of Adam, Serruys (pp 338-9) posits a lost apocryphal life of Adam as Philip's source.
6 Gk. ἐργάσασθαι.
7 Cf. Jubilees 3.15, 17.
8 Gk. ἀπὸ ὥραν πρώτην [sic].
9 Cf. the time-frame put forward by the Cave of Treasures 5, which puts Adam's formation at the st hour of the th day, his entry into Paradise at the rd hour, Adam and Eve's dishonor at the th hour, and their expulsion at the 9th hour. The timing is not the same, at least in the current state of the text of Bodl. gr. 120, and also contradicts the seven years mentioned in the first part of the note here, but still seems to indicate some relationship. A. Su-Min Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne des trésors(Leuven, 2000), pp. 167-8, further compares the Cave of Treasures time-frame to that of Rabbinic Jewish sources.
10 Gk. ἐργάσασθαι.
11 Wirth prints this first passage, while Serruys ignores it. The explicit turn to Philip of Side makes it less likely that this first passage also derives from Philip.
12 Gk. ἔτη.
13 Either Book 24 of his History, or the 24th volume of the ( st?) Book. Photius (Bibl. cod. 35) says that each of Philip's bibloi contained multiple logoi; Socrates, HE 7.27 calls the smaller divisions tomoi.
14 Gk. διδασκαλεῖον.
15 Athenagoras' work is in fact addressed to Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus) and Commodus.
16 Gk. ὁ ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶνπρεσβευτικός (sc.λόγος); the mss. of Athenagoras' work give it the title πρεσβεία περὶ Χριστιανῶν—translated by Crehan (ACW), for example, as "Embassy."
17 Gk. τῆς Ἀκαδημαϊκῆς σχολῆς προϊστάμενος.
18 Gk. διατριβή.
19 Gk λόγοι.
20 This list does not entirely agree with the previous account—the position of Clement is strangely shifted. It is quite likely that this change is due to a copyist's confusion.
21 Gk. τοῦ εἰς Ἑλλάδα ἀναιρεθέντος;.. Note the unclassical use of the preposition εἰς.
22 Alternatively, following a variant reading (mss. FG): "of the Macedonians."
23 Gk. φόβον ἐκτήσατο πολύν—not that she "had" fear in that she was afraid, but that she "acquired" the (respect and) fear of others.
24 Gk. τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς κατέλαβε. Alternatively, "conquered the Achaeans."
25 Gk. γνῶναι αὐτοὺς ἐφ' ᾧ παρῆσαν.
26 Bratke reconstructs plausible wording after the name "Philip" on the basis of mangled indications in the manuscripts and also the cues apparent in the context: namely, their response to the oracle shows that the oracle has mentioned a woman, and a man from Macedonia; and Aphroditianus' comment in §14 (p. 9) makes clear that a prediction is made that can be taken as referring to "the Macedonian" and to Christ. Bringel, by contrast, marks the words following Philip as a crux, having little confidence in any reconstruction. In connection with this consultation of the oracle, there is a further major textual variant: In a couple of manuscripts, a fairly long sequence of text is either substituted for (ms. Q) or added to the end of (ms. N) the oracular response translated above; this additional text runs roughly as follows [minor discrepancies do exist in the witnesses]: "Late, a certain one will make his way to this much-splintered earth, and without a misstep will become flesh, and by the untiring bounds of divinity he will dissolve the destructive force of incurable passions / sufferings; and ill-will shall arise for this one at the hands of an unbelieving people, and he will be hung up to a height as one condemned to death. And having willingly suffered to bear all these things as well, at death he will be lifted up into eternal life." The supposed prophecy of Christ is much clearer in this additional text, which may well have been added specifically to alleviate the annoyace of a too-obscure prophecy.
27 Gk ἀήττητοι καιροὶ; Bringel translates, "un empire invincible," but it is not clear why.
28 Cf. Lampe s.v. ἀνακόλουθος.
29 Bringel's text, with an additional word: "against the gods, who cannot be insulted."
30 Bringel's text, using other variants: "a leader having the unconquerable power of the unconquerable God."
31 Gk. ἁλῶν; the reading and its significance are debatable.
32 This motif is odd; perhaps, as Bringel suggests, some magical / imprecatory power is envisaged.
33 Gk. εὐάρεστοι; Bringel's text has ἄρευστοι ("unchanging").
34 The participle is in the nominative case—grammatically, then, it ought to be describing the gods; but the context seems to require a reference to the envoys and the occasion for their consultations. Some emendation is likely required.
35 Bringel cites the Diccionario griego-español s.v. δῆλος for the LXX use of the word as a masc. noun connected with divination; cf. also (e.g.) Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, s.v.
36 Gk. πυθμεύει; the sense is obscure. Lampe (s.v.) glosses the verb as to "give the base of a series" and arguest that its appearance in this context implies that with this third oracle, the full understanding is revealed. Bringel translates, "va jusqu'au fond" ("goes to the bottom"—i.e., of the tripod / cauldron, to fetch the oracles).
37 Gk. παρείς; Bringel, printing a different variant (σπαρείς), translates, "une fois engendré" ("having once been engendered"—or "sown")
38 The letters of Μαρία, when interpreted as numerals, add up to 152.
39 Gk. πᾶν ἱερὸν ὑμῶν σέβας. Bringel translates, "toute votre majesté sacrée" ("all your holy majesty").
40 Adapted from ANF translation (attributed to Julius Africanus).
41 Gk. ἐκ Περσίδος ἐγνώσθη. Alternatively, this could be translated, "became known [to others] from Persia."
42ἐν ταῖς χρυσαῖς ἀρκλαρίαις—but this term which from the context must mean "tablets" (cf. πτυχαί a little later) is not attested elsewhere. Bringel points out that an apparently related word, ἄρκλα (= Lat. arca [?]), is found in a number of late texts.
43 The order of the Greek words should mean, "the holy palaces"—but perhaps emendation is in order.
44 Bringel does not include the phrase, "and the priests connected with them," in her text.
45 "them" Bringel.
46 The mss. give several different variants for this name.
47 Lit., "I rejoice with you."
48 Lit., "rejoice with."
49 ANF translates a variant reading: "How was she able...?"
50 Urania means "heavenly / celestial." The re-naming seems to play on perceived etymological connections between Hera and "earth" or "aër" (i.e., the cloudy, thick lower atmosphere, as opposed to the higher, more rarefied "ether").
51 Pege means "spring," "source," or "stream."
52 Cf. the Tübingen Theosophy, pp. 26-27 Beatrice.
53 Bringel, choosing a variant reading: "You have well said, 'She espoused a carpenter'; for she has a carpenter..."
54 Perhaps the quotation of the "females" continues on to the end of the sentence. In any case, this does not quite reflect what they were reported as saying earlier—"she espoused a carpenter"—unless the variant chosen by Bringel is correct. Bringel translates the last part of the sentence, "mais il ne vient pas de son lit, le charpentier qu'elle met au monde."
55 Bringel, choosing a slightly different variant: "framed...the triple-constructed sky as a roof."
56 I.e., land, sea, and sky (ANF). Bringel translates, "ce firmament à trois habitations."
57 Bringel excludes this last sentence from her text.
58 Or, "statue." Gk. στήλη.
59 Gk. Ἥλιος.
60 Bringel points out the parallel shining gem-stone described by Lucian, De dea Syria 32.
61 Bringel, following a different variant: "The king, having watched this, gave orders..."
62 The name Karia is obscure; one textual variant at the next occurrence is "Makaria" (blessed), which might make more sense.
63 Variant reading: "kings."
64 I.e. (as Bringel points out by citing the parallel of Pilate's words at Jn. 19.22), he is saying that their time of producing apparitions and of ruling is over.
65 Gk. μὴ θροβάδει. This is Bringel's text and interpretation. Bratke's text, Μιθροβάδῃ, would introduce quite inexplicably a Mithrobades—the preceding verb then could be interpreted either as "they said" or "I said" or "Say" [to Mithrobades], with the following words possibly still part of Dionysus' speech.
66 As Bringel points out here, the last few phrases allude to Gen. 1.26, and Christ's work in restoring the "image" of God in human beings, and leading them to the "likeness" of God.
67 I.e., the Son of God ("heaven's boast") is now to be born on earth.
68 Bringel has a slightly different text, and further imagines a supplement so that the first part of this sentence refers to the birth of Christ, not (as I have read it) to the prior birth of Pege (i.e., Mary). She translates as follows: "Karia a le bonheur de voir Source mettre un enfant au monde à Bethléem. Source a la grâce d'être désirée par le ciel et de concevoir le bienfait de la grâce"—I have underlined the supplement she adds.
69 Bringel's reading, quite possibly correct, omits τὰ ἡμέτερα ("our affairs") and leaves the verb "is / are withering" to be connected to Judaea.
70 Instead of δέσποινα ("mistress"), Bringel's text gives οὐρανία ("Urania / heavenly").
71 Bringel's text, slightly more logically, here reads "sent [some] magi of those under his dominion."
72 Here Bringel's text reads "by madness" (ὑπὸ μανίας) rather than "by an oracle" (ὑπὸ μαντείας).
73 Or rather: "lest a revolt rise [against them] toward us"—that is, fearing that the people of Judaea would revolt against the high priests and convert to the good news of the Messiah announced by the magi.
74 Or, "we spoke to him until he was thoroughly disturbed."
75 I.e., the voice heard in §22, or the divine manifestations and their interpretations more generally. Bringel interprets this sentence differently: "Il fut consacré dans le temple, où il se trouve avec l'inscription que voici."
76 See Bringel ad loc. for a long exploration of the term διοπετής and its significance.
77 Bringel's text reads: "gold, frankincense, and myrrh."
78 Gk. ἀντάρτας. The "rebels" would be rebellious / sinful humans in general.
79 Bringel's text: "a certain terrifying angel."
80 It is not clear whether this sentence is part of the report of the magi or part of the enclosing speech.
81 Bringel's text includes a sentence at this point to conclude the account of the magi, and a further phrase to introduce Aphroditianus' final comments: "And those are the marvellous narrations of the inspired magi. And [here are] mine." I would argue, however, that the account of the magi should be understood to have concluded either after the words, "Christ has become our Savior"—or perhaps even after the statement, "we reported all that we had seen in Jerusalem." The address to "you," who are slandering and opposing Christ, seems to revert to Aphroditianus' situation.
82 Gk. ἱστόρησε.
83 Gk. ἀπετέλει.
84 Here I follow Bringel's text; Bratke's has an infinitive instead of a finite verb.
85 Bringel: "Pertelaeus."
86 Gk. τὸ θέλειν τὸ πρακτικὸν ἑτοιμότερον.
87 Lit., "in those at the end"—it is unclear whether "those at the end" refers to particular "laws" in his collection (so Bringel), or generically to the end of his text.
88 Gk. ἐπικρατεῖ καὶ στερεὰ ταῦτα. The text and precise sense are unclear. Bringel, with different accentuation, interprets the first word as a dative noun that could be interpreted as the addressee: "to Epicrates"; as a verb [with Bratke], the basic idea is to "prevail over"—which I am rendering, "demonstrates his mastery" since there is no object specified.
89 Here, Bringel's text has the additional word "progeny."
90 This phrase is a sentence fragment added to the rest; I suspect that some words have fallen out in transmission.
91 Gk. Ἕλληνες. Note that the first example is Cyrus the Great of Persia—demonstrating clearly that for the author, "Hellenes" is not an ethnic term but refers to pagans.
92 In the reading preferred by Bringel, the bodyguards are not female.
93 This name (unknown otherwise) is the reading favored by Bringel; Bratke does not choose between ms. variants here, printing simply an ellipsis in the middle of the name: C...encrates. Wirth, p. 200, reports Noeldeke's suggestion that the Cynic Crates may be the distant inspiration for this reference.
94 Gk. παροξυσμοί; the precise reference is obscure.
95ἕνεκεν τῶν γενειῶν De Boor; γενειῶν must be emended either to γενῶν ("families / family lines") or to γενεῶν ("generations"). The former is a term that appears repeatedly in the excerpts from the letter provided by Eusebius, and so is more likely correct.
96 Cf. Eus., HE 1.7, where Eusebius gives an excerpt from this treatment; also, 6.31.3. For a modern reconstruction / edition of the letter, see W. Reichardt, Die Briefe des Sextus Julius Africanus an Aristides und Origenes, TU 34.3 (Leipzig, 1909).
97 Cf. Lk. 24.13, 18.
98 On the embassy and the change of status of Emmaus, including Africanus' role in promoting it, see Eus., Chron. II (2: 178-9 Schoene); Jerome, De viris illustribus 63.
99 Some garbling has taken place here: Candace was the name / title for the Ethiopian queen, but the articles used here in Greek with both "Candace" and "Ethiopian" are masculine rather than feminine; and of course, according to Acts 8.26-38, Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch who was a court official [δυνάστης] of Candace, not Candace herself.
100 Gk. πρῶτον—this could be masc. (conflicting with Candace) again, or neut. (adverbial).
101 Cf. Eus., HE 2.1.1, 13—verbal parallel especially in this last sentence.
102 Gk. στόμα λαμπάδων. Fancifully, from Hebrew: pî + lapîd(îm). Cf. Wutz, Onomastica Sacra, p. 444 / Lagarde, Onomastica Sacra, p. 203: στόμα χειρῶν ἢ στόμα λαμπάδος; Wutz, p. 444 / Lagarde, p. 223: στόμα λαμπάδων. For all the "etymologies" in this fragment, cf. also Wutz, p. 35.
103 Gk. ἀπατωμένη. Wutz, p. 35, notes that this is not paralleled in the onomastic material, and suggests a Syriac "etymological" connection.
104 Gk. δερματίνη δόξα. Fancifully, from Hebrew: 'ôr + hôd. Cf. Wutz, p. 475 / Lagarde, p. 205: δερμάτινος ἐπίδοξα; Wutz, p. 475 / Lagarde, p. 217: δέρματος δόξα. Cf. also Wutz, p. 477.
105 De Boor, p. 181, notes the appearance of these three names together at Mt. 14.3 (and Mk. 6.17), which appears to imply that the etymologies formed part of a comment on that passage.
106 Cf. Eus., HE 3.17-20, including an excerpt from Hegesippus provided by Eusebius.
107 The names do not appear in the Hegesippus extract supplied by Eusebius, and they might be expected to if Hegesippus gave them at all, since the beginning of the passage quoted seems to be introducing them to the reader for the first time. For the names, cf. the late Index Apostolorum attributed to Epiphanius, and edited by T. Schermann, Prophetarum vitae fabulosae (Leipzig, 1907), p. 113. (Note also that a version of this, although not including this specific information, appears in Cod. Barocc. 142, fol. 284—see sigla in Schermann, p. 107.)
108 Cf. Eus., HE 3.25 (also 3.24.17-18), although this text does not closely preserve Eusebius' classification. Eusebius records doubts about the 2 and 3 John, not (as here apparently) 1 John; for the "Gospel of the Hebrews" he notes disagreement.
109 These others are listed together by Origen, Hom. in Luc. 1.
110 Cf. Eus., HE 3.30; the reference to Clement's rd book is just earlier, at HE 3.29.1, and the passages of Clement summarized here from Eusebius' quotations are Strom. 3.6.52.5-53.1 and 7.11.63.3-64.1. For Paul, Clement cites 1 Cor. 9.5 and appears to be interpreting Phil. 4.3, where Paul addresses a σύζυγος, as an address to his wife.
111 Or "book" (Gk. λόγος); but from Jerome, De viris illustribus 76, this work appears to have been homilies on Hosea orally delivered at Easter; and Photius (Bibl. cod. 119) speaks of 12 λόγοι (of which he particularly mentions the one "on the Pascha and Hosea") contained in one βιβλίον.
112 Gk. διά (Cf. Sophocles, Lexicon s.v. διά 3).
113 Gk. λόγια, a derivative of λόγος that usually means "oracles." Eusebius here describes these as five books "of explanation of the Lord's logia."
114 The precise point of the word "after" (Gk. μετά) is not entirely clear here, although it does at least serve to put Aristion and John in a separate category from the first list.
115 Cf. Eus., HE 3.39 (with some information possibly also taken from 3.25).
116 Cf. Eus., HE 3.39.9; but the fragment here provides some slightly different information.
117 De Boor, pp. 171-2, suggests that this refers to the same incident that Eusebius mentions as an (anonymous) resurrection in HE 3.39.9. Menahem: The Greek spelling of the name is Μαναϊμ(ος)—cf. 2 Kgs [4 Kgdms] 15.14-16, on the reign of Menahem, spelled Μαναημ in LXX, but Μαναϊμ in Byzantine chroniclers. Harnack, in an editorial note to De Boor here, suggests a connection with the Μαναην who appears in Acts 13.1 as one of the "prophets and teachers" of Antioch (NRSV transliterates this name as Manaen).
118 This is apparently a reference to Hom. in 1 Cor. 40.2 [PG 61: 349, NPNF translation online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xli.html]; Chrysostom cites Old Testament resurrections and Lazarus, as well as those "at the time of the cross."
119 De Boor notes the necessary correction from the ms. reading "Antioch."
120 Cf. Eus., HE 7.32.26.
121 De Boor notes, "wie Nr. 5"—i.e., this sentence repeats the wording of no. 5 above (and so De Boor did not print the whole sentence again).
122 Gk. ἐμαρτύρησαν.
123 Cf. Eus., VC 1.25, which Hansen, "Eine fingierte Ansprache," p. 195, considers to be a source that Philip is expanding here.
124 Hansen (in app.) suggests that this is possibly to be read as a reference to Sauromatae.
125 I.e., the Franci.
126 Dan. 10.13; Jos. 5.14.
127 Jos. 10.11.
128 I.e., in the poems--or perhaps "among them," meaning "among the pagans."
129 This part of the sentence appears to be corrupt; I have translated in accordance with my sense of the point, which would require a correction of τινες to τινας, τινας to τισί, in addition to the deletion of αὐτοῖς endorsed by Hansen and the use of the variant ἐξιστόρησαν not adopted by Hansen.
130 With this phrase, the anonymous compiler turns from "Rufinus" (mentioned at 1.17) to another source.
131 Cf. Eus., HE 10.9.4, which is the source of some of the wording here.
132 Hansen, "Eine fingierte Ansprache," p. 194 n. 45, notes the ironic use of this word.
133 At this point the anonymous compiler adds a letter from Theodoret, HE 1.20, to confirm the account (cf. Hansen, "Eine fingierte Ansprache," p. 194).
134 From this point, Hansen identifies a fragment of Gelasius of Caesarea in addition to the suggestion that the account is derived from Philip.
135 Hansen, "Eine fingierte Ansprache," p. 195, identifies the following as one (or two) of a whole series of possible "additions" to the basic framework of 2.1.12 - 2.6.1. In general here, the anonymous compiler is following Gelasius of Caesarea, but Hansen considers some passages likely to have come instead from Philip; in the passage translated here, he points out the style (asyndetic lists of qualities) and the attribution to unspecified "writings." Needless to say, the precise boundaries of what belongs to Philip here are difficult to draw; I have put into italics material that Hansen definitely does not attribute to Philip's voice, but some of the rest may not be Philip's either.
136 I.e., bishop.
137 This account, including its rhetorically composed oration, which is most unlikely to reflect Constantine's actual words on this occations, is quite different from Eusebius' contemporary account (Life of Constantine 3.11-12).
138 I.e., the assembled bishops.
139 While the narration leading up to this section comes from Gelasius of Caesarea, the introduction to the speech is modelled on the description given by Theodoret, HE 1.7.11; the words preserved verbatim are printed in italics.
140κεφάλαιον; the precise reference is obscure.
141 The descriptions of the church building that begin here seem to be a metaphor for the Church as a whole, or rather for the gathering of bishops at the Council of Nicaea; if this latter suggestion is correct, Hansen's emendation, ἡτοίμασε ("he prepared") for the mss. ἤθροισε ("he gathered together") seems unnecessary.
142στέφανοι, sometimes translated "crowns."
143 I have adapted the figure here; literally, "being born" and "growing."
144 I.e., the "fear of the Lord."
145εὐδαιμονία.
146 A modest reference to himself—"mediocrity" as opposed to (e.g.) "majesty" or "highness." Lampe suggests "your humble servant" as a possible equivalent.
147εὐδαιμονεῖν.
148ἀδόκιμος.
149πρόνοια; alternatively, "providence" or "forethought."
150 Variant reading: "speech." Jesus was frequently represented with what seems to be a "magic wand," especially in connection with the Lazarus story, although this does not correspond to the Biblical text (hence the apparent correction represented by the variant reading here); see R. M. Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art (Routledge, 2000), pp. 120-24.
151 I.e., the teaching of Arius, as Hansen, "Eine fingierte Ansprache," p. 188 n. 31, notes.
152 This appears to be a reference to natural phenomena like the movements of the stars.
153 Hansen, following Lietzmann, suggests "the knowledge" as the most likely supplement here.
154τὸ γήινον; perhaps, as Hansen, "Eine fingierte Ansprache," p. 139, suggests, supply "light" rather than the more generic "things."
155 λανθάνουσιν; alternatively, "secretly."
156ἁρμονία.
157προσηγορία. The "name" in question seems to be a reference to sin, but "name" seems inappropriate; one suggested emendation is "wickedness" (πονηρία).
158 I.e., the general political and social life of the Empire.
159 At this point, the text of Theodoret becomes the model; additions to that text are left in plain type, whereas the words taken from Theodoret are in italics.
160 This passage is identified by Heyden, "Christliche Geschichte," p. 227, as a fragment of Philip, but not by Hansen, either in his article, "Eine fingierte Ansprache" or in his edition of the Anonyme Kirchengeschichte.
161 Jer. 17.5.
162 Here, Hansen, "Eine fingierte Ansprache," pp. 195-6, argues that Philip has reworked Gelasius of Caesarea's narrative, whose version can be reconstructed from Rufinus and Georgius Monachus. Especially significant is the conclusion, where there seem to be both a lightly revised version of Gelasius' concluding statement, and then in addition to that a sentence more freely composed, but with elements from Gelasius' statement still visible as the framework of construction. In Hansens' edition of the Anonyme Kirchengeschichte, he indicates in detail which words and phrases he considers to be additions to Gelasius' narrative; in this translation, the additions (by Philip) are in plain type, whereas the originally Gelasian narrative is in italics.
163οὐσία.
164ὑπόστασις.
165 I.e., bishops.
166 Ps. 118119.60.
167 1 Cor. 3.19.
168 1 Cor. 4.20.
169 1 Cor. 2.2.
170 Alternatively, "caused everything to subsist by means of his Logos and the Holy Spirit."
171 This comment (concluding the series of excerpts from Eusebius that precedes it in the mss.) is extant in mss. BV.
172 Extant in ms. B. Nautin, p. 182, suggests that this is originally a reader's marginal note that was later brought into the main text.
173 See facsimile reproduction of this folio in Heyden, plate a. De Boor, "Neue Fragmente," p. 182, considers this to be connected to the account of Constantius' children that appears in the main text, although it is not in close physical proximity.
174 Extant in mss. PB. This note seems to be directly summarized from the prologue of Gelasius of Caesarea's continuation of Eusebius' history (see Photius, Bibl. cod. 89). Cf. Nautin, p. 178.
175κατέκρινεν.
176 Extant in ms. P.
177ἀναιροῦνται.
178 Extant in ms. B.
179 Extant in mss. BV.
180 Lit., "...against those who tyrannized over the Alexandrians."
181 I.e., died.
182 Extant in mss. BV.
183τὴν πατρῴαν διεῖπεν ἀρχήν; lit., "...managed his father's rule / empire."
184 Extant in mss. BP.
185 Alternatively, "from the beginning of Philip"—but the phrase seems to imply a dating formula, and thus a king's reign, as the heading of the following section shows; also, some mss. supply further information: "...Philip of Macedon—such (copper) as is on the gates of the Hagia Sophia"; with a subtitle: "the making of tawny copper."
186 This thuthia is called "upper" in the sense that it has been produced by sublimation to the upper part of the furnace / oven, according to Berthelot, Fr. tr., p. 331 n. 3, identifying the substance as zinc oxide (see the introduction, Livr. 1, pp. 239-40, where this is referred to as [artificially manufactured] cadmia). As Berthelot's note argues, the word thuthia is attested late; along with the mention of the Arabs, it indicates that this portion of text at least was probably written between the th and 11th centuries. (Cf. also introduction, Livr. 1, p. 268.)
187 Gk. ἀπὸ τοῦφοινικοπαστίλλου; Berthelot: "la couleur de palmier." The first element of the word is used both for the palm tree and for red/purple dye. Berthelot suggests that this was a derivative of arsenic, perhaps equivalent to the cobathia red / arsenic sulfide (realgar) which was treated as equivalent to palm-cinders as early as Zosimus' time (see Fr. tr., p. 185; see also the introduction, Livr. 1, pp. 244-5, on cobathia).
188 This abbreviation appears in the Greek text, but Berthelot translates it as "parts," and so it appears not to be a standard unit of measure.
189 Berthelot, p. 332 n. 4, identifies this as "oxyde de fer ou de manganèse"—i.e., so-called "black magnesia" (see the introduction, Livr. 1, pp. 255-6).
This text was commisioned and uploaded by Roger Pearse, 2010. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: anonymous_religionsgesprach.htm
Anonymous, The Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids [Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden / De Gestis in Perside] (2010)
Anonymous, The Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids [Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden / De Gestis in Perside] (2010)
Religious Discussion at the Court of the Sassanids [Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden / De Gestis in Perside]
[Translated by Andrew Eastbourne] 1
Page numbers refer to Bratke's edition2; section numbers refer to Bringel's edition3 (unless otherwise stated, her edition of the "long recension"—pp. 288-494). References to "Bringel's text" normally introduce my own translation of her Greek text, not her (French) translation, and general references to Bringel's comments refer to footnotes ad locc. in her edition.
Fragments of Philip of Side, and probable references to him, are put in boldface here.
[p. 1]
1. When Arrhinatus4 was king of Persia, and second after him was Pasargarus, who held the highest rank of the highest officials in authority, and third was Diocles, who managed the satrapies and provinces,5 and Aphroditianus, holding the rank of "chief cook"6—dialalia abdodedôrou mou toi7—"the authority will judge purely"—there arose a dispute in this land between pagans8 and Christians concerning Dionysarus and Philip, the writers of history. The pagans championed Dionysarus, the Christians, Philip.
2. And when many had been agitated, the King gathered together all the bishops who were in those lands, numbering more than 100,9 and not a few archimandrites;10 [p. 2] among these they urged me also to come along—the only one from Roman territory; for all [these others] were from those regions.
3. And when they had been assembled, the King brought together the Rabbis of the Jews, saying to them: "Since some have said that the fine sayings11 of the pagans preach about Christ, and some dispute this, become judges of the two sides, and tell me the truth accurately.12 For I trust neither pagans nor Christians one-sidedly, when they are speaking in defense of themselves. Therefore, laboriously unfolding every idea in the divine book,13 and devoting all your thoughts to it, neither favoring the one group nor the other, report them to the unconquerable authority of my hands14—knowing that if you are hindered by any other order, I will immediately see to the destruction of you all."15
And they fell down upon the golden pavement at his feet seven times, and said: "Imperial Master, first god of all authority and kingship, grant us space for a defence!"
And he granted it, saying: "Consider the religion which you revere, without partiality to either."
And they said: "Let us not come into evil suspicion, when your hand holds sway over all the land.16 We shall not say anything except what is right for Your Heavenly Divinity to hear. For we are not able to listen to pagans—for they are far from our religion—nor to give heed at all to the murderous and impure Christians, who have become tyrants over the whole human race, and have attacked all the just [commands] of the divine monarchy; they apply all [p. 3] their professions of faith17 to one single man, whom our ancestors rightly determined to destroy; and they treat the one who died as though he were alive, and they call upon the one whom they did not see as though they see him.18 But if it seems good to you, righteous19 masters, make the all-wise and noble Aphroditianus [act as] judge for the two parties."
And immediately the King said: "By Zeus,20 you have uttered inspired speech today!"21 And quickly bringing Aphroditianus, and sending those men [i.e., the Jews] away, he said to him: "Your people22 began the dispute against Philip, the priest23 of the Christians. Therefore, whereas I know that you neither take delight in feasting nor take pleasure in wine, but instead you spurn gatherings of people24 and despise reputation and cast aside money, devoting yourself solely to philosophy, I give you this order: Go yourself alone and respond to the chorus of priests,25 showing all deference to the truth, so that in this matter too the power of our kingship shall be preeminent."
4. But the Jews were putting this man forward as a trick, so that he might trample underfoot the Christians' name. This Aphroditianus was a pagan to whom no one's mouth was able to render an account.26 And there was no small struggle impending for us, so as not to be defeated by this man. For all the hairs [on our heads], if they became mental processes, would not be able to disentangle one simple thought of his.
5. Now then, when before the meeting everyone had been cowering in fear of him, and they were trying to escape from his inarguable stratagems,27 and were lamenting28—before his appearance, I said to the bishops who were with me: "Do you not know that right here, the "un-wise" [art] defeated the "all-wise" art? Have you given yourselves such expectations of being entirely overcome by him? All the wisdom of the Chaldaeans and Babylonians has been overcome by the divine thought of that young man, Daniel.29 [p. 4] Therefore, in imitation of him, let us say: 'There is a God in heaven who reveals deep and hidden things.'30 So let us take along with us Casteleus the senior priest and let us continue entirely undefeated."
6. And after fasting and making prayers of entreaty, we assembled together, along with that man who had grown old in righteousness, Casteleus; and the bishops sealed themselves,31 keeping the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in their minds.
And now, Aphroditianus arrived—he himself having also grown old, being now in his eightieth year—and when he sat down upon a throne of gold, built from priceless stones, since the faces of everyone were bowed to the ground, he recognized that they were in no way able to defend themselves32 before him. And he said to them, having been goaded33 by God: "You peaceful priests, why are you disturbed? I have not come to cause you pain by any means, but rather to encourage you. So the contest can proceed painlessly. Take heart, then, and apply yourselves to the truth correctly, in earnest,34 and you will have victory." And the bishops, hearing this, recovered their wits fully.
7. Irenaeus, the bishop of Basirênê,35 said: "With whom is your God-fearing will disputing? With Dionysarus or with Philip? If you are at odds with Dionysarus, he is yours!36 You ought to be the judge regarding him. But if [you are at odds] with Philip, then we should make a defence in his regard, since he is a Christian."
8. Aphroditianus said: "It is well for you, priest, if you finish as you have begun. For I bear on my lips37 the things [written] by Philip.38 But, so that you will not think that I [p. 5] have made any additions, bring the so-called 'books'39 themselves and read them to the assembly."40
9. Hesiod the bishop said: "And if I bring out a book and you attack it as having been falsified41...?"
Aphroditianus said: "I know,42 if anything has been left out or if anything has been added."
10. And his long-winded book43 was brought, in which "Greek Oracles" were contained.44 And he ordered the boy standing near him to read it: Phdgse distrarek tou ô—"let the one standing beside [me] read."45
But he, not paying heed to the book, quickly declared it (?).46
And he said to him, "Read from the story of Cassander."47 And he read as follows:
11. Cassander died, leaving behind a sister, called Doris; she was the daughter of Pylades, who had been killed in Greece.48 Attalus the king of the Lacedaemonians49 lusted after her; and when they went to bed together, she, having a sword inside [the room], planted it in his heart and took control of the kingdom. And once this had happened, she acquired50 great fear. And his brother Philip went to live in Achaea51 and there taking as wife the sister of Calliopus their general, named Alisbis [p. 6], he was seeking to destroy Doris and her people. And they were afraid. For all the peoples around her, being enamored of her beauty, were helping her. For she would not give herself in marriage to just anyone.
But since they were all afraid of her—for she had attacked many and had destroyed them all—the Achaeans decided at that time to send an embassy to Delphi and to receive an oracle there about this matter. And they, after setting out, asked Euoptia the priestess at the water of the Castalian [spring], for themselves to know the object of their coming.52 She, having tasted the spring water, answered thus: "Philip,, will strike the higher ring that circles everything with his all-powerful arm."53
12. But they, deriding and cursing her, said: "Thrice-accursed one, we asked about a woman; we did not ask about a man who came from Macedonia, did we?" But she said to them that unconquerable times54 had begun to arise; for indeed she herself [i.e., the woman] and that man, and those with him, would vanquish everyone.
And they departed, with insults for the prophetess, and went off to the temple of Athens. And while a priestly cloth was being woven and fine purple was being applied to it, they came with a will and burst in. The priestess, Xanthippe, said to them with a burst of anger: "You have entered here at an evil hour, you reckless and unruly55 ones!"—and they, becoming displeased in turn, mistreated her and said: "You are unworthy of any honor; [p. 8] you are foreign to the priestly disposition—and you are disgracing the purple, which the gods granted to royalty, by which those who wear it possess honor and glory. Stop speaking strange things! Depart from your wineless drunkenness, you arrogant huckster!" But she said to them: "You have brought these charges not against me, but against those who cannot be insulted.56 Nevertheless, receive a secure oracle and go your way: 'A certain youthful man, who is the effectual conception of a mingling bed, having the unconquerable weight of God's unconquerable scale,57 will circle the boundless world like an egg, capturing58 all with his spear.'" But they, blowing on her,59 withdrew, speaking unlawful things against the gods. And they said, "We do ourselves no good, if we do not go to Phoebus Apollo the Great!"
13. And they went to the temple of Apollo and said by way of entreaty: "You victorious and pure well-pleasing60 gods, why do you treat your servants in this way—asking61 to win a womanly war? You throw us into a warlike war! Do not act this way, you immortals, true masters, who have granted to us the greatest material things as gifts; instead, give us clear signs.62 What, then, will happen to us?" And immediately a voice came in invisibly speaking as follows: "The tripod turning a third turn, the prophet is the root;63[p. 9] for [there are] three-fold of these [oracles]; a certain light-bringer, heaven-sent to earth's plain, passing by,64 dwells within matter, forming for himself a body in the womb of a maiden. And her name is twice seventy-six.65 He, demolishing the lordships and every holy object of your reverence,66 will transfer the reward of all glory to the heights of his all-blessed wisdom."
14. Aphroditianus said: "You have pointed out as something impressive—something that escapes my notice, in your view—the fact that [these oracles] have spoken about the Macedonian and about your Christ. But the Macedonian, when he had trodden upon the provinces of the Persians in an untimely fashion, departed from them in a timely fashion, whereas Christ prevailed when he was defeated, and he put the machinations of the plotters to shame.
15. The bishops said: "Your commendable love of wisdom67 has not missed anything pertaining to knowledge. But it68 was in doubt about the oracles [recorded] by Philip. Hence, if there is any truth and benefit contained [in them], share salvation with us, who have fled for refuge to your serenity."
16. Aphroditianus: "You think that I am ignorant of the opinions that have been voiced regarding Christ. But the fact that69 there is not one single voice and one single tongue70—[such that] the people around him are plentiful or that group itself is not divided or at variance with itself, advancing divided opinions itself—while the Jews speak differently about him (for indeed, I have both come into contact with their Scriptures and know yours; and the Scriptures themselves are well-constructed, but those who deal with [p. 10] them are inharmonious)—for this reason, Christian [teachings and arguments] remain implausible to me, hindered as they are by their own disputations—because [the teachers]71 are incoherent and thoughtless."
17. The bishops said: "And what nation does not fight against itself, both in earlier times and now?72 Jews, Samaritans, Greeks who live in religious ignorance,73 and the children of the Buddha [all disagree with themselves / each other (?)].74 For indeed, Jews and Samaritans say that there is a Christ, but he has not yet come; and Greeks even unwillingly have proclaimed the doctrines75 concerning him, exactly as the prophets taught them."
18. Aphroditianus: "But you ought not to disagree, you who are said to rise above every [other] nation! Nevertheless, if you will bear with me, I will tell you countless further quotes76 about Christ. But the fact that the subject of him is so disputed by his own people leaves me in two minds. And not only that, but so does the fact that his own nation lies with all their might, never allowing truth into their thinking; they commit injustice, love impure unions, and are prone to anger, eager to destroy each other, each one believing as seems best to him, preferring his wishes over tradition—and all this is not characteristic of true religion. Therefore, I patiently urge you to listen to me; and I believe that I both give and receive help. For if I benefit you, then I myself have received a benefit. Indeed, I do not accept the eulogies you make to me: for I am nothing. I hate all that [is said] in order to curry favor, and I reject mere human glory. But if anything aims at truth, I take pleasure in it; if anything aims at righteousness, I rejoice in it; and I am not saying this by way of seeking praise—far be it from me to do anything with a view to pleasing mortal men! But [may I] speak and perform whatever is in accord with the God-pleasing laws. But as for you, noble priests—for I do not call you Christian priests, but ministers of divine power [p. 11]—pay attention to my words, as befits your consecrated status:"
Aphroditianus' Story77
19. Christ was known to Persia78 from the beginning. For nothing escapes the learned jurists of that country, who investigate all things with the utmost care. The facts, therefore, which are inscribed upon the golden tablets,79 and laid up in the royal temples,80 I shall announce—for it is from the temples there, and the priests connected with them,81 that the name of Christ has first been heard of. The temple of Hera, surpassing even the royal palace, which temple King Cyrus, who was knowledgeable in all piety, built, and erected golden and silver statues of the gods in it, and adorned it82 with precious stones—not to digress with a detailed description of that ornamentation...
Now about that time (as the inscribed tablets testify), the king having entered the temple, with the view of getting a dream-interpretation, was addressed by the priest Prupippus83 thus: "I congratulate you,84 master: Hera has conceived."
And the king, smiling, said to him, "Has she who is dead conceived?"
And he said, "Yes, she who was dead has come to life again, and begets life." [p. 12]
20. And the king said, "What is this? Explain it to me."
And he replied, "In truth, master, you have come here at just the right time. For over the whole night the images, both the males and the females, continuously danced, saying to each other, 'Come, let us congratulate85 Hera.' And they said to me, 'Prophet, come forward; congratulate Hera, for she has been loved.' And I said, 'Who was able to be loved86—she who does not exist?' They reply, 'She has come to life again, and is no longer called Hera, but Urania.87 For the mighty Helios has loved her.' Then the females say to the males, disparaging the matter, 'Pege88 is she who was loved; for it was not Hera, was it? She espoused a carpenter.' And the males say, 'She has rightly been called Pege, we admit. But her name is Myria;89 for she bears in her womb, as in the sea, a vessel conveying a myriad. And if she is also [called] Pege, let it be understood thus: This stream of water sends forth a perennial stream of spirit; it contains but a single fish, taken with the hook of divinity, and with its own flesh sustaining the whole world, while it dwells [there] as though in the sea. You have well said, "She has a carpenter"90—but not a carpenter whom she bears from a marriage-bed.91 For this carpenter who is born, the child of the chief carpenter, framed by his most sagacious skill the triple-constructed celestial roof,92 and established by his word this dwelling with its triple habitations.'93 Thus, then, the statues continued to dispute with each other concerning Hera and Pege, and [at length] with one voice they said: 'When the day is brought to completion, we all, male and female, [p. 13] shall know the matter clearly.' Now, therefore, master, tarry for the rest of the day. For the matter shall certainly receive full clarity. For that which has emerged is no common affair."94
21. And when the king remained there and was watching the statues, the harpers of their own accord began to strike their harps, and the Muses began to sing; and all the creatures that were within [the temple], whether quadrupeds or birds (made of silver and gold), were uttering their own characteristic voices. And as the king shuddered, and was filled with great fear—he was about to withdraw, for he could not endure the spontaneous tumult—the priest said to him, "Remain, O King, for the full revelation is at hand which the God of gods has chosen to make plain to us."
22. And when these things had been said, the roof was opened, and a bright star descended and stood above the pillar95 of Pege, and a voice was heard to this effect: "Mistress Pege, the great Sun96 has sent me to make the announcement to you, and at the same time to serve you in your giving birth—as he produces blameless offspring with you, who are becoming mother of the first of all ranks [of being], bride of the single divinity with three names. And the child born without seed is called the Beginning and the End: the beginning of salvation, and the end of destruction."
When this voice had spoken, all the statues fell upon their faces, with Pege alone still standing, on whom also a royal diadem was found to have been fastened, having on its upper side a star set with precious stones of carbuncle and emerald. And up above [i.e., in the sky], the star stood still.97
23. And the king forthwith gave orders98 to bring in all the wise interpreters of signs, as many as were under his dominion. And when the heralds hurried them along with their trumpets, they all assembled in the temple.
And when they saw the star [p. 14] above Pege, and the diadem with the starry stone, and the statues lying on the floor, they said: "O king, a divinely inspired and royal root has risen, bearing the stamp of a heavenly and earthly king. For Pege is the daughter of Karia the Bethlehemite,99 and the diadem is a kingly mark, and the star is a celestial announcement of marvels on the earth. Out of Judah has arisen a kingdom which shall destroy all the memorials of the Jews.100 And the prostration of the gods upon the floor anticipated the end of their honor. For he who comes, being of more ancient dignity, shall shake those who are new in it [i.e., dignity]. Now therefore, O king, send to Jerusalem. For you will find the Son of the Omnipotent God being carried in bodily form in the bodily arms of a woman."
And the star remained above Pege, who has been named Urania, until the magi went forth, and then it went with them.
24. And then, in the depth of evening, Dionysus appeared in the temple, unaccompanied by the satyrs, and said to the statues: "Pege is no longer one of us, but stands far above us, since she gives birth to a human being who was conceived by divine Fortune. O priest Prupippus! What are you doing sitting here? An action, indicated in writing, has proceeded against us, and we are going to be convicted [p. 15] as false by a person in action. The apparitions we produced, we produced; and that which we ruled, we ruled.101 No longer do we give oracular responses. Removed from us is our honour. We have become without honor and glory. There is one, one alone, out of all, who has received again his proper honour."
25. They said: "Do not be disturbed.102 No longer do the Persians exact tribute of earth and air. For he who established these things is at hand, and he brings tribute of actions to him who sent him—he who renews the ancient image, and puts image together with image, and brings the unlike to likeness.103 Heaven rejoices with earth, and earth itself boasts at receiving heaven's boast.104 Things which have not happened above, have happened below. He whom the order of the blessed has not seen, is viewed by the [order of] the miserable. Flame threatens those; dew is present for these. It [was] the good fortune of Karia to give birth to Pege in Bethlehem, and it [is] Pege's grace to become heaven-desired and to conceive grace of grace.105 Judaea has bloomed, and our affairs are withering immediately.106 To Gentiles and foreigners, salvation has come; to the wretched, relief is provided in abundance. Rightly do the women dance, and say, 'Lady Pege, Stream-bearer, you who have become mother of the heavenly light-giver, you cloud that brings the world dew after heat, remember your servants, dear mistress.'"107
26. The king then, without delay, sent the magi under his dominion108 with gifts, with the star showing them the way. And when they returned, they narrated everything to the men of that time—those very things which were also written on leaves of gold, to the following effect:
27. For when we came to Jerusalem, the sign, together with our arrival, [p. 16] disturbed everyone. They say, "What is this? Wise men of the Persians are here, and along with them an appearance of a star?" And the foremost of the Jews asked us what was going to happen, and the reason for our coming. And we said: "He whom you call 'Messiah' has been born." And they were confounded, and dared not oppose us. But they, for their part, said to us, "Justice of Heaven! Tell us what you know." And we said to them: "You have the disease of unbelief; and neither without an oath nor with an oath do you believe, but you follow your own ill-advised intentions. For the Christ, the child of the Most High, has been born, putting an end to of your law and synagogues. And it is for this reason that, struck as it were by a most excellent oracle109 as with a dart, you do not hear with pleasure this name which has come up against you suddenly." And they then, taking counsel together, urged us to accept their gifts, and tell no one such a thing [as the news] from this land [of theirs], lest a revolt rise against us.110 But we said: "We have brought gifts in his honor, with the view of proclaiming those mighty things which have happened in our country on occasion of his birth—and you bid us take your gifts, and conceal the things which have been made known to us by celestial divinity, and neglect the commandments of our own king? Or do you not know what an experience of the Assyrians you once received?" And they became afraid, and after beseeching us repeatedly, they sent us away.
When the one who was ruling over Judaea sent for us [p. 17] and had some converse with us, and asked us questions, we said to him [things] at which he was thoroughly disturbed.111 We departed from him, without giving any greater heed to him than to any worthless person.
28. And we came to that place to which we had been sent, and saw the one who had given birth and the one who had been born, the star indicating to us the lordly babe. And we said to the mother: "What are you called, O renowned mother?" And she says: "Mary, masters." And we said to her: "Where do you come from?" And she said: "From this district—[the district] of the Bethlehemites." "Have you not taken a husband?" She says: "I have only been betrothed, with only pre-nuptial arrangements having been concluded; but my thoughts are divided. For I had no wish at all to come to this [state of affairs]. But while I was giving very little concern to it, at the dawn of a certain Sabbath—at the rising of the sun—an angel straightway appeared to me bringing me the good news of offspring, all of a sudden. And I was disturbed, and cried out, 'Let it not be so to me, Lord, for I do not have a husband.' And he persuaded me to believe, that it was by the will of God that I would have the son." And we said to her: "Mother of mothers, all the gods of the Persians have called you blessed: Your grounds for boasting are great, for you have transcended all women of renown, and you have become manifestly more queenly than all queens."
29. The child, moreover, was seated on the ground, being, as she said, nearly two years old, and having in part the likeness of the one who bore him. For she was small in stature even when holding her head up, and had a delicate body; and she was the color of wheat; and she had her hair bound up with a simple, very beautiful hair-style. And as we had along with [p. 18] us a servant quite skilled in painting, we brought back with us to our country a likeness of them both; and it was placed in the temple in which the oracle was given,112 with the following inscription: "In the heaven-sent113 temple, the power of Persia dedicated this to Zeus Helios, the great God, King Jesus."
And taking the child up, and bearing him in our arms, each of us in turn, we saluted him and worshipped him, and presented to him gold,114 addressing Him thus: "[We give] to you what is your own; we lavish you [with gifts], O powerful one in heaven. Things unordered would be ordered in no way other than by your presence. In no other way could things above be brought into conjunction with things below, but by your descent. Service is not carried out to such a degree, if only a servant is sent, as when the [master] himself is present; neither [can so much be achieved] when the king sends only his satraps to war, as when he is there himself. It was quite fitting for your methods, for you to deal in this manner with the rebels."115
And the child smiled and leaped at our fawning and our words. And when we had bidden the mother farewell, and when she had shown us honor, and we had glorified her as was necessary, we went to the place in which we lodged.
30. And when evening came, there appeared to us someone terrifying and awesome,116 saying: "Get away quickly, lest you fall prey to a plot." And we, in fear, said: "And who is it that is plotting against so august [p. 19] an embassy, O general of God?" And he replied: "Herod—but get up immediately and depart in safety and peace." And we speedily mounted our strong steeds and departed from there in all earnestness; and we reported all that we had seen in Jerusalem.
Behold, then, such great things have we told you regarding Christ; and we know that Christ has become our Savior.
"But you, by your ways, are opposed to him, slandering his pain and suffering all the time. For speaking unworthy things, and doing still more unworthy things, are a mark of hatred.117
31. "As for me, I honor the Sun / Helios, which is beneficial to all, the one that sends out its rays of light; and in the same way, I marvel at Air, which stoutly encompasses our bodies round about, and embellishes the earth with its other natural qualities. [Likewise,] the irresistible Fire, to which all corporeal nature is subjected, the proof more approved than all matter. [Likewise,] Water, the life of mortals—when it is not present, nothing fleshly shall live. And while I honor all these, I honor the one who graciously gave them, the one who stands as First Cause of the universe. He was owed obeisance from the undefiled powers alone, whose thanksgivings are uninterrupted and undivided, whom no other occupation ever dominates, whose attendance on him is unvarying and who worship him in accordance with their very nature. For human beings are known to be worthless, since they are slaves to their own pleasures.
32. And when Aphroditianus had said these things, the entire gathering fell silent, having nothing to answer. But it only said, "Glory to you, O Christ, whose gifts of grace every mouth confesses."118
Aphroditianus said: "There have been Christians [p. 20] indeed, but there have also been pagans,119 who practiced the utmost virtue. King Cyrus had very attractive female bodyguards120 where he slept: he was sharpening his desire, but also correcting it by such trials. He used to say that all glory was worthy of the heavenly power alone. He loved his fellow man so much that there was no poor man or even the least captive in Persian territory, because of his constant bestowing of benefits upon everyone. And Concencrates,121 who was truly a philosopher, possessed one single rough cloak—he lived near the peak of Masgabala, being terribly worn out by the snow and cold; and the wise Neoctetius said to him: 'You will perish, wise man, and die because of the heat and cold.' And he said: 'If I die to those here [on earth], I shall live by my future hope.' He asked: 'What [hope] is that?' And the other said, 'Truly, I am directing my attention to a certain other life, and offering myself myself to it. For the Providence of God will not disregard those who have labored during the day: in the evening it will deem them worthy of reward and rest. Every day I see the heavens and the things of earth that seem good diminishing and decaying. And this takes place because of our "exasperations,"122 which show beforehand that everything here below perishes. But those who have acquired the virtues above do not die, as they are spoken about and answered with eternal remembrance by them.' This man only ate fruit, and drank a little water once a day, not wishing to know anything else [p. 21] of what belongs to the world, [but] practicing death every day. And this is sufficient. And Dichorianus, who published so many things about God, and who used to say that he was nourished by these things, and not by those which harm the body—after preserving impassibility of body and mind for 90 years, while he was dying said: 'Glory to you, righteous Justice, who changed my [mind] regarding what was honorable.' And there are many others of whom the book-lovers know—both Christians and true philosophers. But let us leave off for today, and tomorrow we [will] inquire into the rest. If it is desired by the will of heaven that we come this far, we [will] achieve resolution of further questions in turn."
33. When everyone had departed, some archimandrites accused Aphroditianus to the king of having inclined toward the Christians, pleading on their behalf in everything, and engaging in no discourse about the true religion of the pagans, but instead working contrary to the pagans, conducting his exercise about Christ alone. The king, on the other hand, grew angry at them, and said to them: "You who are called Christians and heads of monasteries, what is your object in unsettling the affairs of the pagans? Why, as monks, are you not at rest?" And immediately Aphroditianus entered and told the king everything. And the king said to him: "In the name of our divinely inspired Fortune, I am in no doubt at all regarding you. For I know your guilelessness and truthfulness; and if only my kingdom had another one like you! But you are doing well in making known the truth to both Christians and pagans. Hence, take these sycophants and cut off their heads!" And Aphroditianus, taking them into his own house, accorded them [p. 22] all possible care, not in any way mistreating them, and [thus] he kept the Christians safe from the plot against them.123
34. The following day, Oricatus124 the foremost of the enchanters came to him and said: "Master of everything under the sun, grant me glory, so that I may preside in this assembly, since I have three mighty acts125 to perform!" And the king said: "Are you trying to rise above the marvellous Aphroditianus?" Oricatus said: "If I do not demonstrate there a power which no one else has demonstrated, persuading them with great signs, then hand me over to be crucified!" But the king did not wish to cause pain to Aphroditianus, and he told him the entire matter. Aphroditianus said: "What he intends to do, he cannot do in the midst of those men, and he [will] fail. But let him act as the king decides." And again, along with others, he troubled [the king], giving assurances to the king that he possessed the ability absolutely to undo the Christians, with all probability. The king said to him: "Go today to my council-chamber, and either persuade or be persuaded; and if you pass through this affair and persuade them without any compulsion, you will be deemed worthy of monuments126—but if, on the contrary, you fail, you will be deprived of possessions and life." And he was sent to the gathering with a letter containing the following words: "The great king, superior to all glory, lord of peoples and tribes and islands, to the priests of the Christians who have assembled together, rejoice!127 I myself rejoice as well. I have sent to you Oricatus, the leader of the [p. 23] enchanters belonging to my kingdom—who will in no way compel you, but will learn either to persuade or to be persuaded. But if he goes too far, he will come to know what the force of kingly power is able to do. And I am sending to you Aphroditianus, who is enthroned with me, for the sake of evaluating the aforementioned [Oricatus], and he will fill up any lack or deficiency. Abanatranête chrô katelloi ter terennatoi—that is to say: 'The heaven-born power has deigned to converse with mortals.'"
35. Oricatus himself, along with others in white robes, came wearing a necklace with three Gorgon-faces128—the figure of three "dignities," he said. When the holy Casteleus, who saw ahead with a prophetic eye, caught sight of him, he said: "This man is here to destroy himself." And when everyone had sat down, the same Oricatus said to the gathering: "We have heard that before now you have honored actions more than words. What then does your wisdom wish either to say or to do?" But everyone was silent, viewing him with displeasure; and he said to them: "If you remain silent, then it is necessary for me to say this—as it were, in accordance with your Scripture: that you should give us a sign or a wonder, or I should give one to you." The bishops, together with the holy Casteleus, said: "It is proper that you, who have put forward and proposed this, should do it first." The same group, again, said: "We do not have the 'dignity' to go after amazing deeds; instead, you yourself, since you are the standard of measurement for such things, display your [p. 24] power, so that we may know whether it really comes from a divine source." And he said: "Straightaway." And taking some clay, he fashioned a falcon and immediately caused it to fly.129 But the holy Casteleus along with the bishops paying attention to it—it straightaway fell, becoming clay again, and shattered. Oricatus said: "Grant me five responses130 whereby I can persuade you that I am a child of gods and everything obeys me as a powerful being." The gathering said: "Very well."
36. Oricatus said: "There are some Ethiopian Indians here, who have come in pursuit of business: I shall make them white quickly with a word." The bishops, along with the holy man, said: "If you know of anything that is a help to you, do it." And having brought the Indians [forward], he said: "I am able to make you white and send you home with many gifts." And they were content with this. And taking a silver dish and putting spring water in it, he called on the forces131 with which he was familiar. And when he had made the incantation, he poured [the water] on the two men by way of finishing [the process]. Immediately their entire bodies were covered with blisters, and their shouts went up to the heavens as they were burned up by the blisters. And he threatened the forces on whom he had called, shrieking at them and growing angry. The gathering, together with the holy man, said to the Ethiopians: "Behold the gifts of Satan!132 But believe in God, and he himself will heal you through water and the Spirit." And they said: "We believe in the God whom you worship, who will revive us in body and in spirit." And immediately they exorcized them—for their affliction was frothing up—and brought them down into the pool, saying: "Now you shall know the power of God and Christ the Savior." And they baptized them.133 And when they came up out of the water, their bodies were found [p. 25] free of any fault.134 And they said to Oricatus: "You afflicted us by means of water, but God healed us by means of water. We are now going to tell our King about the amazing works of the Lord, and the benefits conferred by his soldiers."
37. But Oricatus waited, protesting and saying: "I still have three acts to perform—and by all means, if I suceed in one [of them], I win." And again, the bishops said: "For your own judgment, do what you wish." And he said: "I shall bring Philip the presbyter, concerning whom we are disputing, out of Hades into our midst—he will say that the History does not belong to him." The bishops said: "And again we say to you: At your own risk, do as you will." And taking a brazier filled with coals, he first placed calves upon it, and then also threw wine-bottles into the fire, such that many stepped back so as not to be harmed; but he, bearing staves of walnut, again called upon the familiar names of the demons—while the gathering loudly laughed at him. For they knew that he was going to be refute himself. And indeed, after an interval of time elapsed, and his artifice was being hindered, and he was trying to compel the force to show itself, there came into our midst the appearance of a certain monk, to whom the bishops, along with the holy Casteleus, said: "Where have you been a monk?" Put to shame, it was transformed into a weeping woman, and they, as one, all said: "Whom are you lamenting?" And she said: "The man who brought me here." And the holy man said to her: "Say in the presence of everyone who you are, so that the man who brought you here will not seem to be boasting as though he had contrived some noble action." And she said: "I am an angel; I have been put to shame before you and debased because of the contentiousness of this man alone, who is not able to perform any signs." The gathering, together with Casteleus, said: "Behold! In the third procedure, you fail; and you remain in your failure. So then, since you have been beaten, henceforth give way before the men of God, lest you be destroyed by them." And he said: "I have been defeated three times, but in what remains [p. 26] I believe I will win." Then they say to the demon: "Do you confess that you are a demon, or [do you claim to be] a human being?" And it said: "I am a demon, and I have come here to deceive—if I were permitted to do so." And they breathed upon it and caused it to disappear—and he, on the other hand, would not stop gnashing his teeth and blaspheming.135
38. Oricatus said: "I shall fire up a furnace to a high pitch, and I shall walk into the midst of the fire and then come out." The gathering said: "Do this as your final sign."136 Then Oricatus in his turn said: "A woman has died before the gates. So then, the one in whose name she rises again, this one is a god." And they all rejoiced and were content. And he, for his part, making use of the sweet smell of incense, began to sprinkle the dead woman with the blood of goats." And again, he performed an ox-sacrifice and, snorting loudly,137 said threateningly to the familiar standing next to him: "I give you eight souls; grant me the one soul of the Nazoraean, since I am worn out because of you." And a voice came: "You have adversaries who are defeating you in all respects. Now then, yield to defeat. For the angels of Jesus are standing with swords in opposition to us, along with our138 followers." But he, along with the hundred oxen, slaughtered birds, not at all acting well—and groaning deeply indeed because he had been triumphed over, he said to the bishops: "At this point I will believe in you, so that you may accomplish that for which I have lost esteem."
And the bishops, casting themselves down [to their knees] together with the holy man made their request to God, with toil and humility,139 and standing over the body with one accord, they raised a single voice, saying: "Lord, let impiety not defeat piety, but rather, glorify your name, O God, in the midst of these unbelievers who pay heed to vain things." And when they had finished their prayer, the woman sat up and stood up straight on her feet.
39. And Oricatus said: "By Hera, this power is great! And yet, the perfection [p. 27] of the fifth sign will persuade [you].140 Let the furnace be fired up, and let each person enter there, [trusting] in whichever god he worships, and then the truth of the god141 will be manifest. However, I am going to select whomever of you I wish to enter the fire."
And he chose Se.....tianus,142 bishop of Homobyrrhus. And that man, removing his tunic and clothing himself with the name of Christ, entered the furnace and took his place in the middle, while conversing with those who stood nearby. And the bishops said to Se.....tianus: "Come out, confessor, so that this man too may fulfill his promise." And he came out, having not even taken in any smoke at all." And so, Oricatus, trying not to lose face, went in, and was completely engulfed in flames, along with his clothing—and they143 took him and dragged him out, only half alive. And they prayed over him and healed him. Now then, those who were with him, having seen what had happened, said: "No power of the gods is equal to this power!"
40. And when the king found out about this, he proceeded against all his [i.e., Oricatus'] possessions,144 handing him over to Aphroditianus to be crucified. The latter, however, took him and led him to his house, and after taking care of him suitably for a few days, persuaded the king to receive him. And the king said to him: "I know of no man who has helped an enemy except you!" And he said: "We have learned to give help from the one who gives help to all. For when one does good to one's enemies, the force of enmity will no longer be useful; instead, dear peace will be there, dancing for the sake of everyone."
41. Now then, when the Jewish lawgivers knew that the Christians had won and had been honored in this way, they were bitterly jealous [p. 28] and they approached the king, saying: "Master, heavenly sun, the priests of the Christians are able, if they are willing, to resolve our doubts. So command them to make a decision on what concerns us, together with the divine Aphroditianus. For we are able, since we revere one single God just as they do, to gain insight into the question at issue—whether Christ has already been made manifest." And the king said: "Regarding Christ, hear this without evasion: To those who came before us he did indeed appear, and a heavenly star made publicly known both him and his birth. And people from here brought gifts to him; and we have the image of the mother and the child, housed in the temple of the Heaven-sent.145 Regarding your coming to be in harmony, by Mithras,146 I pray that both parties may be belong to one single religion. But I do not know whether your love of power will allow you to be reconciled. For indeed, from the beginning this [love of power] has cast you down, attacking everyone tyranically."
43. And they answered: "We implore your immortal sovereignty, now that we have come into its presence: We are willing to be persuaded, as we engage with them in discussions which Aphroditianus, your partner in the throne, will hear and [thereby] provide a speedy resolution on every subject."
44. And the king summoned Aphroditianus and said to him: "Indulge your good character by judging between the Jews and Christians. For because of your freedom from falsehood, they all choose you as judge." And he wrote to the bishops a letter running as follows: "I, the king of kings, having the magnificence of the celestial gods, write as follows to the priests of the Christians: Jacob and Pharas, the foremost of the Jews, have asked me to persuade you to have a dialogue with them and to arrive at full assurance regarding Christ,147 whether in fact he has come. Therefore, do not approach them as foreigners, but receive them as parts of your own body, so that they may become fellow-members with you [in one body]. For if this happens, the innermost ill-will will be weakened, [p. 29] and justice and pious simplicity, being glorified, will grant the peace that befits our times. Marthedredela kornakykola peplandereinak148—which is translated: He who administers the heavenly powers has given this command to mortals."
45. Jacob and Pharas, the Jews who were mentioned earlier, came to the gathering along with the guileless Aphroditianus, and when all were seated, Aphroditianus said: "Beloved men, let us not come together with each other in striving and contentiousness, like enemies, but rather become one in purpose and receive the truthful oracles. Therefore, I urge you to interact with each other without rancor."149 Then he says to the Jews: "Tell us without imposture all that is contained in your Law. For I will know if you take away or add anything. So tell us, for what reason have you gathered here?"
46. Jacob and his companions said: "For us, the discussion is about the Christ who is born in Bethlehem: whether he has indeed come."
47. Aphroditianus said: "And how are you inclined, regarding him?" And they answered: "He has yet to come." Aphroditianus said: "When do you think he will be born?" The Jews said: "At the end of time." Aphroditianus said: "And what more is there for him to do, when time is done away with?" The Jews said: "That which your inspired wisdom said—restoring what is done away with."
48. Aphroditianus: "He will restore again what is done away with by his command and will? The story is incoherent. For it has nowhere been said that after the consummation of the world another such structure is to arise. Of this, your own prophet will convince you, saying: 'I shall send to you Elijah the Tishbite before the great day [p. 30] of the Lord comes...without coming, I shall smite the earth utterly.'150 Now then, if this one, whom you expect as Christ [i.e., Messiah], is Elijah, one who is not coming to restore but to smite, then we must also find out this: How is it that he is not called Christ but Elijah?—and is the one who was begotten in Tishbe begotten [also] in Bethlehem, as your ancestors understood the prophet? For the one who said, 'I shall send to you Elijah,' is different from the one who is sent, and since he said, 'Without coming, I shall smite the earth utterly' through that man, he first calls his audience to witness and then does away with this structure [i.e., the earth]. What then? Is Christ's birth then, or before that time? For whom would he151 be pleasing or useful?"
49. The Jews: "Christ and Elijah are two different figures. For our prophet Daniel beheld a stone152 for the king of the Babylonians, and it became a great mountain."
50. Aphroditianus: "You have recklessly refuted153 yourselves, not understanding your own bulwark of protection.154 For this text was brought from Babylon to Persia, and I know it perfectly. It reads as follows: 'And in the days of those kings, the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed'—and [p. 31] 'This [kingdom] shall never be destroyed'—and 'The king saw that a stone was cut without hands from a mountain, and the stone that crushed the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.'155 So after those four kingdoms, the God of heaven raised a kingdom which he promised would be indestructible and without a successor—which is the stone that became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Thus, you have cited this text against yourselves!"
51. The Jews: "What four kingdoms?"
Aphroditianus: "The glorious and renowned ones, which came in succession one after the other: the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians, and the fourth one, the bandit-like one that was difficult to attack, the Macedonian [kingdom]. These [first] three were powerful, and this [fourth] with its rashness has been added to the three. For it grew up after these [first] kingdoms.
The Jews: "We assert that the iron kingdom is that of Augustus and his successors."156
52. Aphroditianus: "Whom did the kingdom of Augustus and the rest pulverize and subdue?157 They both defeated and were defeated. The 'pulverizing' [kingdom] is undefeatable. How do these [i.e., the Romans] subdue anyone, when they themselves all also give tribute and gifts to this kingdom? And you should understand the statement, 'In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom,' to mean that it appeared between them.158 If, then, you believe that there is a Christ, look for him at that point in time, for you will not find him afterwards. For just as your ancestors, keeping hold of their past expectation, missed its proper time, even so will it be with you as well. You should see the prophet's words, 'The stone, which the builders rejected, this has become the head [stone] of the corner,'159 not as still pointing to the future, but as already having taken place.
"Why should I unfold160 the Hebrews' prophecies and not our own? Ophianus [p. 32] Pertillaeus161 spoke in his 'Laws' as follows: 'Oh my! How the Caspian Gate has been adorned—it has received a mountain stone, which hands did not hew out, but rather grace discovered, and narrowed the whole Gate all around by means of it. Not only did it strengthen it, but it also opened it when it had been closed—the stone having become way and door. The door leads to an august door, and the way draws one to a pure way, as all those who see it shout: "Great is the dominion of the gods, whose will for action is more easily realized."'162 And Elibatus, who wrote down innumerable laws, when speaking On Eucles towards the end,163 says, 'A frightful cloud settled upon a mountain and cast a single stone upon the earth, and strengthened all its foundations. And how shall a single stone prevail over the entire [earth]? Did not one God alone create the universe?' And Trachelaphius, speaking Against the Falsely-Named, demonstrates his mastery also in the following solid reasoning:164 'Who deceived those who trust in Dionysus so as to say about him that he, being forever without a beginning, was born from an unravished virgin? They clothe him with another's dignity. For the one without a beginning, being165 of the substance that is forever without beginning, takes hold of mortal substance without receiving it as a violation. For that which he formed, he shall not consider an violation, when he takes it up. There, a virgin—[p. 33] unsullied in her body and having no falsehood in her tongue—supplies virginal flesh; [this process is the] activation of all grace dwelling within [her].166 I marvel at the flux-bound taking hold of the flux-free—knowing this: that some have been deified on account of their promulgation of laws; others, because of their nobility of life and their conspicuous purity in other respects, because of which it is fitting to honor them; but to go after heavenly honors is beyond all audacity and above all blasphemy.'"
53. The Jews: "We are not familiar with these things, Lord, nor do we have them in our knowledge."
Aphroditianus: "With your own prophets, you are not in agreement; your laws, you falsify.167 Produce for us simply your laws concerning women, if indeed you will obey them."
The Jews: "Custom is law. It was established for us, and we are not able to overturn ancestral practices."
Aphroditianus: "I too know that, as you hold fast to your own habits, you do not accept the true religion. For, as you safeguard your own glory, you do not subject yourselves to the glory of your God."
54. The Jews: "What, then, is your command? Are we to become Christians and fall into heresies?"
Aphroditianus: "So you are not acting as heresiarchs in living by your own customs? But when the bishops themselves are sitting [nearby], why should I wish to give an account of them—in particular when having a discussion with you, who appear to magnify yourselves by your own defeat?"
The Jews said: "Let the crowd of bishops speak to us! For we know that we will not be at a loss before them."
55. The bishops: "You have done well to come. We do not stand apart from the God who said, 'Take heart, for I have defeated the world.'168"
The bishops, again: "We shall set before them a challenge which shall by all means vanquish them."
The Jews: "Propose it with boldness!"
56. The bishops: "In Jeremiah, he says: 'This is our God; there shall not be reckoned any other in addition to him. He searched out every path of knowledge and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. After this, [p. 34] he appeared upon the earth and lived with humans.'169"
57. Aphroditianus: "What can Jacob and Pharas, the Rabbis of the priests,170 say in answer to this?"
The Jews: "It is fitting for them to make use of one other witness, as the Law says."
58. The bishops: "To whom was it said, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet?'171"
The Jews: "Christ sits at the right hand of God, until he makes his timely arrival—which he promised through the prophets."
59. The bishops: "To the one who is sitting, he says, 'Sit at my right hand'? And with whom were the enemies at enmity? With the one who was not yet there? Indeed, the word 'sit,' which he says, refers to his going back up from earth to the heavens and sitting, as before, above his enemies—so that you are under the feet of his nation,172 being trampled until the last hour."
The Jews: "You too should by all means expect to be trampled at the proper time."
60. The bishops: "After unjustly trampling, you are justly trampled. Hence, what will happen to you is just." The bishops, again: "As for the time which you say is coming upon you—it is approaching, quite terrible to see; and with it, both you and the deceiver in whom you trust at that time will be handed over to the eternal embrace of fire. Nevertheless, we put before you your own witnesses, who understood Christ's presence in the flesh. For indeed, you also have what we are going to say to you in your records:173 Your ancestors (who had suffered grave defeat and were recalling the defeat as an unconquerable victory) at that time commanded that no one possess or even look for these things, so that diligence would not procure knowledge for the many. But we say these things to those who know—even if you are compelled by your custom to conceal the truth. Did you not hear about the magi who crossed over from here to there, [p. 35] led by divine prophecy, in connection with whom your leaders at the time met with Herod and told him where [the Messiah] was [to be] born,174 such that Herod became jealous of the kingdom that had sprouted, and committed such a huge slaughter of children? Wasn't John the Baptist of Jewish ancestry?—to whom you sent people to ask whether he was the Messiah, and he said, 'I am not'; but he pointed him out and said, 'This is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'"175 Futhermore, [what about] Nicodemus, your ruler, and Nathanael and Joseph from Arimathaea, and Bizes and Alexander, who dined with him at the marriage of Simon of Galilee, where he turned the water into wine?176 [What about] the elders who were sent by those very men on an embassy on behalf of the centurion's servant—that he trouble himself on account of his salvation177—they said: 'For he is worthy that you provide this for him; for indeed, he loves our people and he himself built the synagogue for us'? Basilicus178 the proconsul, the brother of Jairus the leader of the synagogue, whose son he made well?179 This man's brother, Jairus, who implored him [p. 36] and raised his daughter from the dead?180 Caiaphas, who counselled that a single man should die 'and the whole nation not perish'?181 Your own children182 who shout, 'Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,' 'King of Israel'? The disciple Judas, with whom you settled thirty pieces of silver, so that he would betray him to you? The soldiers, to whom you gave silver so that they would say, 'His disciples came at night and stole him away while we were sleeping'?183 Josephus your own writer of history, who spoke about Christ, who was demonstrated to be a righteous and good man by divine grace, by means of signs and wonders, one who bestowed benefits on many?184 And as many other things as are recorded, which we do not bring forward now?"
61. The Jews: "We crucified a certain man, but not the Messiah."
Aphroditianus: "Who was it that you crucified?"
And they said: "A certain man who said that he was God, not indeed the Messiah."
Aphroditianus: "You crucified, in short, the one you say was a man, the son of Mary?"
They said: "Yes."
62. Aphroditianus: "And why did you crucify him?"
"Because he said that he was God."
"And for this reason," he said, "he was killed?"
They said: "Yes."
63. Aphroditianus: "And which of those who claimed to be God have been killed, in all times? But this one, by contrast, did more good, and healed people."
The bishops: "In reference to whom did they, according to the prophet David, 'divide my garments amongst themselves, and cast lots for my clothes'185?"
But they were silent. [p. 37]
The bishops: "Concerning whom did Moses say, 'You will see your life suspended before your eyes, and you shall surely not believe'186?"
64. Jacob and Pharas said: "Truly, a great mistake has occurred, even should those of our nation recoil from us in horror ten thousand times over. For as the hierophants187 proclaimed beforehand vinegar and gall and division of garments, we did these things because of great blindness, so that his blood would come upon the nation and the events would prove true. For, carried away by envy of his signs and wonders, which he did before them, they hurried to destroy him (because everyone followed him afterwards), so that the nation would stand firm—and not only did it not stand firm, but we were even handed over to multiple scatterings and we sang the song of the Lord in a strange land because of our power-hungry teachers at that time, whose minds Satan had blinded."
65. The bishops: "We urge, Lord, that all this be reported back to the divine hearing."188
Aphroditianus: "It shall be so reported. Dastikon labokétras; autíka pithígrisab lestrin189—which means, We shall immediately make it known." And he went off and made it all known to the king. And the king rejoiced, as did those under his rule, at the uprightness of Aphroditianus.
66. And now the rest of the Jews, and their leaders, learning of this, rose up against these two, Jacob and Pharas, and cast them out of the synagogue, saying to them: "You have shamed us since you have become advocates for the Christians; you have begun to be Christians, you have scorned your ancestors, you have dissolved the Law. You have learned, in short, to worship a human being." And straightway they went off to Mithrobades the son of Arrhinatus, agreeing to pay him 30 centenaria,190 [p. 38] so that those men would not lead them any longer, but instead be [cast] out of the priestly rank. But Arrhinatus said to his son: "Why do you want money for such a reason, as though the Persian kingdom is in need? Count up its wealth: All the treasures of the Medes and Bactrians, the Scythians and Elymaeans and Semiramites, are in your hands. And you pay attention to this paltry sum, especially when it is provided for the sake of breaking the Law? Stand aside from this, child. Let the priests act in accordance with their consciences."
67. Jacob and Pharas, when they found out what had been said, left and assembled all their households and their friends and those who were diligent for the truth, and they divided their people, such that their part was more than half. And in the other part were Simon and Barnaes and Scillas (this last had converted from paganism). And Jacob's party implored Aphroditianus that they should have a decree not to be subject to any attack from the authorities—and "we [will] defend ourselves also with the justification speeches that are available to us."191 And the king did accordingly. [p. 39] Arríkês exaktoraklés—which means, "I order each [group] to plead their cause."
68. On the next day, both came in and did obeisance to Aphroditianus and the bishops; and they were commanded to sit down, the two groups separately, as they ought to do.192 And when they had sat down, Aphroditianus said to the bishops: "Now the controversy is not between us,193 but between these people. Therefore, I urge you not to interrupt this debate, so that they themselves may persuade themselves. For if you stand in opposition, they themselves too [will] become more vigorous in opposition, and the audience-chamber [will] be thrown into confusion—and for such a thing to happen is especially contrary to your dignity."
The bishops: "As you command us, O pure and distinguished man, so shall we do."
69. Aphroditianus: "It is permitted to you, Simon and Barnaes and Scillas, to speak, if you have any speech of justification to make regarding your own Law. For subsequently, after this it will remain to ask also about your accusation of your teachers."
70. Simon and his party: "Your august and celestial will knows, as does that of the God-beloved priests here, that we all worship one single God and that God is the father of countless glories.194 Thus, each one worships him in accordance with his view of God's glory."
71. Aphroditianus said: "God neither had nor will have his glories divided. For since he is one, he also has a single, firm-standing glory, which everyone ought to know. For if he is the father of countless glories / opinions, which of them should one cling to, or how could one judge which of them one should grasp? If the glories are divided, then the one who is glorified is also divided."
72. Simon's party, again: "We implore your gentle and calm kindness not to inveigh against us [p. 40] in this way. For you have trained yourself with great diligence, and we have no great resources for speaking to you. But speak to us rather in a way that we can understand."
73. Jacob and Pharas: "Our dispute, surely, is not about the glory of God, but about Christ the Nazoraean, whom your ancestors195—for [they are not] our [ancestors any more]196—killed out of envy. For since you cannot bear the shame of this envy,197 you reject the whole thing, so that you are not condemned. This is the one about whom David said, 'The Lord said to me: You are my son; today I have begotten you,'198 and so on; and 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,' down to the words, 'For this reason, God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions';199 and 'The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner';200 and 'Behold! a stone was cut without hands from a mountain, and the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole world';201 and 'Behold! I place in Zion a corner-foundation-stone, choice and precious; and the one who believes in it shall be saved';202 and 'Behold! the young woman shall conceive and bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel';203 and 'He was led like a lamb to slaughter'204 and the rest; and 'Behold! there was coming with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man, and he proceeded as far as the Ancient of Days, and honor and kingship were presented to him, and all the peoples shall serve him. His kingdom is perpetual and his authority is for generations and further.'205 All these things, and the others, were said about Christ, whom your self-condemned ancestors crucified—and he rose again and is sitting with his holy Father in the unsullied heavens."
74. Simon and his party: "And why did you not say these things earlier, [p. 41] but instead you began to put forward such teachings by virtue of your antipathy."
75. Jacob and Pharas said: "Antipathy is able to procure good and profitable resources. And as our ancestral God knows, we kept all these things in mind and we condemned those who killed him—and we concealed the truth because of the dignity we possessed. And yet, we began to be Christians in our heart. Therefore, behold! we have come to the stage of completion with a good pretext. For indeed, even then, while because of our fear we preserved our outward appearance, we were different in our minds."
76. Aphroditianus: "The human being is unsettled, by virtue of both its own cogitations and those that come in from outside, and it inclines to many different things; one will not attain the truth in its entirety through falsehood, nor will one find uprightness through its opposite. And even if someone comes across piety, how will he remain in it? Hence, both parties here should accomplish what is pleasing to them by their own examination."
77. Jacob's party said: "We know that Christ has come from heaven and we belong to his faith, no longer wishing to have a Jewish mindset."
78. Simon and the others: "The nation will not accept you even if you want them to. For how could they keep with them those who are against them?"
Aphroditianus: "Do you then cast aside your teachers, if they choose to speak the truth?"
Simon: "Neither shall they be at peace any longer with us, nor we with them; for we are at variance with each other and have become each other's enemies."
79. Aphroditianus: "Enough! (For this was his oath.) Your affairs are still at the stage of words, and you are bereft of all action. For I know that those people, who are agitated over action, are a chosen people, being in touch with heavenly things in a heavenly manner, and not boasting in a word only but strengthened by an eternal subject for boasting. [p. 42]
80. "I shall, however, present to you an example equal to the first.206 I once learned of a woman, a shepherdess, in the settlement of the Arigbanes. One Coatus, son of Coatus, fell in love with her and sent her gifts, so that she would come to an agreement with him. But she, seeing the gifts, laughed and said to the messenger, pointing to her sheep: 'Behold my gifts and my children, from which I am nourished by divine grace.' And he came away to her and with splendid promises he urged her to accept him. She said to him: 'Shall I defile the undefiled cloak which grace has given to me?' Coatus said: 'Miserable girl, this law has been established from above for the propagation of the race.' The shepherdess: 'A law has been established for me not to acquire more than I have.' After much pleading to no effect, he ordered that she be starved to death. And so, on the third day, when she was about to expire, she uttered cheerful words as follows: 'O heavenly Father of your genuine children, O unsullied bridegroom of those who are in the bloom of beauty, I come to you, thrice-desired Lord, giving back to you without complaint that which you gave to me—virginity, forgiveness of sins, an existence without property, a truthful tongue, a heart unacquainted with wickedness—ever intent on the hope that is to come, which I have honored and whose joys I am now by all means going to meet.' And thus she expired. [p. 43] His father, learning this, ordered that he be hung head-downwards on a tall post in the middle of the city, so as to be eaten by birds.
81. "And now, I speak to everyone regarding Christ. That which has happened already has happened. And as regards Philip the history-writer: I met him in Amida and in Ostra.207 And as regards all the pagans and Christians and Jews: We boast in a name only. And so, brothers, whether you live as Christians or live as Jews, do not destroy the common bond of peace. Let us honor each other with love, and strive after the uninterrupted good things of heaven; and let us hate the division of opposites. Embrace each other, everyone, with a view to being brought to unity by divine grace."208
82. And the man received grace to persuade both parties to be reconciled with each other, as the party of Simon and the others cast itself at the feet of the party of Jacob, asking them not to abandon their ancient friendship. But worship [of God should proceed] as any individual wished, with sincere love remaining [between all]. And after bidding each other farewell, as they ought, and kissing the bishops' feet, giving thanks to God, praising the king at length, and saying the Alleluia in Hebrew together, they departed from each other. And Jacob, Pharas, and 60 [other] souls were baptized. But the others remained in the section [p. 44] of Simon, and they were called "Christianomerites."209 Aphroditianus urged both to honor Providence, because "this [i.e., Providence] has greatly honored us."
83.210 Nakenátare. Rophóes. Meroréktaloi sisinnérôtoi. Medidókalla. Auxontêtora211—which means, "The absolute authority orders this to be stored away on the tablets212 for their own witnesses213 and for those who wish to make exact copies." Arrhenatus, Baukogegédras; Pasargarus, Lexribonátus; Diocles, Bazeas; Aphroditianus, Meïmathlos; command, decision, success, judgment. The authoritative power of the four approved with knowledge the matters so judged. Naburicês, Mithrobadês, Tertulus, members214 of the gubernatorial class and the corresponding [military] command and satrapal [rank]—whose orders were published and made known to the farthest reaches of the Babylarchy.215 Let the agreements be published in both forms, as approved mutually. [p. 45]
84. This Philip was a presbyter and synkellos of John, the bishop of Constantinople; he divided the whole [of history] into stages—magnificently, such that not one of the wise writers of history of all time is comparable to him. And the same presbyter recounted216 that the day on which the star appeared in the temple—that same day, every year, until the Lord was taken up [into heaven], all the statues would produce217 their characteristic utterance, and so that entire city there was transfixed, beholding the great marvels and the yearly appearance of the star.
*
85. And it is amazing how Aphroditianus, who was nominally a pagan but in fact behaved as a Christian, surpassed the presbyter Philip in saying great things about Christ.
And Dorus the Jew, the advocate of his own slanderous nation, said that the king conducted a competition in the temple, which had never taken place—and the statues have under their feet invisible "reed-nuts,"218 and the craftsmen who operate these lie down secretly in them, and artfully contrive the particular voice of each form. And opposite these there stand women whom they call Th*****ae,219 singing, and by virtue of the technicians, the blocks of stone by their clever artifices defeat the living women. But this same thing [is true] in the case of [them] all. For he says that the reputation [of these marvels] advances in this way through these. And to those who read this it should be clear to see, whether that [interpretation] seems true.
1 This translation was commissioned by Roger Pearse and made public domain 19th March 2011.
2 E. Bratke, Das sogenannte Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden, TU 19 (n. F. 4) a. Leipzig, 1899.
3 Pauline Bringel, Une polémique religieuse à la cour perse: le De gestis in Perside. Histoire du texte, édition critique et traduction (diss. Sorbonne, 2007).
4 Bringel selects a different variant: Arrhenatus—she suggests that it is meant to be seen as derived from Gk. ἄρρην ("male"). This character, like the majority of the characters in this story, seems to be entirely fictional, although Bratke cites an apocryphal list of Persian kings in cod. Paris. 1775 as a parallel.
5 Alternatively, "armed forces" (cf. Bringel's translation, "l'armée"); Gk. στρατηγίαι.
6 Cf. Nabuzaradan in 2 Kgs. [4 Kgdms] 25—in effect, as Bringel points out, the highest functionary in the state.
7 At a number of points, the text offers a sequence of non-Greek words--allegedly, the original language of official utterances (i.e., Persian, or pseudo-Persian). Here, the presence of recognizable Greek words is suspicious (διαλαλιά; μου; τοι), as is the fact that the apparent "translation" is not introduced explicitly as such. Bringel does not include this particular sequence in her text.
8 "Pagans" here and elsewhere in this text is used to translate Gk. Ἕλληνες (originally "Greeks," but by the time period of this text, very commonly used as generic term for "pagans").
9 Bringel points out that this number is roughly correct for the church in th-cen. Persia.
10 I.e., leaders of monasteries, or abbots.
11 Gk. εὐγλωττίαι, following Bringel. Bringel selects the reading εὐγλωττίας over γλώσσας (Bratke), and translates, "les propos éloquents."
12 Gk. τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀριβῶς μοι εἴπατε (Bratke); Bringel prints a different variant: τὴν ἀκρίβειάν μοι εἴπατε.
13 Bringel's text reads somewhat differently: "...unfolding every Law-learned [νομομαθής] book" (Bringel translates, "Feuilletez...tout livre traitant de la Loi," but notes the fact that the adjective is otherwise only used of people).
14 Bringel's text, quite a bit more simply: "...report them to me."
15 Gk. πάντων ὑμῶν τὴν ἀπώλειαν αὐθωρὶ ποιήσω; Bringel's Greek text is quite different here, although the purport is about the same: πάντας ὑμᾶς ἀναιρῶ.
16 Bringel's text does not include any of the material marked here with a dotted underline.
17 Gk. τὰ ὡμολογημένα; see Lampe, s.v. ὁμολογέω 1(a).
18 Bringel's text does not include any of the material marked here with a dotted underline.
19 Gk. ἄχραντοι. Bringel translates, "intègre."
20 But anomalous acc. Δίαν rather than Δία.
21 Bringel's text does not include this speech.
22 Bringel rejects the reading οἱ σοὶ, on the assumption that σοὶ is a dative of the personal pronoun, and emends to οὗτοι. I take it rather as the possessive adjective, in which case it seems to make sense.
23 As Bringel points out here, "priest" (Gk. ἱερεύς) is frequently used as a synonym of "bishop."
24 Alternatively, "[sexual] unions" (Bringel: "unions charnels"); Gk. συνουσίαι.
25 Here again Bringel chooses a different reading from Bratke.
26 I.e., no one could successfully argue against him.
27 Gk....εἰς τὸ φυγεῖν ὄντων τὰς ἀλόγους αὐτοῦ μηχανὰς...
28 So Lampe, s.v. οἰκτείρω. Bringel does not include this phrase in her text.
29 Bratke's text omits this name; it may be that the name did not appear in the original, but the allusion to the character of Daniel would be present regardless.
30 Dan. 2.28, with some wording from the similar phrase in 2.22.
31 I.e., "crossed themselves"; Gk. κατεσφραγίσαντο.
32 Gk. προσρύεσθαι; Bringel translates, "se défendre."
33 Bringel's text, slightly differently: "as though having been goaded..."
34 Alternatively, "have confidence in the truth, then, and apply yourselves correctly to the matter..."
35 Bringel's text does not include this designation of place.
36 I.e., "like you, he is a pagan."
37 Gk. ἐπὶ στόματος...φέρω. Bringel translates: "Je connais par coeur..."
38 Gk. τὰ παρὰ Φιλίππου. Bringel prints a different variant, τὰ περὶ Φιλίππου, and translates accordingly: "ce qui concerne Philippe" ("the [facts?] concerning Philip"). The context, however, seems to require a reference to Philip's text here, not to information regarding Philip.
39 Gk. τὰ καλούμενα βιβλία; as Bringel points out, the phrase implies that the word "book(s)" was understood as part of the title of the work in question; cf. "book" in the description of the work in §10.
40 The verbs here are plural.
41 Gk. παραφθαρέντι.
42 Lit., "I have in knowledge." The idea seems to be, "I know it well enough to detect any tampering"; as Bringel translates, "Je le connais assez pour savoir s'il y est fait quelque omission ou quelque ajout."
43 Lampe, s.v. περιαγωγικός, citing only this passage, glosses the word as "prolix." Bringel interprets the word as another indication of the title—Περιαγωγή—which could have various implications. Lampe's interpretation chimes in with Photius' judgment on Philip of Side's wordy and digressive style, but a negative characterization of the book does seem odd at this point in the narrative. Bringel points out other works whose titles include the root ἄγω, and suggests possibilities such as "guide" or "cycle" for the meaning of this as a title.
44 As Bringel points out, this may imply that "Greek Oracles" was the title of one section of Philip's work.
45 Bringel's text does not include this "Persian" sentence and the translation thereof.
46 With the negative particle, as in Bratke's text, the sequence is obscure; perhaps, as Bringel suggests, the idea would be that Aphroditianus does not need any further examination of the book to be able to point out the portion he wishes to hear. Bringel's text, however, does not include the negative here; she translates, "Celui-ci tourna son attention vers le livre et commença aussitôt à le lire."
47 Gk. ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ περὶ Κασάνδρου.
48 Gk. τοῦ εἰς Ἑλλάδα ἀναιρεθέντος. Note the unclassical use of the preposition εἰς.
49 Alternatively, following a variant reading (mss. FG): "of the Macedonians."
50 Gk. φόβον ἐκτήσατο πολύν—not that she "had" fear in that she was afraid, but that she "acquired" the (respect and) fear of others.
51 Gk. τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς κατέλαβε. Alternatively, "conquered the Achaeans."
52 Gk. γνῶναι αὐτοὺς ἐφ' ᾧ παρῆσαν.
53 Bratke reconstructs plausible wording after the name "Philip" on the basis of mangled indications in the manuscripts and also the cues apparent in the context: namely, their response to the oracle shows that the oracle has mentioned a woman, and a man from Macedonia; and Aphroditianus' comment in §14 (p. 9) makes clear that a prediction is made that can be taken as referring to "the Macedonian" and to Christ. Bringel, by contrast, marks the words following Philip as a crux, having little confidence in any reconstruction. In connection with this consultation of the oracle, there is a further major textual variant: In a couple of manuscripts, a fairly long sequence of text is either substituted for (ms. Q) or added to the end of (ms. N) the oracular response translated above; this additional text runs roughly as follows [minor discrepancies do exist in the witnesses]: "Late, a certain one will make his way to this much-splintered earth, and without a misstep will become flesh, and by the untiring bounds of divinity he will dissolve the destructive force of incurable passions / sufferings; and ill-will shall arise for this one at the hands of an unbelieving people, and he will be hung up to a height as one condemned to death. And having willingly suffered to bear all these things as well, at death he will be lifted up into eternal life." The supposed prophecy of Christ is much clearer in this additional text, which may well have been added specifically to alleviate the annoyace of a too-obscure prophecy.
54 Gk. ἀήττητοι καιροὶ; Bringel translates, "un empire invincible," but it is not clear why.
55 Cf. Lampe s.v. ἀνακόλουθος.
56 Bringel's text, with an additional word: "against the gods, who cannot be insulted."
57 Bringel's text, using other variants: "a leader having the unconquerable power of the unconquerable God."
58 Gk. ἁλῶν; the reading and its significance are debatable.
59 This motif is odd; perhaps, as Bringel suggests, some magical / imprecatory power is envisaged.
60 Gk. εὐάρεστοι; Bringel's text has ἄρευστοι ("unchanging").
61 The participle is in the nominative case—grammatically, then, it ought to be describing the gods; but the context seems to require a reference to the envoys and the occasion for their consultations. Some emendation is likely required.
62 Bringel cites the Diccionario griego-español s.v. δῆλος for the LXX use of the word as a masc. noun connected with divination; cf. also (e.g.) Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, s.v.
63 Gk. πυθμεύει; the sense is obscure. Lampe (s.v.) glosses the verb as to "give the base of a series" and arguest that its appearance in this context implies that with this third oracle, the full understanding is revealed. Bringel translates, "va jusqu'au fond" ("goes to the bottom"—i.e., of the tripod / cauldron, to fetch the oracles).
64 Gk. παρείς; Bringel, printing a different variant (σπαρείς), translates, "une fois engendré" ("having once been engendered"—or "sown")
65 The letters of Μαρία, when interpreted as numerals, add up to 152.
66 Gk. πᾶν ἱερὸν ὑμῶν σέβας. Bringel translates, "toute votre majesté sacrée" ("all your holy majesty").
67 Gk. φιλοσοφία. Here the phrase doubles as a kind of honorific address: "Your Philosophy" (parallel to phrases like "Your Majesty" for a monarch) is a paraphrase for "you"—hence, "it was in doubt" is equivalent to "you were in doubt."
68 I.e., "your love of wisdom."
69 Here Bringel chooses a different reading: διὰ τὸ εἶναι ("because of the fact that...") rather than τὸ εἶναι. This makes the overall architecture of this sprawling sentence marginally better: "for this reason" a few lines later then reiterates / reinforces the logic of the preposition διά.
70 Cf. Gen. 11.1.
71 There is an unexpected switch to a masc. participle here (hence "teachers" rather than "teachings").
72 Gk. ἐκ πρὶν (Bratke) / πρώην (Bringel) καὶ δεῦρο.
73 Gk. ἀπειροθρήσκως; Lampe, s.v., renders this "without experience of true religion"; cf. Bringel, "sans expérience de la religion." An alternative interpretation is possible: "with boundless religiosity."
74 Something appears to be missing in this sentence. Bringel's text is slightly expanded at the beginning of this sentence, with an explicit reference to disagreement, but still does not quite sit comfortably; and it omits any reference to Buddhists: "Jews fight against Samaritans; Greeks likewise who live without experience of religion" [cf. previous footnote for this adverb].
75 Gk. δόξαι.
76 Gk. χρήσεις; Bringel translates "oracles."
77 Adapted from ANF translation (attributed to Julius Africanus).
78 Gk. ἐκ Περσίδος ἐγνώσθη. Alternatively, this could be translated, "became known [to others] from Persia."
79ἐν ταῖς χρυσαῖς ἀρκλαρίαις—but this term which from the context must mean "tablets" (cf. πτυχαί a little later) is not attested elsewhere. Bringel points out that an apparently related word, ἄρκλα (= Lat. arca [?]), is found in a number of late texts.
80 The order of the Greek words should mean, "the holy palaces"—but perhaps emendation is in order.
81 Bringel does not include the phrase, "and the priests connected with them," in her text.
82 "them" Bringel.
83 The mss. give several different variants for this name.
84 Lit., "I rejoice with you."
85 Lit., "rejoice with."
86 ANF translates a variant reading: "How was she able...?"
87 Urania means "heavenly / celestial." The re-naming seems to play on perceived etymological connections between Hera and "earth" or "aër" (i.e., the cloudy, thick lower atmosphere, as opposed to the higher, more rarefied "ether").
88 Pege means "spring," "source," or "stream."
89 Cf. the Tübingen Theosophy, pp. 26-27 Beatrice.
90 Bringel, choosing a variant reading: "You have well said, 'She espoused a carpenter'; for she has a carpenter..."
91 Perhaps the quotation of the "females" continues on to the end of the sentence. In any case, this does not quite reflect what they were reported as saying earlier—"she espoused a carpenter"—unless the variant chosen by Bringel is correct. Bringel translates the last part of the sentence, "mais il ne vient pas de son lit, le charpentier qu'elle met au monde."
92 Bringel, choosing a slightly different variant: "framed...the triple-constructed sky as a roof."
93 I.e., land, sea, and sky (ANF). Bringel translates, "ce firmament à trois habitations."
94 Bringel excludes this last sentence from her text.
95 Or, "statue." Gk. στήλη.
96 Gk. Ἥλιος.
97 Bringel points out the parallel shining gem-stone described by Lucian, De dea Syria 32.
98 Bringel, following a different variant: "The king, having watched this, gave orders..."
99 The name Karia is obscure; one textual variant at the next occurrence is "Makaria" (blessed), which might make more sense.
100 Variant reading: "kings."
101 I.e. (as Bringel points out by citing the parallel of Pilate's words at Jn. 19.22), he is saying that their time of producing apparitions and of ruling is over.
102 Gk. μὴ θροβάδει. This is Bringel's text and interpretation. Bratke's text, Μιθροβάδῃ, would introduce quite inexplicably a Mithrobades—the preceding verb then could be interpreted either as "they said" or "I said" or "Say" [to Mithrobades], with the following words possibly still part of Dionysus' speech.
103 As Bringel points out here, the last few phrases allude to Gen. 1.26, and Christ's work in restoring the "image" of God in human beings, and leading them to the "likeness" of God.
104 I.e., the Son of God ("heaven's boast") is now to be born on earth.
105 Bringel has a slightly different text, and further imagines a supplement so that the first part of this sentence refers to the birth of Christ, not (as I have read it) to the prior birth of Pege (i.e., Mary). She translates as follows: "Karia a le bonheur de voir Source mettre un enfant au monde à Bethléem. Source a la grâce d'être désirée par le ciel et de concevoir le bienfait de la grâce"—I have underlined the supplement she adds.
106 Bringel's reading, quite possibly correct, omits τὰ ἡμέτερα ("our affairs") and leaves the verb "is / are withering" to be connected to Judaea.
107 Instead of δέσποινα ("mistress"), Bringel's text gives οὐρανία ("Urania / heavenly").
108 Bringel's text, slightly more logically, here reads "sent [some] magi of those under his dominion."
109 Here Bringel's text reads "by madness" (ὑπὸ μανίας) rather than "by an oracle" (ὑπὸ μαντείας).
110 Or rather: "lest a revolt rise [against them] toward us"—that is, fearing that the people of Judaea would revolt against the high priests and convert to the good news of the Messiah announced by the magi.
111 Or, "we spoke to him until he was thoroughly disturbed."
112 I.e., the voice heard in §22, or the divine manifestations and their interpretations more generally. Bringel interprets this sentence differently: "Il fut consacré dans le temple, où il se trouve avec l'inscription que voici."
113 See Bringel ad loc. for a long exploration of the term διοπετής and its significance.
114 Bringel's text reads: "gold, frankincense, and myrrh."
115 Gk. ἀντάρτας. The "rebels" would be rebellious / sinful humans in general.
116 Bringel's text: "a certain terrifying angel."
117 Bringel's text includes a sentence at this point to conclude the account of the magi, and a further phrase to introduce Aphroditianus' final comments: "And those are the marvellous narrations of the inspired magi. And [here are] mine." I would argue, however, that the account of the magi should be understood to have concluded either after the words, "Christ has become our Savior"—or perhaps even after the statement, "we reported all that we had seen in Jerusalem." The address to "you," who are slandering and opposing Christ, seems to revert to Aphroditianus' situation.
118 Bringel's text: "...Christ, to whom every mouth acknowledges / gives thanks."
119 Gk. Ἕλληνες. Note that the first example is Cyrus the Great of Persia—demonstrating clearly that for the author, "Hellenes" is not an ethnic term but refers to pagans.
120 In the reading preferred by Bringel, the bodyguards are not female.
121 This name (unknown otherwise) is the reading favored by Bringel; Bratke does not choose between ms. variants here, printing simply an ellipsis in the middle of the name: C...encrates. Wirth, p. 200, reports Noeldeke's suggestion that the Cynic Crates may be the distant inspiration for this reference.
122 Gk. παροξυσμοί; the precise reference is obscure.
123 At this point in the text, Bratke includes a few words which he seems to view as another example of "Persian": drô kai telo.
124 Alternatively, with the Greek variant spelling chosen by Bringel, "Horicatus."
125 Gk. ἀνδρεῖα.
126 Gk. στηλῶν ἀξιοῦσαι. Bringel's text, following an alternate reading (τιμῶν ἀξιοῦσαι): "...worthy of honors."
127 I.e., "greetings." The normal Greek salutation is the imperative, "rejoice!"
128 Gk. καθεμάτιον...τρίγοργον. Bringel selects a different reading: ἱμάτιον...τρίγωνον ("a triangular cloak").
129 Gk. ἀνεπέτασεν; this ought to mean "opened" but the context seems to require the sense indicated.
130 Gk. λύσεις.
131 Here, Bringel's text has additionally: "of demons."
132 Here, Bringel's text includes a further sentence: "They have not helped you at all."
133 Here, Bringel's text has additionally: "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
134 Here Bringel's text has additionally: "and white."
135 As Bringel suggests, it seems likely that accidental transposition of material has occurred here: probably, the interaction with the demon here originally appeared before the references to his failure in the third trial.
136 Here Bringel's text has the additional words: "For if you go in there, you shall by all means not come out."
137 As a parallel to this nasal gesture in the context of pagan cult, Bringel cites Sophronius of Jerusalem, Mir. Cyr. et Joh. 31, tr. J. Gascou (Paris, 2006); cf. also Lampe s.v.
138 The Greek text does not specify "our" followers, which however seems the most likely reference in context.
139 Bringel's text adds, "of heart."
140 Bringel's text, somewhat differently: "By Hera and her great power, if the perfection of the fifth sign does not persuade me, I am not [i.e., will not be] persuaded."
141 Bringel's text: "the truth of the true god."
142 The mss. variants here cause Bratke to despair of finding the correct reading. Bringel's text gives the name as Sechthrantianus.
143 In Bringel's text, the bishops are explicitly the subject here.
144 Gk. κατὰ...πάσης τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ἐχώρησεν. For the verb, Bringel reads ἐχώρισε, and translates, "confisqua toute sa richesse" ("confiscated all his wealth").
145 Cf. 29 above: the "heaven-sent temple"—emend the previous?
146 Here Bringel's text has additionally: "I take joy in this and..."
147 Alternatively, "the Messiah."
148 Bringel's text reads: Masthe dre delakornakykoêarerêande roinason.
149 Gk. ἀλύπως; i.e., without causing (or receiving) pain.
150 Mal. 3.22-23 LXX [= 4.5-6 MT]. The text, however, skips a number of words and presents the variant reading "coming" (ἐλθών) rather than "I come and..." (ἔλθω καὶ)—which licenses the unusual interpretation of the verse, as Bringel explains, following the Latin translation of Anastasius—which is cited by Bratke in his apparatus as β2: non veniens percutiam terram totam. With the standard text, μή introduces a negative purpose clause ("so that I will not come and smite the earth"); with the variant, μή simply modifies the participle and Elijah is understood as the instrument of God's destruction of the world ("not coming, I will smite").
151 Bringel's text has an additional "then" here.
152 Gk. λίθον αὐτόν—perhaps the second word has demonstrative force as frequently in later Greek: "that stone."
153 Bringel's text: "You are...refuting."
154 Gk. πρόβλημα.
155 For the first two quotations, see Dan. 2.44; for the third, see Dan. 2.34-35.
156 Bringel's text does not include the phrase, "and his successors."
157 Cf. Dan. 2.34, 44-45.
158 Bringel interprets this to mean "between the Macedonian rule and the Roman rule"—i.e., Christ's birth was under Herod, before Judaea was directly administered by the Romans, but after the remnants of Alexander's empire had disappeared.
159 Ps. 118.22.
160 Here I follow Bringel's text; Bratke's has an infinitive instead of a finite verb.
161 Bringel: "Pertelaeus."
162 Gk. τὸ θέλειν τὸ πρακτικὸν ἑτοιμότερον.
163 Lit., "in those at the end"—it is unclear whether "those at the end" refers to particular "laws" in his collection (so Bringel), or generically to the end of his text.
164 Gk. ἐπικρατεῖ καὶ στερεὰ ταῦτα. The text and precise sense are unclear. Bringel, with different accentuation, interprets the first word as a dative noun that could be interpreted as the addressee: "to Epicrates"; as a verb [with Bratke], the basic idea is to "prevail over"—which I am rendering, "demonstrates his mastery" since there is no object specified.
165 Here, Bringel's text has the additional word "progeny."
166 This phrase is a sentence fragment added to the rest; I suspect that some words have fallen out in transmission.
167 Gk. παραγράφεσθε.
168 Jn. 16.33.
169 Ba. 3.36-38.
170 Bringel's text: "of the Jews."
171 Ps. 110.1.
172 Bringel's text: "of the Christian tribe."
173 Gk. ἐν ὑπομνήμασι.
174 Gk. εἶπαν τὸ "ποῦ γεννᾶται." Bringel's text additionally includes Χριστός as the subject of the question; but Bringel interprets this as direct quotation of the leaders ("...said, 'Where is the Christ born?'"). I understand it as an indirect question; they provide the answer to the question actually posed by Herod, in keeping with the Biblical text (Mt. 2.4-5).
175 Jn. 1.21, 29-30.
176 For the apparent use of apocryphal traditions on the wedding at Cana here, cf. Bratke, pp. 219ff.
177 The connection of this phrase with the context is unclear; also, note that the verb ("trouble himself") appears in Lk. 7.6, paired with a negative: "Lord, do not trouble yourself further"—this partial parallel perhaps indicates a deeper corruption in the present passage.
178 Gk. βασιλικός; alternatively, "the royal official."
179 Jn. 4.46ff.
180 Mk. 5.22-23, 35-43.
181 Jn. 11.49-50.
182 Here the grammatical sequence seems to come loose from its moorings: "your children" is an expression in the accusative case (and indeed, "Judas" and "the soldiers" in the subsequent sentences are introduced in the dative case), whereas the previous figures mentioned have all been nominative [i.e., the subjects of the respective questions—were they not all Jews?]. Now, therefore, the implied supplement seems to be "consider" or "pay attention to" the next-listed characters.
183 Mt. 28.12-13.
184 Cf. Josephus, AJ 18.3; for this form of the testimonium Flavianum, cf. John Malalas, Chronographia (ed. Thurn), p. 187.26, cited by Bringel and Bratke.
185 Ps. 2122.1918.
186 Deut. 28.66.
187 Originally, this term refers to initiatory priests (who "show holy things") in the Eleusinian mysteries; here, it is a reference to the Hebrew prophets.
188 I.e., to the Persian king.
189 Bringel's version of the "Persian" words is somewhat different, although it includes the same Greek word αὐτίκα ("immediately, straightway") in the midst of otherwise non-Greek material.
190 A centenarium would be a unit of "a hundred" (usually understood as a Byzantine measure of 100 pounds of gold).
191 The precise import of this sentence is obscure. Bringel translates, "Jacob et les siens firent appel à Aphroditien pour avoir un sauf-conduit leur garantissant qu'ils n'auraient pas à subir quelque attaque de la part du pouvoir. 'Et nous nous protégerons par nous-mêmes et par les justifications qui sont à notre disposition.'"
192 Bringel's text does not include the last part of the sentence (from "the two groups" to the end).
193 Gk. ἡμῶν—lit., "the controversy is not ours." Bringel instead reads ὑμῶν ("yours," but mistakenly translating "de notre ressort"; this seems to be a misprint for "de votre ressort") on the grounds that Aphroditianus does not fully identify himself with the Christians; but the pronoun need not be understood in that way, even if "ours" is the correct reading—rather, by "our" controversy, Aphroditianus could easily refer to his discussion with the Christian bishops.
194 The Gk. word δόξα, translated here and in the next sentences for the most part as "glory," can also mean "opinion" (as in compounds such as "ortho-dox"). Hence, these sentences can equally be read as meaning that God is the "father of countless opinions" and everyone worships in accordance with his view of the "opinion one holds about God." So Bringel translates throughout, but the wordplay depends on both meanings remaining available.
195 Here Bringel's text has the additional parenthetic phrase: "Would that they had never been born!"
196 I.e., since they have now embraced Christianity, they have also renounced their Jewish ancestors.
197 Bringel's text: "murder" (reading φόνου rather than φθόνου).
198 Ps. 2.7; cf. Heb. 1.5.
199 Ps. 4445.7-8; cf. Heb. 1.8-9.
200 Ps. 117118.22.
201 Dan. 2.34-35.
202 Isa. 28.16; cf. Rom. 9.33; 10.11.
203 Isa. 7.14; note the use of the Gk. νεᾶνις (with Aquila etc.) rather than παρθένος ("virgin"—the LXX reading).
204 Isa. 53.7.
205 Dan. 7.13-14.
206 It is not clear which "first" example is meant here.
207 Bringel here cites E. Honigmann, "Philippus of Side and His Christian History," in Patristic Studies (Rome, 1953), pp. 90-91, for the idea that these details were meant to tie in with details of Philip of Side's history—that is, that Philip of Side mentioned such a meeting, and presumably also said something about a controversy between himself and Dionysarus (cf. §1 above).
208 Bringel's text: "...everyone, as the grace above asks of you."
209 I.e., "partakers in Christianity." Bringel's text: "Christianomerists" (reading Χριστιανομεριστάς rather than Χριστιανομερίτας, Bratke's reading). In favor of Bringel's reading would be the clear reflection of a verb stem, μεριζ-, denoting "division" (thus, "dividers of Christianity") and thus working well with the narration of the establishment of a sect. Neither term is attested elsewhere.
210 Here, the text includes what seems to present itself as the official decree concluding these discussions. In the next sentence, each name appears with another word, perhaps meant to be taken as an official title.
211 As usual, Bringel's text of the "Persian" is slightly different.
212 Cf. §19 above.
213 Bringel's text: "as a testimony."
214 Lit., "sons."
215 I.e., the area whose capital was Babylon. (?)
216 Gk. ἱστόρησε.
217 Gk. ἀπετέλει.
218 Gk. καλαμιοκάρυα. Bringel chooses the variant καλαμισκάρια, interpreting it to mean "little pipes"; in either case, some sort of tubes through which the technicians supposedly produced the voice of the statues is clearly envisioned.
219 Bratke does not decide among the variant readings here (including Tharaglinae, Thyagrilae); Bringel chooses Thyariglae.
This text was commissioned by Roger Pearse, 2010. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_genesis.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Genesis (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Genesis (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME THE PRESBYTER ON THE PENTATEUCH
I have received the desired letters of my Desiderius, who in a foretelling of things to happen has obtained with Daniel a certain name [see Vulgate Daniel 9.23: quia vir desideriorum es tu, "for you are a man of desires"], beseeching that I might hand over to our hearers a translation of the Pentateuch in the Latin tongue from the Hebrew words. Certainly a dangerous work, open to the barkings of detractors, who accuse me of insult to the Seventy to prepare a new interpretation from the old ones, thus approving ability (or "genius") like wine. As has very often been testified by me, I, for my part, am able to offer a portion in the Tabernacle of God, without the riches (or "abilities") of one being damaged by the poverties of others.
But that I may have dared, the effort of Origen provoked me, who mixed the translation of Theodotion to the ancient edition, with asterisk and obelus, that is, star and spit, a work distinguishing everything, while he either makes to shine those things which were previously lacking, or he slays and pierces through everything superfluous. And especially by the authority of the Evangelists and the Apostles, in which we read many things from the Old Testament which are not found in our books, as it is (with): "Out of Egypt I have called My Son," and "For He shall be called a Nazarene," and "They will look on Him Whom they have pierced," and "Rivers of living waters shall flow from his belly," and "Things which no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has arisen in the heart of man, which God has prepared for those loving Him," and many others which are desiring a proper context (or "book" [Jerome uses a Greek word here: συνταγμα]).
Therefore let us ask them where these are written, and when they are unable to say, we may produce them from the Hebrew books. The first witness is in Hosea, the second in Isaiah, the third in Zechariah, the fourth in Proverbs, the fifth is also in Isaiah, of which many are ignorant, the follies of apocrypha being followed, preferring Iberian dirges to authentic books.
The cause of the error is not for me to explain. The Jews say it was done wisely in deliberation, so Ptolemy, the worshipper of one god, might not yet discover a double divinity with the Hebrews; he made them (do so) chiefly for this reason, because he was seen to fall into the dogma of Plato. Accordingly, wherever anything sacred in Scripture is witnessed of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, they are either translated otherwise, or they have passed over all in silence, so they might both satisfy the king, and might not divulge the secret of the Faith.
And I don't know who was the first author to construct with his lying the seventy cells in Alexandria, into which were divided those who wrote, with Aristeas the champion [another Greek word: υπερασπιστης] of the same Ptolemy, and many after the time of Josephus having reported no such thing, but rather (for them) to have gathered in groups, writing in one basilica, (and) not to have prophesied.
For it is one thing to be a seer, another to be an interpreter. In that one the Spirit predicts things to come; in this one by his learning and abundance of words he translates those things he has understood. Unless Tullius (Cicero) is understood to have translated, by inspiration of the spirit of rhetoric, the Economics of Xenophon, the Protagoras of Plato, and the For Ctesiphon by Demosthenes. Or the Holy Spirit wove together the witnesses of these books one way through the Seventy interpreters and another way through the Apostles, so that what they passed over in silence, what was written by these was invented [? - obscure].
Therefore, what? We condemn the ancients? By no means! But after those earlier in the House of God, we work at what we can. They are interpreted before the coming of Christ and what they didn't know, they tranlated in ambiguous (or "uncertain") sentences. We write after His Passion and Resurrection, not so much prophecy as history. For in the one are told what things were heard, in the other what were seen. What we understand better, we also translate better.
Hear, therefore, O rival; listen, O detractor! I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I confidently prefer the Apostles to all of them. Christ speaks to me through their mouth, who I read were placed before the prophets among the Spiritual gifts, among which interpreters hold almost the last place. Why are you tortured by spite? Why do you incite ignorant souls against me? If anywhere in the translation I have been seen by you to err, ask the Hebrews. Consult the teachers of the many different cities. What theirs have of Christ, yours do not have. It is another matter if they have afterward removed the testimonies used by the Apostles against them, and the Latin copies are more correct than the Greek, (and) the Greek than the Hebrew! Truth is against these enviers.
Now I pray you, dearest Desiderius, so that in such a great work which you have made me undertake and take up a beginning from Genesis, you might help in (your) prayers, how I might, by the same Spirit by Whom the books were written, be able to translate them into Latin words.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published online and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduced the text as follows: I've decided to translate next all the prologues contained in the Vulgate, which were written by Jerome except for the Prologue to Paul's Letters, apparently. I have previously translated Jerome's Prologue to the Gospels, which included a discussion of the Eusebian canon table system used in the Gospels, in the earliest of my web pages. This translation of the Prologue to the Pentateuch is just a first draft, of course. Once I've finished all the prologues, I'll probably have a better grasp on some of the peculiarities of Jerome's language and be able to fix some of these renderings which I wasn't so sure of here. So, this isn't written in stone, obviously, but I also beg the reader's indulgence, now and in the future, for any peculiarities, particularly if you're familiar with the Latin versions.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_joshua.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Joshua (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Joshua (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PREFACE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF JOSHUA
Having finally finished with the Pentateuch of Moses, as though freed for a great advantage, we set (our) hand to Jesus son of Nave, who the Hebrews call Joshua ben Nun, that is, Joshua son of Nun, and to the book of Judges, which they call Sopthim, to Ruth also and Esther, which they extol by the same names. And I admonish the reader, that he, being careful with Scripture, might preserve the forest of Hebrew names and (their) separations divided into parts, so that our work and his effort might not be wasted. And that in the first place, which I often testify, let him know me not to coin the new in rebuke of the old, as though my friends are accused, but rather to offer, for my part, to men of my language, those things of ours which still delight, like the copies of the Hexapla for the Greeks, which require great expense and work, so they might have our edition, and anywhere the readings of the ancient scrolls are doubtful, comparing this this to them, they might find what they seek, especially when among the Latins there are as many versions as there are books, and everyone has, according to his own judgment, either added or subtracted whatever seemed right to him, and he indeed may not have been able to be certain what differed. From which may scorpion cease to rise against me with bow-like wound, and poisoned tongue desist from slandering a holy work, either accepting, if it has pleased, or condemning, if it has displeased, and remember these verses: "Your mouth has abounded in malice, and your tongue constructed deceits; sitting, you have spoken against your brother, and against the son of your mother imposed a scandal. These things you have done and I was quiet; you wrongly thought that I might be like you: I will accuse you and stand before your face" [Psalm 49.19-21]. For what advantage is it to the listener for us to sweat at work and to work at criticizing others, for Jews to lament that the opportunity has been taken away from them for falsely accusing and insulting Christians, and for men of the Church to despise, indeed to tear apart, that from which enemies are tortured. If only what is old in the interpretation pleases them, which things are also not displeasing to me, and they think of receiving nothing further, why are they reading or not reading those things which are either added or cut out by the asterisks and obeli? For what reason have the churches accepted the translation of Daniel by Theodotion? Why are Origen and Eusebius Pamphilou admired for having treated entire editions similarly? Or what foolishness was it, after they had spoken true things, to set forth things which are false? And from where in the New Testament are they able to prove the received testimonies, which are not supported in the books of the Old (Testament)? Thus, we say, I may be seen to be not altogether quiet to accusers.
Otherwise, after the falling asleep of Paula, whose life is an example of virtue, and these books, which I was not able to deny to Eustochium the virgin of Christ, we have decided "while spirit yet rules these limbs" to incline to the explanation of the Prophets, and to resume, in a kind of return home, a work long unfinished, especially when the admirable and holy man Pammachius demands the same in letters, and we, hurrying on to the homeland, need to pass by the deadly songs of the sirens with deaf ear.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduced the text as follows: This one was tough because of some quite peculiar sentences, which I think I've pretty much figured out now. I don't think there's any English translation of this one around, certainly not one in my possession, so I didn't have one as a "cheat sheet" when I got stuck, which is good for my Latin, but not for my schedule.... Many thanks especially to Michael Gilleland (of Laudator Temporis Acti fame!) for puzzling over a certain ambiguous scriptura with me! UPDATE: I've changed a couple of sentences with Michael Gilleland's input. Several formerly questionable renderings are now resolved. Huzzah!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_kings.htm
Jerome, "Helmeted" introduction to Kings (2006)
Jerome, "Helmeted" introduction to Kings (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF KINGS
There are twenty-two letters among the Hebrews, as is also witnessed by the language of the Syrians and Chaldeans, which is for the most part similar to the Hebrew; for these twenty-two elements also have the same sound, but different characters. The Samaritans still write the Pentateuch of Moses in the same number of letters, only they differ in shapes and points (or "endings" apicibus). And Ezra, the scribe and doctor of the Law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple under Zerubbabel, is certain to have found (or "invented" repperisse) other letters, which we now use, when up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and the Hebrews were the same. In the book of Numbers this same total is also mystically shown by the census of the Levites and the priests. And we find in certain Greek scrolls to this day the four-lettered Name of God written in the ancient letters. But also the thirty-sixth Psalm, and the one hundred tenth, and the one hundred eleventh, and the one hundred eighteenth, and the one hundred forty-fourth, although written in different meter, are nevertheless woven with an alphabet of the same number. And in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his prayer, also at the end of the Proverbs of Solomon from that place in which he says "Who can find a strong woman?" are counted the same alphabet or sections. Furthermore, five of the letters among them are double: chaph, mem, nun, phe, sade. For they write with these one way at the beginning and in the middle of words, another at the end. From which also five are considered double books by most: Samuel, Malachim, Dabreiamin, Ezra, Jeremiah with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentantion. Therefore, just as there are twenty-two elements, by which we write in Hebrew all that we say, and the human voice is understood by their beginnings (or "parts" initiis), thus twenty-two scrolls are counted, by which letters and writings a just man is instructed in the doctrine of God, as though in tender infancy and still nursing.
The first book is called among them Bresith, which we call Genesis; the second, Hellesmoth, which is named Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Addebarim, which is designated Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they appropropriately call Thorat, that is, the Law.
The second order is made of the Prophets, and begins with Jesus son of Nave, which is called among them Joshua benNum. Then they append Sopthim, that is the book of Judges; and they attach Ruth to the same, because the history narrated happened in the days of the Judges. Samuel follows third, which we call First and Second Kingdoms. Fourth is Malachim, that is Kings, which book contains Third and Fourth Kingdoms; and it is much better to say Malachim, that is Kings, rather than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms, for it does not describe the kingdoms of many nations, but only that of the Israelite people which contains twelve tribes. Fifth is Isaiah, sixth Jeremiah, seventh Ezekiel, eighth the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called Thareasra among them.
The third order holds the Hagiographa, and begins with Job, the first book, the second by David, which is also one book of Psalms comprising five sections. The third is Solomon, having three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, and Ecclesiastes, that is Accoeleth, and The Song of Songs, which they denote with the title Sirassirim. Sixth is Daniel, seventh Dabreiamin, that is Words of the Days, which we may call more clearly a chronicle (Gk here: χρονικον) of all of Divine history, which book is written among us as First and Second Paralipomenon; eighth is Ezra, which is also in the same manner among Greeks and Latins divided into two books; ninth is Esther.
And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old (Testament), that is five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law, which the Apocalypse of John introduces with the number of twenty-four elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with unwearying voice: "Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be."
This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles.
While these things may be so, I implore you, reader, that you might not consider my work a rebuke of the ancients. Each one offers to the Tabernacle of God what he is able. Some offer gold and silver and precious stones; others, linen and purple, scarlet and blue. It will go well with us, if we offer the skins and hair of goats. For the Apostle still judges our more contemptible parts more necessary. From which both the whole of the beauty of the Tabernacle and each individual kind, a distinction of the present and future Church, is covered with skins and goat-hair coverings, and the heat of the sun and the harmful rain are kept off by those things which are of lesser value. Therefore, first read my Samuel and Kings; mine, I say, mine. For whatever we have learned and know by often translating and carefully correcting is ours. And when you come to understand what you did not know before, either consider me a translator, if you are grateful, or a paraphraser, if ungrateful, although I am truly not at all aware of anything of the Hebrew to have been changed by me. Certainly, if you are incredulous, read the Greek and Latin books and compare (them) with these little works, and wherever you will see among them to differ, ask any one of the Hebrews, in whom you might place better faith, and if he confirms us, I think that you will not consider him a diviner, as he has similarly divined in the very same place with me.
But I also ask you, handmaidens of Christ, who have anointed the head of your reclining Lord with the most precious myrrh of faith, who have in no way sought the Savior in the tomb, for whom Christ has now ascended to the Father, that you might oppose the shields of your prayers against the barking dogs which rage against me with rabid mouth and go around the city, and in it they are considered educated if slandering others. I, knowing my humility, will always remember these sentences: "I will guard my ways, so I will not offend with my tongue; I have placed a guard on my mouth, while the sinner stands against me; I was mute, and humiliated, and silent because of good things."
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduced the text as follows:
This is a translation of Jerome's well-known "helmeted introduction" (galeatum principium) to Kings (that is 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings) which is usually considered the most useful of his Old Testament introductions. It's certainly the longest. Along with the usual defense against critics, Jerome includes an interesting arrangement of what he considers the canonical books of the Old Testament, which are 22 in number, just like the Hebrew alphabet. He mentions the tripartite arrangement of books in the Hebrew Bible as current among the Jews of his day, the earliest unambiguous description of this arrangement, including the actual names of the books in each category.
I'll revisit this one later and include some notes on the Hebrew words mentioned here and how the pronunciation, preserved perhaps imperfectly through the Latin manuscript tradition, differs from today's typical Hebrew pronunciation. For now, though, I'm focusing on just getting all the prefaces translated in at least a first draft.
Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_chronicles.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Chronicles (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Chronicles (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF PARALIPOMENON
If the version of the Seventy translators is pure and has remained as it was rendered by them into Greek, you have urged me on superfluously, my Cromatius, most holy and most learned of bishops, that I translated the Hebrew scrolls into Latin words. For what has formerly won the ears of men and strengthened the faith of those being born to the Church was indeed proper to be approved by our silence. Now, in fact, when different versions are held by a variety of regions, and this genuine and ancient translation is corrupted and violated, you have considered our opinion, either to judge which of the many is the true one, or to put together new work with old work, and shutting off to the Jews, as it is said, "a horn to pierce the eyes." The region of Alexandria and Egypt praises in their Seventy the authority of Hesychius; the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the version of Lucian the Martyr; in the middle, between these provinces, the people of Palestine read the books which, having been labored over by Origen, Eusebius and Pamphilius published. And all the world contends among them with this threefold variety. And Origen certainly not only put together the texts of four editions, writing the words in a single row so that one regularly differing may be compared to others agreeing among themselves, but what is more audacious, into the edition of the Seventy he mixed the edition of Theodotion, marking with asterisks those things which were missing, and placing virgules by those things which are seen to be superfulous. If, therefore, it was allowed to others not to hold what they once accepted, and after the seventy chambers, which are considered without a single author, individual chambers were opened, and thus is read in the churches what the Seventy did not know, why do my (fellow) Latins not accept me, who thus put together the new with the inviolate old edition so that I might make my work acceptable to the Hebrews and, what is greater than these, to the authors, the Apostles? I have recently written a book, "On the best kind of translating," showing these things in the Gospel, and others similar to these, to be found in the books of the Hebrews: "Out of Egypt I called my son," and "For he will be called a Nazarene," and "They will look on him whom they have pierced," and that of the Apostle, "Things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, and had not arisen in the heart of man, which God has prepared for those loving Him." The Apostles and Evangelists were certainly acquainted with (the version of) the Seventy interpreters, but from where (were) they (supposed) to say these things which are not in the Seventy? Christ our God, author of both Testaments, says in the Gospel according to John, "He who believes in me, as Scripture has said, Rivers of living water will flow from his belly." Certainly, whatever is witnessed by the Savior to be written, is written. Where is it written? The Seventy don't have it; the Church ignores the apocrypha; thus the turning back to the Hebrew (books), from which the Lord spoke and and the disciples took forth texts. In peace I will say these things of the ancients, and I respond only to my detractors, who bite me with dogs' teeth, slandering me in public, speaking at corners, the same (being) both accusers and defenders, when approving for others what they reprove me for, as though virtue and error were not in conflict, but change with the author. I have recalled another edition of the Seventy translators corrected from the Greek to have been distributed by us, and me not to need to be considered their enemy, which things I always explain in the gatherings of the brothers. And what is now Dabreiamin, that is, Words of the Days, I have translated. I have therefore made the foreignness of the meanings clearer, and have separated lines into members, so that the inextribcable spaces and forest of names, which are confused through the error of the scribes, are, as Hismenius says, "themselves singing to me and mine," even if the ears of others are deaf.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduced the text as follows:
This prologue gives us an interesting view into the history of St Jerome's translation work, and some very important information about the Septuagint in the world of his day. It appears that in addition to Origen's Hexaplaric text, and the other well-known Septuagintal texts, he had done a corrected Latin version of the Septuagint, which unfortunately is entirely lost to us. One of the interesting things in this prologue is the mention of Jerome separating "lines into members" (per versuum cola). That is, he has separated the members, the individual words, with spaces, which was then rarely done, but so common now that we don't even notice it.
The name "Paralipomenon" means, "things left over." The book was called this because it included things not mentioned in Kings. I can remember being fascinated as a child by the exotic mystery of that name, Paralipomenon, like incense, silk, and the Faith itself, being something from the ancient world, in contrast to the much more prosaic Chronicles, a boring, uninteresting name to be found at the top of the local paper, and more redolent of the supermarket and gas station. But enough about me! Enjoy the continuing saga of the feisty St Jerome!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_ezra_e.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Ezra (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Ezra (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF EUSEBIUS HIERONYMUS TO THE BOOK OF EZRA
Whether it may be more difficult to do or not to do what you have requested, I have not yet established. For it is also not my desire to refuse your commands, and the greatness of weight imposed thus press upon the neck, so that before a falling under the bundle, there might rather be a lightening (of the load). The efforts of the envious agree with this, who consider all that I write reproof, with conscience occasionally fighting against them, publicly tearing apart what they read secretly, to such a degree that I am compelled to cry out and to say: "O Lord, free my soul from crooked lips and a false tongue" (Ps 119.2). It is the third year that you always write and write again, that I might translate the book of Ezra for you from Hebrew, as though you do not have the Greek and Latin scrolls, or whatever it is which is translated by us might not be something immediately spat upon by all. As a certain person says, "For to strive without effort, and not to seek anything by wearying except hatred, is extreme insanity" (Sallust, Jugurtha 3). Therefore, I implore you, my dearest Domnius and Rogatian, that, keeping the reading private, you will not bring the book forth into the public, nor throw food to the fastidious, and you will avoid the pride of them who know only (how) to judge others, and themselves (know how) to do nothing. And if there are any of the brothers whom we do not displease, give the text to them, admonishing that they transcribe the Hebrew names, of which there is a great abundance in this book, separately and with intermediate spaces. For it will profit nothing to correct the book, without diligence being preserved in the correction of the copiers.
Neither should it disturb anyone that the book edited by us is one, nor should they be delighted by the dreams of the third and fourth books (which are) of the apocrypha, both because among the Hebrews the discourses of Ezra and Nehemiah are confined to one scroll, and those things which are not found among them, nor are of the twenty-four elders, are for throwing away. And if anyone sets the (version of the) Seventy interpreters before you, the variety of the texts of which shows them torn and perverted, nor indeed can it be asserted truth is diverse, send him to the Gospels, in which are set down many things as though from the Old Testament, things which are not found among the Seventy interpreters, like this: "He will be called a Nazarene," and "From Egypt I have called my son," and "They will look on him whom they have pierced" and many other things which we are saving for a more extensive work, and ask of him where they might be written, and when he has not been able to reveal (where), you must read from these texts which recently were edited by us, daily pierced by the tongues of the slanderous.
But so that I might come to a shortcut, certainly what I will introduce is the most reasonable. I have given, in what is translated by me, anything that is not found in the Greek or is found otherwise (than there). Which interpreter do they mangle? They may ask the Hebrews and their authors, whether they accept or reject the sense of my translation. Furthermore, it is another thing if, as is said, with eyes closed they want to slander me and not imitate the study and goodwill of the Greeks, who, after the Seventy translators, with the Gospel of Christ now shining, they both attentively read the Jewish and Ebionite interpreters of the Old Law, namely Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and have also dedicated (them) to the churches, through the labor of Origen in the Hexapla. How much more should Latins be grateful, having understood that the joy of Greece is to borrow anything from itself (?). For firstly, it is of great expense and of infinite difficulty to be able to have all of the texts; then also, those who have (them) and are ignorant of the Hebrew words will err more, not knowing which ones of the many will have said the truth. Which thing also happened recently to a certain very wise man among the Greeks, so that occasionally leaving the sense of the Scriptures, the error of some particular translator was followed. And we, who at least have a little knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, and our Latin does not lack style in any way, are both better able than others to judge, and to express those things of them which we understand in our language. Therefore, even if a serpent hisses, "and the victor Sinon throws burning torches," with Christ helping, my speech will never be silenced, for (even my) severed tongue will stutter (something). Those who will, may read; those who won't, may throw away. They may scatter (?) the writings; they may slander the letters. Much more by your love will I be provoked toward study, rather than be deterred by their detraction and hatred.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_ezra.htm
St. Jerome, The Prologue on the Book of Ezra: English translation
St. Jerome, The Prologue on the Book of Ezra: English translation
[Translated by Mark DelCogliano]
The Prologue of Eusebius Hieronymus on the Book of Ezra 1
Whether it is more difficult to do what you ask or to say no, I have still not decided.2 For, on the one hand, it is impossible to refuse you when you are requesting something of significance. But, on the other hand, the weight of the burden imposed presses down upon my neck so hard that it would be necessary to lighten it before rushing into it thus encumbered. In addition to this, there is the hostility of my detractors. They think everything I write3 ought to be refuted and rip apart in public what they read in private, even though their conscience accuses them. They do this to such an extent that I am compelled to cry out and say, "Lord, free my soul from wicked lips and from the deceitful tongue!"4 For three years now you have been continually writing and rewriting to me, asking that I translate the book of Ezra for you from Hebrew, making your request as if you did not already have Greek and Latin editions, or as if everyone would not immediately spit upon whatever I translate.5 As someone said, "To strive in vain and not to seek anything in your weariness except hatred is the pinnacle of insanity."6
And so, I beseech you, my most dear Domnio and Rogatianus: do not make the book known to the public and be content to read it privately. Do not toss food to those who disdain it and thus avoid the snobbery of those who know only how to judge others but not how to do anything themselves. But if there are some of the brothers who are not displeased with my work, you may give them the master-copy. Advise them to copy the Hebrew names, of which there is a great abundance in this book, with distinct spaces between them. For it will be of no benefit to have corrected the book unless the corrections are diligently preserved by the copyists.
No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition7 consists of only one book, nor ought anyone take delight in the dreams found in the apocryphal third and fourth books. For among the Hebrews the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah comprise a single book, and those texts which are not used by them and are not concerned with the twenty-four elders ought to be rejected outright.8 But if anyone should oppose you on the basis of the Septuagint translation (whose very variety of texts indicates that its copies are corrupt and damaged, nor can it by any means be claimed that what is diverse is true), have him take a look at the gospels.9 There are many passages in them which are said to be from the Old Testament but which are not found in the Septuagint translation. Examples include: "He shall be called a Nazarene,"10 "Out of Egypt I have called my son,"11 "They shall look upon him whom they have pierced,"12 and many others that I shall reserve13 for a more extensive work. And so, have him attempt to locate where these passages are written in the Septuagint. When he cannot locate them, you should read aloud from the editions I recently did,14 which are continually denigrated by the tongues of those who have nothing good to say.
Though I intend to keep things brief, what I am about to say by way of introduction certainly makes the most sense.15 In my version I translated whatever was not contained in the Greek version or was there in a variant form.16 What translator do they butcher with their criticism? Let them ask the Hebrews and judge the fidelity of my translation on the basis of their authority. It is quite a different matter, if with eyes shut (as the saying goes), they want to speak ill of me and not follow the example of the Greeks in their application to study and goodwill. When the Gospel of Christ was already shining brightly, after they had read the Septuagint translators, the Greeks attentively read the Jewish and Ebonite translators of the old Law, that is, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Through the labors of Origen in his Hexapla, the Greeks caused these three to be used for ecclesiastical purposes. How much more ought speakers of Latin be grateful for having discovered that Greece in her exultation borrows something from herself!17
First of all, it is very expensive and infinitely difficult to procure possession of all the versions.18 Secondly, even those who own them but are ignorant of the Hebrew language will make all the more mistakes, being unable to determine which reading out of the many is more correct. In fact this is what happened recently among the Greeks to a certain one of their wisest men. The result was that in some instances he disregarded the sense of Scripture and followed the mistake of some translator. However, as I have19 at least a little bit of knowledge about the Hebrew language and am not at all without facility in Latin, I am better able20 than others to make decisions21 and render things as I myself understand22 them in our language.
And so, even though the serpent hisses "and victorious Sinon is scattering firebrands,"23 with the help of Christ my voice shall never be silenced; even with a severed tongue I shall manage to stammer out something. Those who want to read my edition should do so; those who do not should put it aside. If they pick apart the writing, if they find fault with the letters, by your charity I shall be more provoked to apply myself to study than be discouraged by their detraction and hatred.
1 Translated by Mark DelCogliano from B. Fischer, et al., eds., Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 638-639. Jerome's preface to his translation of Ezra was written c. 394 to Domnio, a Roman presbyter (see Jerome, Eps. 47.3 and 50), and Rogatianus, of whom nothing is known.
2 Jerome generally speaks in the first person singular ("I, me"). He exceptionally uses the first person plural ("we, us"), which instances are nevertheless rendered in the first person singular for the sake of consistency. These exceptions are, however, footnoted.
3 Lit. "we write."
4 Ps 119:2.
5 Lit. "whatever is translated by us."
6 Sallust, Iug. 3.
7 Lit. "the book edited by us."
8 There were several different books which circulated in antiquity under the name of Ezra (or Esdras). The books which the RSV calls Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book in Hebrew, called Ezra. The division of the original Ezra into two books was a later development. The Latin and Greek traditions, however, each have four Ezra books, called Esdras A-D (Greek) and I-IV Esdras (Latin). The RSV Ezra corresponds to Esdras B and I Esdras, while RSV Nehemiah to Esdras C and II Esdras. Jerome's Ezra contained both I and II Esdras in a single book, in imitation of the Hebrew. Esdras A and III Esdras corresponds to what the RSV calls 1 Esdras; it sequentially consists of (1) 2 Chronicles 35:1-36:23 (summarized), (2) Ezra 1:1-4:24, (3), additions, (4) Ezra 5:1-10:44, and (5) Nehemiah 7:38-9:12. The RSV's 2 Esdras, which is an apocryphal apocalypse from the Christian period, corresponds to Esdras D and IV Esdras. Jerome here explicitly denies canonicity to III and IV Esdras.
9 Jerome's project of translating the scriptures from the Hebrew was continually challenged by those who appealed to the authority of the Septuagint as the basis for deciding questions of canonicity. Jerome is here attempting to convince his readers to follow the Hebrew tradition by undercutting the reliability of the Septuagint text in two ways: (1) its variety, and (2) its lack of Old Testament passages quoted as such in the New Testament.
10 Mt 2:23; cf. Jg 13:5.
11 Mt 2:15; cf. Hos 11:1.
12 Jn 19:37; cf. Zech 12:10.
13 Lit. "we shall reserve."
14 Lit. "the editions we recently did."
15 N.b. Jerome is about to defend his methodology.
16 I.e. whatever in the Greek text varied from the Hebrew text.
17 I.e. the Greeks were not content with the older Septuagint translation, but produced newer translations from the Hebrew original in the manner of the Septuagint translators. Latin speakers should be inspired by their scholarly example.
18 I.e. the Greek versions which differ from each other.
19 Lit. "as we have."
20 Lit. "we are better able."
21 I.e. about the correct reading from among the variants.
22 Lit. "as we ourselves understand."
23 Vergil, Aen. 2.329
This text was translated and placed in the public domain by Mark DelCogliano, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_tobit.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Tobit (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Tobit (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS
Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!
I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows: This is the first of St Jerome's Vulgate prologues for one of the apocrypha that I've done. It's very interesting, if one pays attention to his reasoning in this prologue, it being actually a letter which accompanied his translation of Tobias to the Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus. St Jerome is often considered or claimed to be vehemently opposed to the apocrypha, especially in antapocryphal Protestant circles. But we find in this letter that this is only half of the picture. While the apocrypha were not included in the Hebrew Bible, and St Jerome respects the Hebrew studies on this matter, he explcitly states here that the decisions of Christian bishops are more important. Something like this has been the response to critics of the "apocrypha," "deuterocanonicals," or whatever you want to call them, throughout the ages: they are included in the canon because that has been, is, and always will be the practice of the Church. It's good to see this from St Jerome, and we'll see a similar thing in his Prologue to Judith, coming up next. Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_judith_e.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Judith (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Judith (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO JUDITH
Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night's work translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.
Receive the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and declare triumphal honor with perpetual praises for her. For this one, imitable not only for women, but also for men, has the Rewarder of her chastity given, Who has granted such strength, that she conquered the one unconquered by all men, she surpassed the insurpassable.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows: In this preface, too, St Jerome makes mention of the authority of the Church, in this case literally the famous First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, as declaring Judith among the books of Holy Scripture. In fact, he also mentions that "among the Hebrews" the book was considered as among the "Hagiographa," some would say a somewhat flexible term, which in the previous prologue (to Tobias), he certainly seems to have equated with the Scriptures. If this is the case, then at one point in history, in the late th century, Judith was considered by at least some Jews in Palestine to have been Scripture. He does, however, in that very first sentence note that even though it is considered an "accepted" book, this is considered to have no bearing on the status of other books. Interesting. Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_judith.htm
St. Jerome, The Preface on the Book of Judith: English translation
St. Jerome, The Preface on the Book of Judith: English translation1
[Translated by Andrew S. Jacobs]
THE PREFACE OF JEROME ON THE BOOK OF JUDITH
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered 2 among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] 3 which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean 4 language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your 5 request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work 6, translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.
Footnotes
1. This was translated and released to the public domain by Andrew S. Jacobs, University of California Riverside, to whom many thanks. The text used was the Patrologia Latina text which reads:
PRAEFATIO HIERONYMI IN LIBRUM JUDITH.
[Col. 0037D] Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter apocrypha legitur: [Col. 0038D] cujus auctoritas ad roboranda illa quae in [Col. 0039A] contentionem veniunt, minus idonea judicatur. Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus, inter historias computatur. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicaena in numero sanctarum Scripturarum legitur computasse, acquievi postulationi vestrae, immo exactioni: et sepositis occupationibus, quibus vehementer arctabar, huic unam lucubratiunculam dedi, magis sensum e sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens. Multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam [Col. 0040A] amputavi: sola ea, quae intelligentia integra in verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui, Latinis expressi. Accipite Judith viduam, castitatis exemplum, et triumphali laude, perpetuis eam praeconiis declarate. Hanc enim non solum feminis, sed et viris imitabilem dedit, qui castitatis ejus remunerator, virtutem ei talem tribuit, ut invictum omnibus hominibus vinceret, et insuperabilem superaret. (PL 29:37-39)
2. legitur = counted/considered.
3. illa, i.e. the apocryphal texts.
4. By 'Chaldean' he means Old Aramaic.
5. Your-Plural, vestrae. According to Migne, the translation was probably requested by Jerome's friends and fellow ascetics Chromatius and Heliodorus: "From this it seems to us to correctly conclude that this preface was written to men, and not to women [the assumption being that most of the translations were done eitherfor men abroad or for Paula and/or Eustochium, his companions in Bethlehem-ASJ], and this very translation of Judith was offered forth by Jerome. To be sure, although there is no mention of the persons to whom it was dedicted in the editions or book manuscripts, Tillemont (and others subsequently) deduced from this, as they say, suitableness of the work to have been given to his beloved fellow-toilers [πηιλοπονωταταις, in Greek] Paula and her daughter Eustochium. It seems more fitting to us that he was compelled to this work as well by those brother bishops, Chromatius and Heliodorus, in whose names he had dedicated earlier the neighboring books of Tobit..." etc. [Footnote - g] [Col. 0040C] (The footnote is to the part where Jerome talks about how Judith provides an example "even for men")
6. "Night's work" = lucubratiuncula.
This text was translated and placed in the public domain by Andrew S. Jacobs, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_esther.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Esther (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Esther (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO ESTHER
The Book of Esther stands corrupted by various translators. Which (book) I, lifting up from the archives of the Hebrews, have translated more accurately word for word. The common edition drags the book by knotted ropes of words hither and yon, adding to it things which may have been said or heard at any time. This is as is usual with instruction by schools, when a subject has been taken up, to figure out from the words which someone could have used, which one either suffered injury, or which one caused injury (to the text).
And you, O Paula and Eustochium, since you have both studied to enter the libraries of the Hebrews and also have approved of the battles of the interpreters, holding the Hebrew Book of Esther, look through each word of our translation, so you may be able to understand me also to augmented nothing by adding, but rather with faithful witness to have translated, just as it is found in the Hebrew, the Hebrew history into the Latin language. We are not affected by the praises of men, nor are we afraid of (their) slanders. For to be pleasing to God we do not inwardly fear those caring for the minas of men, "for God has scattered the bones of those desiring to be pleasing to men" (Ps 52.6), and according to the Apostle, those like this are "not able to be servants of Christ" (Gal 1.10).
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows: St Jerome has little to say in this prologue about his actual work, except that the "common edition," presumably the or an Old Latin version, of the Book of Esther was a mess, and he resorted to the Hebrew text of his day. In this respect, his translation is a valuable version representing a literal translation of a Hebrew text found in Palestine in the late fourth century. He unfortunately doesn't describe in this letter the messy situation of the additions to Esther found in the Septuagint version, which he included en masse at the end of his version, with short notes indicating where they belonged in his translation. These additions can be found in various editions of the apocrypha, but they're best read in the version in the NRSV, which is a full translation of the Septuagint text, not just of the additions, and includes them all in their places, not in a bunch at the end. Anyhow, enjoy! UPDATE: Thanks once again to the very much appreciated help of Michael Gilleland of Laudator Temporis Acti, I've fixed a sentence (now the second one in the first paragraph) that gave me trouble.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_esther_notes.htm
Jerome, Notes on the Additions to Esther (2006)
Jerome, Notes on the Additions to Esther (2006)
[by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
I mentioned the Additions to the Book of Esther in the post Jerome's Prologue to Esther, above (well, below, actually). These additions are usually found in translations of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals, and are designated as follows, with citations for the the Hebrew text of Esther interspersed where it occurs in italics:
Addition A: Vulgate 11.2-12.6
Hebrew 1.1-2.18
Addition B: Vulgate 13.1-7
Hebrew 3.14-4.17
Addition C: Vulgate 13.8-18; 14.1-19
Addition D: Vulgate 15.4-19 (often renumbered in other versions as 15.1-16; Vulgate 15.1-3 is not generally translated in such collections)
Hebrew 5.3-8.12
Addition E: Vulgate 16.1-24
Hebrew 8.13-10.3
Addition F: Vulgate 10.4-13; 11.1
In the Septuagint, the text is essentially as described above, with the additions interspersed with the rest of the book (see the NRSV Apocrypha Esther for this in translation). But St Jerome, in his new Latin edition of Esther, moved all the additions to the end of the book. And since it was the Vulgate Bible which was the first one to have both chapter and verse numbers, we're stuck with the peculiar numbering due to that dislocation. One of the interesting things I noticed in looking at these is that there are a few notes that St Jerome had written in these Addition chapters. I'm translating them and posting them here just for fun. I use the Addition A-F convention noted above to show the placement of the notes.
Before Addition A: This was also the beginning in the common edition, which is found neither in the Hebrew nor among any other translations.
After Addition A: Up to here is the proem.
Before Addition B: These which follow are set in the place where it is written in the scroll "and they plundered their goods" or "their substance," which we find only in the common edition.
After Addition B: Up to here is the text of the letter.
Before C: These which follow I have found written after the place where it is read "and hurrying, Mordechai did everything which Esther had commanded him," yet they are not found in the Hebrew and are not found inside any other translations.
Before 15.1: These also I found added to the common edition.
Before D: And also these too, which are below.
Before E: The text of the letter of King Artaxerxes, which he sent on behalf of the Jews to all the provinces of his kingdom, which also is not itself found in the Hebrew scroll.
Before F: Those things which are found in the Hebrew I have expressed with complete accuracy. And these things which follow I have found written in the common edition in which are contained the language and letters of the Greeks, and sometimes after the end of the book this chapter is found, which, according to our custom, we annotate with an obelus, that is, a spit.
Something that might not be immediately obvious is that the section "Before F" just above is actually a tripartite note. First, it comprises a conclusion to St Jerome's translation of the Hebrew Book of Esther: "Those things which are found in the Hebrew I have expressed with complete accuracy." Second is an introduction to all the additions, which by his arrangement follow just after this point: "And these things which follow I have found written in the common edition in which are contained the language and letters of the Greeks." And third comes the introduction to the immediately following chapter, which is the conclusion of the book in the Septuagint: "and sometimes after the end of the book this chapter is found, which, according to our custom, we annotate with an obelus, that is, a spit."
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_job.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Job (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Job (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF JOB
I am forced, through each of the books of Divine Scripture, to respond to the slander of adversaries who accuse my translation of rebuking the Seventy translators, not as though among the Greeks Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion had also translated either word for word, or meaning for meaning, or by mixing both together, also a kind of translation of equal proportion, and also Origen had divided all the scrolls of the Old Instrument with obeli and asterisks which, either added by him or taken from Theodotion, he added to the ancient translation, proving what was added to have been lacking. Therefore my detractors should learn to accept in full what they have accepted in part, or to erase my translation along with their asterisks. For it should not be, that those who they accepted to have omitted many things may not be acknowledged to have certainly erred in some things, especially in Job, in which if you will have removed those things which are added under the asterisks, the greater part will be cut off. And this is only among the Greeks. Otherwise, among the Latins, before their translation which we recently edited under asterisks and obeli, almost seven hundred or eight hundred verses are (missing), so that the book, shortened and cut up and eaten away, shows its deformity publicly to readers.
And this translation follows no translator of the ancients, but will rather convey from the speech itself (which is) Hebrew and Arabic and sometimes Syrian, now words, now meanings, now both together. For even among the Hebrews the whole book is considered oblique and slippery and what the Greek rhetors call figuratively arranged (εσχηματισμενος), and while one thing is said, it does another, as if you would hold tightly an eel or a little murena fish, when you press harder, then the sooner it escapes. I remember I paid not a little money toward understanding of this scroll, for an instructor from Lydda who among the Hebrews was thought to have first rank, with whose teaching I know not whether I accomplished anything; this one thing I know: for me not to have been able to translate anything that I didn't know before.
Therefore, from the beginning to the words of Job, among the Hebrews the speech is prose. Next, from the words of Job in which he says, "May the day perish in which I was born, and the night in which it was said: A man is conceived," to that place, where it is written before the end of the scroll: "Therefore I accuse myself and make repentance in dust and ashes," the verses are in hexameter, running in dactyl and spondee and, according to the idiom of the language, also accepting numerous other (poetic) feet not of the same (number of) syllables, but of the same intervals. Sometimes also, by breaking the law of (poetic metrical) numbers, the rhythm itself is found sweet and ringing, which is understood better by prosodists than by a simple reader. And from the verse mentioned above to the end of the book, the small section that remains continues with prose speech. If that seems unbelievable to anyone, namely that among the Hebrews there are meters, and either the Psalter or the Lamentation of Jermiah or almost all the songs of the Scriptures are to be understood in the manner of our Flaccus and the Greek Pindar and Alkaios and Sappho, let him read Philo, Josephus, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea, and by their testimony he will prove me to speak the truth.
For which reason, let my dogs therefore hear me to have labored at this scroll, not as rebuking the ancient translation, but rather so those things in it which are either obscure or missing or certainly corrupted by the error of scribes may be made more clear by our translation, who have both learned Hebrew speech in part, and also in Latin, almost from our cradle we were worn out (?) among grammarians and rhetors and philosophers. But if among the Greeks, after the edition of the Seventy, with the Gospel of Christ shining, the Jew Aquila, and Symmachus and Theodotion, judaizing heretics, are accepted, who have hidden many mysteries of the Savior by sly translation, and yet are found in the Hexapla among the churches and are explained by men of the Church, how much more should I, a Christian of Christian parents and bearing the standard of the cross on my forehead, whose study was to recover the missing, to correct the corrupted, and to open the sacraments of the Church with pure and faithful speech, not be rejected by either disdainful or by malicious readers? Let whoever will to keep the old books, either written on purple skins with gold and silver, or in uncial letters, as they commonly say, loads of writing rather than books, while they leave to me and mine to have poor little leaves and not such beautiful books as correct ones. Each edition, the Seventy according to the Greeks and mine according to the Hebrews, was translated into Latin by my labor. May each one choose what he will, and prove himself studious rather than malevolent.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin adds:
The third paragraph includes some information on metric poetry which is probably pretty obscure to most readers, as the language of metric poetry, indeed the composition of such poetry itself, is no longer so common. If anyone is puzzled by the language of "dactyl" and "spondee" and "feet," see the very helpful article on Dactylic Hexameter on Wikipedia.
Also, in the beginning of the last paragraph, St Jerome refers to "my dogs." He is not describing pets, but referring rather insultingly to his detractors, who he elsewhere describes as "barking" and so on.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_psalms_lxx.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Psalms (LXX) (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Psalms (LXX) (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PREFACE OF EUSEBIUS HIERONYMUS TO THE BOOK OF PSALMS
Not long ago while located in Rome, I emended the Psalter, and had corrected it, though cursorily, for the most part according to the (version of the) Seventy interpreters. Because you see it again, O Paula and Eustochium, corrupted by the error of the scribes, and the more ancient error to prevail rather than the new emendation, you urge that I work the land like some kind of field already ploughed, and uproot with sideways furrows the thorns being reborn, saying it is proper that what so frequently sprouts badly is just as frequently cut down. For this reason I remind by my usual preface, both you for whom this mighty work exerts itself, and those who would have copies of such, that those things to have been diligently emended might be transcribed with care and diligence. Each may himself note either a horizontal line or a radiant sign, that is, either an obelus or an asterisk, and wherever he sees a preceding virgule, from there to the two points which we have marked in, he knows more is to be found in the (version of the) Seventy interpreters; and where he has looked at the image of a star, he will have recognized an addition from the Hebrew scrolls, likewise up to the two points, only according to the edition of Theodotion who did not differ from the Seventy interpreters in simplicity of speech. I, knowing me to have done this for you and for each studious person, do not doubt there will be many who, either envious or arrogant, "prefer to be seen to condemn the brilliant rather than to learn," and to drink from a turbulent river much rather than from an entirely pure spring.
END OF THE PREFACE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows:
St Jerome did two separate translations of the Psalms. One was simply a revision of the popular Old Latin psalms (which are still used in some older rites, most notably the Ambrosian, I recall), with reference to the Greek Psalms version in the Hexapla. This is the prologue to that edition of the Psalms. The other version, based directly on the Hebrew Psalms, will follow separately.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_psalms_hebrew.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Psalms (Hebrew) (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Psalms (Hebrew) (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF ANOTHER PREFACE OF THE SAME
Eusebius Hieronymus to his Sophronius, health!
I know some to think the Psalter to be divided into five books, as though wherever among the (version of the) Seventy interpreters is written γενοιτο γενοιτο, that is, "may it be, may it be," for which in Hebrew is said "amen amen," is the end of the books. And we, the authority of the Hebrews being followed, and especially of the Apostles, who always in the New Testament name the Book of Psalms, have asserted one volume. We also testify of all the authors who are set down in the titles of their psalms, namely of David, and of Asaph, and of Jeduthun, of the Sons of Korah, of Heman the Ezraite, of Moses, and of Solomon, and of the rest, which Ezra compiled into one volume. For if amen, for which Aquila translated "trustworthy" (πεπιστωμενος), is only placed at the end of books and not sometimes wither at the beginning or at the end of either words or sentences, then both the Savior never said in the Gospel, "Amen, amen, I say to you," and the letters of Paul (never) contained it in the middle work, also Moses, and Jeremiah, and others in this way had many books, who in the middle of their books frequently interposed amen, as also the number of twenty-two Hebrew books and the mystery of the same number will be changed. For also its Hebrew title, Sephar Thallim, which is interpreted "Scroll of Hymns," agreeing with the Apostolic authority, shows not many books, but one volume.
Therefore, because recently, when disputing with a Hebrew, you produced certain testimonies about the Lord Savior from the Psalms, and he, wishing to outmaneuver you, asserted throughout nearly every one of the words that it is not found thus in Hebrew, so that you were opposed to the (version of the) Seventy interpreters, you most zealously demanded that, after Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, I translated a new edition in Latin speech. For you said yourself to be greatly confused by the variety of interpreters, so that you are inclined by love to be content with either my translation or my judgment. For this reason, having been compelled by you, to whom I am unable to deny even those things I cannot do, I again handed myself over to the barkings of detractors, and I preferred you to question my strengths rather than my willingness in friendship. Certainly I will speak confidently and I will cite many witnesses of this work, knowing me in this matter to have changed nothing of the truth of the Hebrew. Therefore, wherever my edition has differed from the old ones, ask any of the Hebrews, and you will clearly see me to be torn in pieces by those striving after error, who "prefer to be seen to condemn the brilliant rather than to learn," most perverse men. For when they always desire new delicacies, and their gullets, like the seas, do not suffice, why in only study of the Scriptures are they content with an old flavor? I do not say this so that I might bite my predecessors, nor have I considered slandering any translation of those which I very diligently corrected, (and) formerly gave to men of my language; but that it is one thing to read the Psalms in the churches of those believing in Christ, another thing to answer the Jews who accuse every word.
But if, as you proffer, you will have translated by little work into Greek, Opposing the Ridiculers (αντιφιλονεικων τοις διασυρουσιν), and you will have made the most learned men witnesses to my ignorance, I will say to you that (saying) of Horace, "You do not carry wood into a forest." Except that I have this solace, if in the common work I know both praise and slander to be common to me and you.
I desire you to be well in the Lord Jesus, and to remember me.
END OF THE PREFACE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows:
This is the preface St Jerome wrote to accompany his translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew. He apparently wasn't too entirely sure of his success in this, as seems to be implied at a couple of points in this letter, which shows St Jerome to have had both a humble and a humorous streak which hasn't been entirely evident in the other prefaces. I think it helps to put those into a better light, as well. Most interesting is what he says about this translation's origins, as specifically designed to reflect the Hebrew for the sake of apologetics, while other translations have their place in being read in the churches. Of course, it's the other version of the Psalms, based on the LXX, which were so popular and so ubiquitous before the modern craze of translating from Hebrew came along. St Jerome is explicit in that he wouldn't have had a problem with that. Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_solomon.htm
Jerome, Prologue to the Books of Solomon (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to the Books of Solomon (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF JEROME TO THE BOOKS OF SOLOMON
Jerome to Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus.
May the letter join those joined in priesthood. Indeed, a sheet may not divide those who the love of Christ has connected. You request commentaries on Hosea, Amos, Zechariah, and Malachi. I wrote, even if it cost through ill-health. You have sent the solace of expenses, by our scribes and copyist having been sustained, so that our genius exerts itself most strongly for you. And behold, from every side a diverse crowd of those demanding, as though it is equal for me either to work for you with others hungering, or I might be subject to anyone besides you in matters of giving and receiving. And so, with a long sickness broken, I have not kept inwardly silent this year and been mute with you. I have dedicated to your names the work of three days, namely the translation of the three scrolls of Solomon: Masloth, which are Parables in Hebrew, called in the common edition Proverbs; Coeleth, which in Greek is Ecclesiastes, in Latin we could say Preacher; (and) Sirassirim, which is translated into our language Song of Songs.
Also included is the book of the model of virtue (παναρετος) Jesus son of Sirach, and another falsely ascribed work (ψευδεπιγραφος) which is titled Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, titled not Ecclesiasticus as among the Latins, but Parables, to which were joined Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, as though it made of equal worth the likeness not only of the number of the books of Solomon, but also the kind of subjects. The second was never among the Hebrews, the very style of which reeks of Greek eloquence. And some of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.
If anyone is truly more pleased by the edition of the Seventy interpreters, he has it already corrected by us. For it is not as though we build the new so that we destroy the old. And yes, when one will have read most carefully, he will know our things to be more understood, which haven't soured by having been poured into a third vessel, but have rather preserved their flavor by having been entrusted to a new container immediately from the press.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows:
Here St Jerome gives us not only more information about his work habits (he translated Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs in three days), but also a bit more on his understanding of the apocrypha. He implicitly defines the canon of Scriptures as those books used "for confirming the authority of eccelsiastical dogmas," and excludes the apocrypha from that category. Granted, the majority of the apocrypha are not useful for this, but then neither, admittedly, are a number of canonical works. It's an argument or position against the apocrypha that we have yet to find the origins of. And although St Jerome here states that the apocrypha that he names are not "canonical Scriptures," we know that he recognized the authority of the Council of Nicea in advancing Judith as canonical. So, St Jerome's equivocation on the matter reveals a more subtle understanding, in which he considers the apocrypha good "for the strengthening of the people." Anyhow, perhaps St Jerome will have more to say on the subject in some of the upcoming prologues. We'll see. One fun thing he mentions in this prologue is the marginal tradition that Philo Judaeus of Alexandria was the author of Wisdom of Solomon, something also found in the Canon Muratorianus, and various other places, though not often. Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_isaiah.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Isaiah (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Isaiah (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF JEROME TO THE PROPHET ISAIAH
No one, when he will have seen the Prophets to be written in verses, would think them to be bound in meter among the Hebrews, and to have anything in common with the Psalms or the works of Solomon. But what is customary to be used in Demosthenes and Cicero, as they are written in words with divisions, who certainly wrote prose and not in verses, we also, providing ease of reading, have divided a new translation with a new kind of writing. And first, knowing of Isaiah what is presented in his speech, certainly as a man noble and of urbane elegance he does not have anything of rusticity mixed into (his) speech. For this reason it happens that in comparison with others the translation was not able to preserve the flower of his speech. And then adding this, that it is being spoken not only by a prophet, but by an evangelist. For thus all the mysteries of Christ and the Church are pursued to clarity, so that you would not think them to be prophesied of the future, but they covered the history of things past. For this reason I suppose the Seventy interpreters to have been unwilling at that that time to set forth clearly for the gentiles the sacraments of their faith, not throwing holy things to dogs or pearls to swine, which things, when you will have read this edition, you will note were hidden by them.
Nor am I unaware of how much work it is to understand the Prophets, or for anyone not to be easily able to judge from the translation, unless he will have before understood those things which he will have read, and we to suffer from the bites of many, who, being goaded by jealousy, what they are not able to follow, they despise. Therefore, knowing and being wise, I place my hand in the fire, and nevertheless I pray this for the scornful readers: that just as the Greeks after the Seventy translators read Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion, either for study of their doctrines or so that they better understand the Seventy through their collation, that these are deemed worthy to have at least one translator after the earlier ones. Reading first and afterward despising, they are seen not to condemn by judgment, but rather by the ignorant presumption of hatred.
And Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem and Judea when the ten tribes had not yet been led into captivity, and the oracle covered both kingdoms, now together, now separately. And while he sometimes looks at present history, and indicated the return of the people to Judea after the Babylonian captivity, yet is all his concern for the calling of the nations and for the coming of Christ. Who, how much the more you love, O Paula and Eustochium, the more strive for him, so that for the present disparagement, by which the envious incessantly tear me into pieces, the same One may restore a reward to me in the future, Who knows me to have exerted myself in the learning of foreign languages: the Jews might not jump all day on the errors of the Scriptures in His Church.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows:
St Jerome's preface here to Isaiah is very interesting for its mention of the way in which he wrote it out: with spaces between the words. While this is natural for us, it was not the way writing was done in those days. The addition of the spaces was also mentioned in his prologue to Chronicles, where it was especially necessary to keep separate all the many Hebrew names in transliteration, which Latins and Greeks were always mixing up, not knowing Hebrew. His mention of the prophecies of Isaiah covering "all the mysteries of Christ and the Church" is entirely intriguing, and it would be nice to have had more on that subject, but here we are. Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_jeremiah.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Jeremiah (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Jeremiah (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF JEROME TO THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH
The Prophet Jeremiah, for whom this prologue is written, was seen among the Hebrews to be certainly more rustic in style than Isaiah and Hosea and certain other prophets, but equal in meanings, which the same Spirit obviously prophesied. Furthermore, his simplicity of speech happened from the place in which he was born. For he was from Anathoth, which is up to today a village three miles distant from Jerusalem, a priest from priests and sanctified in his mother's womb, dedicating with her virginity a man of the Gospel to the Church of Christ. This boy began to prophesy the captivity of the city and Judea both not only by the Spirit, but also with eyes of flesh. The Assyrians had already transferred the ten tribes of Israel, and now colonies of gentiles had taken possession of their lands. For this reason he prophesied only in Judah and Benjamin, and he lamented the ruins of his city in a fourfold alphabet, which we have presented in the measure of the meter and in verses. Besides this, the order of visions, which is entirely confused among the Greeks and Latins, we have corrected to the original truth. And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews, we have omitted, standing ready, because of these things, for all the curses from the jealous, to whom it is necessary for me to respond through a separate short work. And I suffer because you think this. Otherwise, for the benefit of the wicked, it was more proper to set a limit for their rage by my silence, rather than any new things written to provoke daily the insanity of the envious.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows:
A couple of notes on this prologue by St Jerome to Jeremiah are in order. He mentions that Jeremiah "lamented the ruins of his city in fourfold alphabet," civitatis suae ruinas quadruplici plaxit alfabeto. This is a reference to the acrostic first four chapters of Lamentations, in which each verse begins with the successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet, thus "in a fourfold alphabet." Another perhaps puzzling reference just after that is to his presenting the book "in the measure of the meter and in verses." This refers to his breaking the verses into separate lines based upon metrical measurements, probably according to the Hebrew, and written with separation of verses and words. Basically think of the way that poetry is printed today, in short lines that take no notice of the width of the page, and that's what he's describing. If I find a picture of one of the early Vulgate manuscripts reflecting this, I'll post it. St Jerome also mentions a confusion of the order of the visions in Jeremiah as known among the Greeks and Latins. This refers to the very different (and probably original) arrangment of the prophecies as found in the Septuagint and is supported by a Dead Sea Scroll fragment, so we know that there were Hebrew manuscripts with this order, which Jerome did not. Anyhow, in the meantime, enjoy yet another prologue. There aren't many left now! Once I've done all of them, I'll go back through to edit them and then post them all on a single page, with notes and such.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_ezekiel.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Ezekiel (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Ezekiel (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO THE PROPHET EZEKIEL
The Prophet Ezekiel was led captive with Joachin king of Judah to Babylon, and he prophesied there to those who were captives with him, to those repenting that they had willingly handed over the prophecy of Jeremiah to enemies, and yet saw the city Jerusalem to stand, which he had predicted would fall. And in his thirtieth year of age, and in the fifth year of the captivity, he began to speak to his fellow captives. And at the same time, though later, this one in Chaldea and Jeremiah in Judea prophesied. His style is neither greatly eloquent nor excessively rustic, but properly proportioned between both. And he was a priest, as also was Jeremiah, the beginning and ending of the book being wrapped in great obscurities. But also the common edition of him does not differ much from the Hebrew one. Because of that I greatly wonder what was the cause, that when we have the same translators in all the books, in some they translated the same things, in others, different things. Therefore, read this also according to our translation because, by being written in words with spaces, it gives a clearer meaning to readers. And if my friends also mock this, say to them that no one restrains them from writing. But I do not respect him who follows them, which is more clearly said in Greek, as they are called insult-swallowers (φαγολοιδοροι).
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows: There's not much to say about this prologue, as it's pretty straightforward. Near the end, St Jerome sarcastically calls his detractors "friends." And there's Greek in this one, too! Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_daniel.htm
Jerome, Prologue to Daniel (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to Daniel (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF JEROME TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL
The churches of the Lord Savior do not read the Prophet Daniel according to the Seventy interpreters, using (instead) the edition of Theodotion, and I don't know why this happened. For whether because the language is Chaldean and differs in certain properties from our speech, (or) the Seventy interpreters were not willing to keep the same lines in the translation, or the book was edited under their name by some unknown other who did not sufficiently know the Chaldean language, or not knowing anything else which was the cause, I can affirm this one thing, that it often differs from the truth and with proper judgment is repudiated. Indeed, it is known most of Daniel and some of Ezra were written in Hebrew letters but the Chaldean language, and one pericope of Jeremiah, and also Job to have much in common with the Arabic language.
When I was a very young man, after the reading and flowery rhetoric of Quintilian and Cicero, when I had opened myself to the drudgery of this language and with much effort and much time I with difficulty had begun to pronounce the breathy and buzzing words, as though walking in a crypt to see a little light from above, I finally dashed myself against Daniel, and I was affected by such weariness that, sunken in desperation, I wanted to despise all (my) old work. Indeed, a Hebrew was encouraging me, and he was often repeating to me by his language "Persistent work conquers all," as in me (?) I saw an amateur among them, I began again to be a student of Chaldean. And so I might confess the truth, to the present day I am better able to read and understand than to pronounce the Chaldean language.
Therefore, I have shown these things to you as a difficulty of Daniel, which among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three young men, nor the fables of Bel and the dragon, which we, because they are spread throughout the whole world, have appended by banishing and placing them after the spit (or "obelus"), so we will not be seen among the unlearned to have cut off a large part of the scroll. I heard a certain one of the teachers of the Jews, when he derided the history of Susanna and said it to have been forged by an unknown Greek, to propose that which Africanus also proposed to Origen, these etymologies to come down from the Greek language: "to split" from "mastich" and "to saw" from "oak" (απο του σχινου σχισαι και απο του πρινου πρισαι). On which subject we are able to give this understanding to those of our own (language), as we might, for example say it to have said of the oak tree (ilice), "you will perish there (illico)" or of the mastic tree (lentisco), "May the angel crush you like a lentil bean (lentem)" or "You will not perish slowly (lente)" or "Pliant (lentus), that is, flexible, you are led to death" or anything which fits the name of the tree. Then he jested for there to have been so much leisure time for the three young men, that in the furnace of raging fires they played with (poetic) meter, and called in order all the elements to the praise of God. Or what miracle or Divine inspiration is it, either a dragon having been killed by a lump of tar or the tricks of the priests of Bel having been discovered, which things are better accomplished by the wisdom of a clever man rather than by the prophetic Spirit? When indeed he came to Habakkuk and had read (of him) having been carried off from Judea to Chaldea carrying a dish, he requested an example where we might have read in all the Old Testament any one of the saints to have flown with a heavy body and in a short time to have passed over so great a space of lands. To which, when one of us rather a little too quick to speaking had brought Ezekiel into the discussion (lit. "middle") and said him to have been moved from Chaldea to Judea, he derided the man and from the same scroll proved Ezekiel to have seen himself moved in the Spirit. Finally also our Apostle, namely as an erudite man and one who had learned the Law from the Hebrews, was also not daring to affirm himself taken away in the body, but was to have said "Whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows." By these and arguments of such kinds he exposed (or "accused") the apocryphal fables in the book of the Church.
Concerning which subject, leaving the judgment to the decision of the reader, I warn him Daniel is not to be found in the Prophets among the Hebrews, but among those which they titled the Hagiographa. Since indeed all of Scripture is divided by them into three parts, into the Law, into the Prophets, (and) into the Hagiographa, that is, into five and eight and eleven books, which is not (necessary) to explain at this time. And to those things of this prophet, or rather against this book, which Porphyry accused, the witnesses are Methodius, Eusebius, (and) Apollinaris, who, responding to his madness with many thousands of verses, I do not know whether they are satisfying to the interested reader. For which reason I entreat you, O Paula and Eustochium, pour out prayers for me to the Lord, so that as long as I am in this little body, I might write something pleasing to you, useful to the Church, (and) worthy to posterity. I am indeed not greatly moved by the judgments of the present, which on either side are in error either by love or by hate.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows:
This prologue by St Jerome is a little odd to translate, as it's dealing in part with some wordplay in both Greek and Latin. I've placed the original words in parentheses, as I've done in others of the prologue translations, but they're especially necessary here. I get the distinct impression that St Jerome is actually showing us a sense of humor, or is at the very least recalling some funny sayings from a past teacher. There is also the fascinating and rather bittersweet retrospective on his learning Chaldean, which we call Aramaic these days. Another interesting part is his mention of the Hebrew Scriptures being divided into three parts: the Law with five books, the Prophets with eight books, and the Hagiographa with eleven books, for a total of twenty-four books. And though he doesn't name the books included in those numbers here, the scheme is close enough to that which he presented in his "Helmeted Introduction" to Kings (22 books there, as opposed to 24 here), to determine these are the books for each category: Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve; Hagiographa: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Chronicles, Ezra/Nehemiah, Esther, and somewhere in there Ruth and Lamentations, which in the "Helmeted Introduction" are attached to Judges and Jeremiah respectively, presumably to make the total number of books fit the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet: twenty-two. So, we have at least that evidence of what was the canon of at least some Jews in Palestine in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D. Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_prophets.htm
Jerome, Prologue to the Twelve Prophets (2006)
Jerome, Prologue to the Twelve Prophets (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF THE TWELVE PROPHETS
The order of the Twelve Prophets is not the same among the Hebrews as it is among us. For which reason, according to how it is read there, they are also arranged here. Hosea is composed of short clauses and speaking as though by aphorisms. Joel is clear in the beginning, more obscure at the end. And they each have their individual properties up to Malachi, who the Hebrews name Ezra the scribe and teacher of the Law. And because it is too long to speak of all these things now, I would only you were warned this, O Paula and Eustochium: the book of the Twelve Prophets to be one; and Hosea a contemporary (συνχρονος) of Isaiah; (and) Malachi in fact to have been of the times of Haggai and Zechariah. And those (books) in which the time is not set down in the title, under those kings which they were to have prophesied under, they also prophesied after those which have titles.
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows:
This is St Jerome's prologue to the Twelve Prophets, or Twelve Minor Prophets as they're often called, because these books are shorter relative to the books of the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. It's a very short prologue, but there are two items of interest in it. One is that St Jerome mentions that "the Hebrews" of his day considered Malachi to be Ezra. I don't think I'd ever read that before, so it was a pleasant surprise. The other interesting thing is that St Jerome considered the Twelve Prophets to be chronologically arranged (which I do too, great, somewhat curmudgeonly minds thinking alike), and that the books which don't include dating indications can be dated after those who do. And now, I think my introduction to the prologue has now come to more words than are actually in it, so with no further ado, here it is. Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_gospels.htm
Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus: Beginning of the Preface to the Gospels
Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus: Preface to the Gospels
PREFACE TO THE GOSPELS 1
BEGINNING OF THE PREFACE FOR THE GOSPELS OF SAINT JEROME THE PRESBYTER
To the blessed Pope Damasus, from Jerome,
You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world, to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invite judging by all of them. Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger, proclaiming me now to be a sacrilegious man, that I might dare to add, to change, or to correct anything in the old books? Against such infamy I am consoled by two causes: that it is you, who are the highest priest, who so orders, and truth is not to be what might vary, as even now I am vindicated by the witness of slanderers. If indeed faith is administered by the Latin version, they might respond by which, for they are nearly as many as the books! If, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed? Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us 2. Nor do I seek what Aquila, or what Symmachus may think, or why Theodotion may walk the middle of the road between old and new. This may be the true translation which the Apostles have approved. I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. I pass over those books which are called by the name of Lucian and Hesychius, for which a few men wrongly claim authority, who anyway were not allowed to revise either in the Old Instrument after the Seventy Translators, or to pour out revisions in the New; with the Scriptures previously translated into the languages of many nations, the additions may now be shown to be false.
Therefore, this present little preface promises only the four Gospels, the order of which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, revised in comparison with only old Greek books. They do not disagree with many familiar Latin readings, as we have kept our pen in control, but only those in which the sense will have been seen to have changed (from the Greek) are corrected; the rest remain as they have been.
We have also copied the lists which Eusebius the bishop of Caesarea, following Ammonius of Alexandria, set out in ten numbers, as they are had in the Greek, so that if any may then wish through diligence to make known what in the Gospels may be either the same, or similar, or singular, he may learn their differences. This is great, since indeed error has sunk into our books; while concerning the same thing, one Evangelist has said more, into another they have added because they thought it inferior; or while another has differently expressed the same sense, whichever one of the four he had read first, he will revise the other to the version he values most. Whence it happened how in our time that all have been mixed; in Mark are many things of Luke, and even of Matthew; turned backwards in Matthew are many things of John and of Mark, yet in the remaining others, they are found to be correct. When, therefore, you will have read the lists which are attached below, the confusion of errors is removed, and you will know all the similar passages, and the singular ones, wherever you may turn to. In the first list, the four agree, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; in the second, three, Matthew, Mark, John; in the third, three, Matthew, Luke, John; in the fourth, three, Matthew, Mark, John; in the fifth, two, Matthew, Luke; in the sixth, two, Matthew, Mark; in the seventh, two, Matthew, John; in the eighth, two, Luke, Mark; in the ninth, two, Luke, John; in the tenth some peculiar ones are given which the others don't have. Separately in the Gospels are numbered sections of unequal length, beginning with one and increasing to the end of the books. This is written before the passage in black, and it has under it a red number, which shows to which of the ten (lists) to proceed, with the first number to be sought in the list. Therefore, when the book is open, for example, if you will wish to know of this or that chapter in which list they may be, you will immediately be shown by the lower number. Returning to the beginning (of the book) in which the different lists are brought together, and immediately finding the same lists by the title in front, by that same number which you had sought in the Evangelist, which you will find marked in the inscription, you may also view other similar passages, the numbers of which you may note there. And when you know them, you will return to the single volumes, and immediately finding the number which you will have noted before, you will learn the places in which either the same things or similar things were said.
I wish that in Christ you may be well, and that you will remember me, most blessed Pope.
END OF THE PREFACE FOR THE GOSPELS OF SAINT JEROME THE PRESBYTER
1. Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, 27 July 1999, Berkeley, California. As far as I am able to find, this is the first translation of the full letter into
English, modern or otherwise.
2. Hebrew > Greek > Latin.
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 27th July 1999, and released by him into the public domain.
All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_preface_pauls_letters.htm
(Jerome), The Vulgate Preface to Paul's Letters (2006)
(Jerome), The Vulgate Preface to Paul's Letters (2006)
[Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb]
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
First is asked, for what reason after the Gospels, which are a supplement of the Law and in which are collected for us examples and precepts of living abundantly, the Apostle wanted to send these letters to individual churches. And it was seen to have been for this reason, that, as is known, he strengthened the firstborn of the Church from new arising heresies, so that he cut off present and arising errors and also afterward excluded future questions by the example of the Prophets, who after the publishing of the Law of Moses, in which were collected all the commandments of God, nevertheless still by its revived teaching the people always restrained (their) sins, and because of the example in the books they indeed also left a memorial for us.
Then is asked, for what reason did he not write more than ten letters to churches. For there are ten with that one which is called "To the Hebrews," for the remaining four are sent particularly to disciples. So that he showed the New not to differ from the Old Testament, and himself not to do (anything) against the Law of Moses, he arranged his letters (according) to the number of the first Ten Words (decalogi) of the commandments, as many precepts as that one ordered those freed from Pharaoh, the same number this one taught those purchased from servitude of the devil and idolatry. And also the most learned men have handed down (the tradition of) the two stone tablets to have been a figure of the two Testaments.
Truly, some have contended the letter which is written to the Hebrews not to be of Paul because it is not titled with his name, and because of the distance of language and style, but rather either of Barnabas according to Tertullian, or of Luke according to some others, or in fact of Clement the disciple of the Apostles and ordained Bishop of the Roman Church after the apostles. To which one should respond: if, accordingly, it cannot be of Paul because it does not have his name, therefore it cannot be of anyone because it is titled with no name. But if that is absurd, it is better to be believing it of him who shines with such eloquence of his teaching. But because among the churches of the Hebrews he was considered, with a false suspicion, as a destroyer of the Law, he was willing, with name unspoken, to render account of the figures of the Law and the truth of Christ, so hatred of (his) boldly displayed name would not exclude the usefulness of the reading. It is truly not a wonder, if he is seen more eloquent in his own (language), that is in Hebrew, rather than in a foreign one, that is in Greek, in which language the other letters are written.
It certainly disturbs some that for some reason the letter to the Romans is placed first, when reason reveals it not written first. For this is shown by him to have written travelling to Jerusalem, when he was exhorting the Corinthians and others before now by letters, as they collected the ministry which was carried with him. For which reason some want all the epistles to be understood arranged thus: that the first is set down which was sent later, (and) that through each letter by steps he came to the more perfect. For the majority of the Romans were so ignorant, that they did not understand themselves to be saved by the grace of God and not by their merits, and on account of this duo, the people struggled among themselves. Therefore, he asserted them to need to be strengthened, recalling the former vices of the gentiles (lit. "of gentileness"; gentilitatis). And now he says the gift of knowledge to be granted to the Corinthians, for he does not so much rebuke all, as he censures how they did not rebuke the sinners, as he says, "It is heard that there is fornication among you," and again, "You are gathered together with my spirit to deliver such a one to Satan." In the second (letter) they are truly praised and are admonished to advance more and more. Now the Galatians show no other crimes except they had most fervently believed in false apostles. The Ephesians are truly worthy of no rebuke but much praise, because they kept the Apostolic Faith. And the Philippians are much more greatly praised, who were not willing even to hear false apostles. And the Colossians were of such a kind that, when they had not been bodily seen by the Apostle, they were considered worthy of this praise: "And if in the body I am absent, I am with you in the Spirit, rejoicing and seeing your order." The Thessalonians were yet honored with all praise, to the extent that not only did they keep the unshaken faith of the Truth, but were indeed found standing together in the persecution of members. Truly something must be said of the Hebrews, of whom the Thessalonians, who are so highly praised, are said to have been imitators, as he says: "And you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea, for you have also suffered the same from your own countrymen as they have from the Judeans." Among them he also recalls the same Hebrews, saying, "For you both had compassion for the prisoners and you also received with joy the plundering of your goods, knowing yourselves to have a greater and lasting substance."
END OF THE PROLOGUE
This text was translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, Berkeley, California, 2006, published here and released by him into the public domain. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Kevin introduces his translation as follows:
I have a few articles to look up regarding the authorship of this letter, so I'll end up posting more on that at a later date. Essentially, there are three contenders: St Jerome, the British heretic Pelagius, and some unknown author. Since patristic scholarship in the early part of the twentieth century had an unfortunate tendency to pin the names of heretics to many various works not otherwise demonstrably theirs or even heretical, I don't, at this point, consider Pelagius a likely candidate, but rather a faddish suggestion given rather too much attention. These days some idiot would likely suggest St Mary Magdalene. Also, having just worked through seventeen authentic prologues of St Jerome, it is definite that this prologue to Paul's letters are from someone else, judging by the style and even the vocabulary. It's not as rambling as St Jerome's own letters, which are constructed in a much more oral manner (likely because he was actually simply dictating to a scribe most of the time), and certain words of the vocabulary require meanings that are later than the more classical, antiquarian usage of St Jerome. So I opt for an unknown author. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting preface, especially his description of why the letters of Paul are arranged as they are: they are addressed to progressively more accomplished Christians, and apparently in reverse chronological order. How interesting!
I hope everyone has enjoyed my translation of these Vulgate prefaces. I certainly enjoyed the discovery involved in learning what they say, having not read most of them before, and the definite education in Latin they provide. I hope they're found to be useful. This is the last preface included in Weber's Biblia Sacra Vulgata, Fourth Edition, which means this first stage of my translation of the Vulgate Prefaces is done with this. Now that I have them all finished in a first draft, I'll be editing them for consistency, style, etc, and post them all on a single web page. So if anyone wants to use them in a convenient form, with notes and such things, just wait about a week or so. In the meantime, I'll post links to the blog posts with all the prefaces, which I'm rather surprised to have finished in only three weeks, even with some breaks. Enjoy!
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_chronicle_00_eintro.htm
Jerome, Chronicle (2005). Preface to the Online Edition
Jerome, Chronicle (2005). Preface to the Online Edition
The Chronicle of St. Jerome
Introduction
The Chronicle of St. Jerome was composed around 380AD and became the primary available source of information on dates and events from the time of its composition until the end of the middle ages. Jerome's work itself was a translation into Latin of the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea, brought up to date, but it was through Jerome that it came to be so influential.
It is the first text in which we see an attempt to accurately date all the events of times previous. Every event is assigned to a date, the kings and the dates are drawn up in columns, and brief notes made against each. The revolutionary tabular format forces the chronologist to be precise in whatever data is entered and highlights any errors involved in synchronising lists from different kingdoms of kings and the number of years they reigned.
The Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote his chronicle ca. 311 AD, and is responsible for the revolutionary format which transformed the study of history.
Prior to Eusebius, a chronography would consist of lists of kings, and how long they reigned. An occasional note might be attached to the name of a king, stating that in the rd year of his reign such-and-such event occurred. Each kingdom would be treated separately, and its rulers or magistrates listed. Eusebius himself compiled a chronography of this kind, which is today known as book one of his Chronicle, and has the title The Chronography. But the problem for the reader was how to link information about rulers and events in one kingdom to events in other kingdoms. Eusebius wanted to write a history of the church, and needed to link together information from Jewish sources with the chronographical information that he obtained from numerous Greek predecessors, such as Porphyry, Castor, and Erastothenes, and also from Christian predecessors such as Julius Africanus.
His own contribution was to draw up the existing mass of chronological information in a tabular format that enforced a perpetual synchronism between the various parallel strands of data. This innovation may rightly be described as a moment of genius. The second book of his Chronicle was drawn up in this way and entitled The Chronological Canons. This was the portion that Jerome translated and its format can be seen below. Jerome's translation is the most accurate version of this book that has reached us.
To do this, Eusebius took the then new medium of the codex (the modern book format, as opposed to the roll) and exploited the concept of a page. He divided up the page using a tabular format.
He drew vertical columns on the page. The lefthandmost he headed as 'Kings of the Persians' (or whichever other empire was current at the time). The righthandmost he headed 'Kings of the Egyptians', so long as there were any. When new kingdoms came along, he added an extra column for them; when kingdoms disappeared, the column vanished with them.
When a king came to the throne, he placed his name on a separate line by itself, for any events of that king which had no specified year. Beneath it he then enumerated the years of his reign on succeeding lines; 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. Thus for each year there was a line on which information could be entered. Also, by running along the line, it could be seen precisely who ruled where at any given time.
The new format was an act of genius, which ensured that the problems of Greek chronography would not continue to bedevil history.
Eusebius also decided to start his Chronicle, not with the date of Creation, but with the earliest date that he felt he could reasonably calculate, which was the birth of Abraham. Since his new format placed each year on a separate line, he marked every ten years how many years it had been from the birth of Abraham. This universal dating foreshadowed the invention of the standard Anno Domini dating by Dionysius Exiguus. That a standard dating system would come into being was ensured by the popularity of Jerome's version of the Chronicle, and the obvious need for it once that work existed.
Eusebius did not collect the materials himself for his work, but relied on whatever works he could find which gave brief lists of events and rulers. Once he started work, the problems of Greek chronography must have become exceedingly evident.
The problems of Greek chronography
By the time of Eusebius, Greek chronography was a mess. There were a number of reasons for this.
There was no agreement in the ancient world on which date the year should begin. Each city would have its own calendar and reckoning. There were several different systems of months in use. There were also systems like 'Ab Urbe Condita' (AUC - from the founding of the City, Rome). But there were so many of these, and they enjoyed such limited use, that these did not advance things. The Romans, rather than using AUC, tended to date a year by the names of the annual consuls then in office. Greek cities often did likewise.
The most common system of dating was by the regnal year of a reigning monarch, and inscriptions often record that they were erected in the nth year of king xyz. Lists of kings and the number of years they reigned circulated, and exist still, carved on the walls of Egyptian temples. But kings do not always come to the throne on the st of January, and some rule for less than a year, and some are obliterated from the lists for political reasons. In consequence any reckoning based upon regnal years was bound to be in error, sometimes substantially as errors in a dynasty accumulated.
Once the Olympic games had begun, with a group of four years between games known as an Olympiad, some of the Greeks began to refer to those four-year groups by the name of the victor in the games. Later yet, a number was assigned to the olympiad. Chronicles based on the four-year cycle began to come into existence, since this dating was more universal for Greek affairs than lists of annual officials in each city.
Anyone trying to write a history had to struggle with these obstacles. Frequently the best that could be done was to say that a certain man flourished in the reign of such a king. Yet even here problems occurred, since the Greek word used for 'flourished' was extremely similar to that for 'was born.' The result of such errors can be seen in the Chronicle in the dates assigned to Lycurgus, who appears 3 times over a period of more than a century. The first is in fact when he was born; the second his hey-day, and the third refers to someone of the same name! But each can be traced back to impeccable sources in the Greek tradition that Eusebius used.
Eusebius' approach to the chronological problems
Eusebius was powerless to solve most of these problems. His innovative format however forced him to deal with some of them. In many cases he simply recorded what he had, and left others to deal with the problem. In others he presumed an error and adjusted the count of years assigned to a given ruler in order to make the lines tally and 'correct' the 'error'.
Starting with a mess of loosely connected regnal years, he linked them together through synchronisms. These were points at which he had information that tied together events in two different kingdoms.
For instance he was able to determine that Darius of Persia and Alexander the Great of Macedon lived at the same time, since the latter overthrew the former. This linked the Greek lists with the Persian ones. The Greek lists could be linked together through the Olympiads, which were often recorded for Greek events. He was able to link Jewish events with Persian ones because it was recorded that the second temple was built in the Second Year of Darius. This last date is one of his crucial synchronisms. The date of the Trojan War was present in many of his lists, and forms another such link.
Some events, particularly in Olympiad Chronicles, were not given a precise year, but merely dated to the period of the Olympiad, or of a given ruler. He handled this by placing each Olympiad and each ruler's name on a fresh line, separate from the normal list of years. This gave him space to record such information.
The Chronicle is inevitably riddled with errors. Eusebius himself records at one point that all dates prior to then are conjectural and disputed. Responsibility for these errors must be assigned largely to his predecessors. Even then, it is difficult to condemn inaccurate dates assigned to times when no-one had any conception of such a thing as a numerical date. Rather the Chronicle draws a line under the period of confusion, and provides a framework in which errors can be identified and resolved.
Eusebius' own Chronicle is no longer extant in the original Greek. An Armenian translation exists in two manuscripts, although the end of book one and start and end of book two are lost in both. The entries in book two have also been augmented, and the format rearranged, but numerous errors crept in during this process.
Jerome and Eusebius
St. Jerome as a young man spent time in the East and became familiar with a great deal of the scholarship of the school of Origen and Eusebius. He came across a copy of the Chronological Canons and recognised its importance. As with other works by Eusebius, such as the Onomasticon, he arranged to translate it. He had a skilled scribe draw up a volume with the numerals in Latin rather than Greek - no trivial task -, and then dictated a translation of the contents.
He also added his own comments where he felt that Roman history had been neglected. Finally he composed a continuation down to his own times, ending with the disastrous defeat and death of the emperor Valens at the hands of the Goths at Adrianople in 378 AD.
This continuation was of the utmost importance for the future. The esteem in which Jerome was held was great in the succeeding decades and centuries, and the monastic scribes did not hesitate to follow his example and write further continuations to the text. This practice undoubtedly contributed to the preservation of the work and its centrality to all future historical work.
Jerome made revisions to the text as time went on. He made an error in transcribing 'Alcamenes' in one entry, mistaking the numeral theta that preceded it as part of the name. The text 'Thalcamenes' appears in numerous manuscripts, including 'O'; but is corrected in others. It shows clearly the manner in which the Greek practise of using letters as numerals facilitated corruption of both the numbers and the text.
Families of manuscripts
It was Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) who first worked on the chronology of antiquity and so came up against the primary witness, Jerome's version of Eusebius. In his work De emendation temporum (1583) he split the mss into two families.
Priores. 10 mostly late manuscripts known to him shared a format with all the numbers on the left-hand side of the page, in columns, and at the right the text of any historical event. This could wrap around, thereby giving a long space for all the text. Scaliger referred to this space for text as the spatium historicum and so it has been known since. But Scaliger called it the priores -- earliest -- since he thought they were.
Posteriores. Three early manuscripts (B, F, P) Scaliger designated posteriores -- later -- since they did not agree with each other in format, nor with the priores group.
Also present in the manuscripts of Jerome are a set of king-lists (the Series Regum) and an Exordium. In 1750 the Veronese scholar Girolamo Da Prato published a treatise, De Chronicis libris duo ab Eusebio scriptis et editis. In this he established the late date of these two items. These are published in Schoene (below).
O, B, F, P, A and S are all old and agree in format. B is not a child of S, unlike A and P. O and S are independent, so must go back to two exemplars written in Jerome's lifetime.
One MS of the th century survives almost complete; of another, enough fragments survive to identify two apographs which enable it to be reconstructed in its entirety. There are several MSS of the th and th centuries. These early witnesses attest securely not only the text of Jerome's version, but equally important, its arrangement of the columns of numbers and of the entries on each page of the original (T.D.Barnes, p.112).
So old are the manuscripts, that we can see some of Jerome's working practises. S and its descendants reflect Jerome's final version. O was based on a somewhat earlier copy which had a few readings which Jerome corrected against his copy of Eusebius, but has the same format. However the copyist of O has chosen to save parchment by condensing the text into 30 lines per page, rather than the original 26. B also derives from a pre-revision copy. Schoene referred to the revised edition as the Editio Romana of the Chronicle, on the theory that Jerome made it to present to the Roman synod of 382. (RP: I have been unable to find any actual evidence in any of the works listed below for this).
There is no uniformity in the manuscripts in the division of lines and pages in the prefaces. All the older manuscripts have a single column format for the preface; some later ones have two columns.
Manuscripts
Siglum
Location
Shelfmark & Notes
Date /
Century
O Oxford, Bodleian Library Codex Oxoniensis Bodleianus Lat. auct. T II 26. Uncial. 30 lines a page. It contains the Chronicle of Jerome (to f. 144), followed by a chronological summary on 1 leaf, followed by the Chronicle of Marcellinus. A posteriores Ms. (Online here)Ff. 1-32 years, are in a late (s.XV?) hand in the priores (long-lines) format. The remainder (A. Abr. 555-2394) is in a fifth century hand, the last leaf is missing, and the one-leaf summary replacing it is either by the same or a contemporary hand. There are marginalia dating from around 1400.
The manuscript was acquired from an unknown source by Jean de Tillet, Bishop of Meaux, who died in 1570. Du Tillet had obtained authority from Francis I to collect Mss from French libraries; there are reasons to suppose that the Ms. was in the South of France ca. 1400. Pontacus borrowed it from him and cites it by the name of the Meldensis (M). Sirmond, in his edition of Marcellinus (1619, 1696) refers to it as being in Tillet's library. It then passed to the Jesuit College of Clermont at Paris. This library was sold in 1764, when it was acquired by Meerman. On the sale of his library in 1824, it was bought by Gaisford for the Bodleian. There are full details in Fotheringham's facsimile.
MADAN, Summary Catalogue..., IV (1897), p.441. 5
S Leiden, Paris & Vatican Codex Floriacensis fragm. Dismembered pages of this MS. Paris. Lat. 6400 B (14 pages: the th quaternion of the Ms plus the st, nd, rd, th, th and th gatherings of the th quaternion); Leiden, Voss. Lat. Q. 110 A (6 pages at the end of P); Vatican Reginensis 1709 (2 pages). Uncial. The Paris fragment has a note in a 9th century hand "Codex beati Benedicti Floriac.", indicating it belonged to the abbey at Fleury at that date. This was sacked by the Hugenots in 1562. Written in Italy. 26 lines per page. The division of the pages is the same as in A,N,P. N and P must have been copied from S, so similar are they in form and text. A posteriores Ms. The Ms must have devoted one more leaf to the title and prefaces than M N and P and must have originally contained 167 leaves. A photographic facsimile was published as Supplement I in the Leiden series of Codices Graeci et Latini.
5
B Berne, Stadtbibliothek. Codex Bernensis 219 (once Bongarsianus, in Scaliger; Aurelianensis or A in Pontacus). Written in uncial, probably at the Abbey of St. Benedict at Fleury, to which it belonged according to a notice in the Ms. Later belonged to Peter Daniel Aurelianensis (d. 1603), then to Jacques Bongars, when Scaliger mentions it by that name. A manuscript not related to S. A posteriores Ms. Contains only the Chronicle of Jerome. From dates given in the Ms it would appear to have been written between 627 and 699 AD, as there is a large notice on fol. 1 referring to the th year of Childebert king of the Franks and given various dates of this (697 AD), and on the last page another notice referring to 17th year of Heraclius as the 627th Dionysian year of Christ (I.e. A.D., after Dionysius Exiguus who devised it). There are 76 leaves. The pages are much larger than AOS and the number of lines per page varies from 34 to 40. This manuscript generally compresses the two-page spread into one, making a division down the middle of the page instead. It is a very careless piece of work and the scribe has not troubled to keep the columns in line. However the right years correspond at the start of each page, so it seems that the scribe retained the division of pages in his archetype. The constant misplacement of olympiads is a sign of the carelessness of the scribe. Unfortunately Schoene used this as the basis of his edition.
7
A Valenciennes, Bibliothèque de la Ville. Codex Valentianus 495 (once Amandinus). From St. Amand, now in the public library in Valenciennes. Uncial, 26 lines per page. Transcribed from S. Contains only the Chronicle of Jerome. The foliation suggests that the manuscript should contain 167 leaves; one is devoted to the title, while two leaves are missing after f.125, and one leaf has been accidentally omitted in the foliation after f. 105 (the error may be counteracted elsewhere). The pages are the same size as NOPS. It corresponds very nearly page for page and line for line with NPS and the first part of M, but devoted more space to the preface than MNP do. There are frequent blank lines, suggesting that some notices took up fewer lines in this Ms. than in the archetype, and that the scribe has resorted to this device to keep the layout the same. A posteriores Ms. 7
P Leiden Codex Leidensis Lat. Voss. Q 110 (once Petavianus). In the 9th century, according to a statement in the Ms itself, it was written in the Abbey of St. Mesmin in Orleans by a monk Elias in the time of Abbot Peter (ca. 840 AD). Transcribed from S. Contains only Jerome's Chronicle. Close correspondance with N, and almost as close to S. 166 leaves, including 2 devoted to the title. A posteriores Ms. ca. 840 AD.
N Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Codex Turonensis Berolin. Phillips. 1872. From the collection of Sir Thomas Phillips at Middlehill. The manuscript came originally from Tours. It contains only Jerome's Chronicle, on 166 leaves. Minuscules are used for all entries in black ink and uncials for everything in red. There are 26 lines per page and the division of pages corresponds to that in APS. It seems to be a copy of S. It has interesting marginalia derived from the other families. A posteriores Ms. 9 or 10
M Berlin Codex Middlehillensis Berolin. Phillips. 1829. Written at Trier in the time of Charlemagne. Minuscule all through. 26 lines per page. A descendant of either S or O. A posteriores Ms. This Ms. came originally from Treves (see Mommsen, Chronica Minora I, p.78). It contains the Chronicle of Jerome, the Liber Generationis and Hydatius. Jerome occupies ff.1-153 and the first line of f.154. In the first part of the chronicle the page division corresponds exactly to ANPST; in the latter part the division is different to any other Ms. The hand changes at the start of f.73a. A full collation appears in Schoene, but is not reliable.
8/9
F Leiden, Bibliotheek der Universiteit Codex Leidensis Scaliger 14 (once Freherianus in Scaliger and Pontacus; although the latter sometimes confused this Ms (Fre.) with the Codex Fabritianus (Fab.)). Written in red, green, black and purple ink, and belongs to the early part of the 9th century. It descends from the manuscript of Bonifatius. It is written on 190 leaves and contains Jerome, the Exordium, the Chronicon consulare of Prosper, and a dedicatory epistle and Carmen votivum of Bonifatius. Jerome occupies ff. a-176a; f58b and f59a are blank, however, so the total is174 leaves. The pages contain 25 lines each, and do not exactly correspond to any other manuscript. A posteriores Ms. 9
L London, British Library Ms. Additional 16974. Related to T. Contains the title 'Liber monasterii sancti Trudonis', so belong to the monastery of St. Tron in Belgium. It contains Jerome's Commentary on Matthew, the Chronicon of Jerome, the Chronicon Imperiale of Prosper, and the Chronicle of Marius of Aventicum. Jerome's Chronicle is ff. 57a-190a. The pages are much larger than most mss, containing 42 (sometimes 40 or 41) lines. This is the oldest of the priores. The scribe was careless. A displacement of a portion of the preface shows that the archetype had around 31 lines per page. 9/10
Lucca, Chapter library Codex Lucensis bibl. capit. 490. Written in a small minuscule. AD 787
Lem. 1 Limoges Codex Lemovicensis bibl. publ. 1 12
D Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Francais. Codex Parisinus Latinus 4860 (once Colbertinus). Written in Mainz. 10
T Oxford, Merton College Codex Oxon. Merton 315. Related to SAPN. Written in red, green and black ink. It is written on 156 leaves, and contains Jerome's Chronicle. However it inserts after the preface of Eusebius two short treatises, Interpretatio sancti Hieronymi de nominibus gentium and De mensuratio provinciarum. After the Chronicle come four chronological summaries. There are some German verses in a late, perhaps 14th century hand, on ff.9a, 156a/b, so the Ms perhaps was in Germany some time. The division of pages is almost identical with that in AMNPS for the first part (to A.Abr. 1496) but with occasional deviations. The latter portion is divided up differently to any other manuscript. There are 26 lines per page, except in the prefaces and summaries at the end, where there are 28. In the omission of headings in the Chronicle, the Ms. agrees with B.
9
C Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Francais. Codex Parisinus Latinus 4859 (Colbertinus). Related to T. 9/10
L London, British Library Ms. Additional 16974. Related to T. A member of the long-lines family. 9/10
Q Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Francais. Codex Parisinus Latinus 4858. Uncial and minuscule. 9
U Udine, Biblioteca Arcivescovile Biblioteca Arcivescovile ot° 14. These partially supply the lost pages at the start of O. Images in Fotheringam, Bodleian.
W Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Francais. Codex Parisinus Latinus 4870. These partially supply the lost pages at the start of O. Images in Fotheringam, Bodleian. Contains the words common to other Mss descended from O: "A Valente VI et Valentiniano iuniore usque in consulatum Eudoxii colliguntur LXIIII, ac per hoc a XV Tiberi anno, quo dominus predicare incepit, in consulatum Eudoxii et Dioscori fuint anni CCCCXI." (442 AD).
V Oxford, Bodleian Library Canonici script. eccl. 96.
R Montpellier, Bibliothèque Universitaire, Section de Médecine Codex Montepessulanus H. 32.
This is not a complete list: there are said to be a hundred or so.
About this translation
This translation is the first translation of the whole work into a modern language. The text used in the end was the J. K. Fotheringham edition of 1923.
The portion written by Jerome himself, from 326-378, has been translated before. Malcolm Drew Donalson translated it into English with a commentary in 1996; Benoît Jeanjean published an excellent French translation and commentary in 2004, to which he added a translation of the two prefaces of Jerome and Eusebius. Most but not all of the preface of Jerome had been translated into English as part of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series in the 19th century.
The translation came about as a result of some experiments in online collaborative translation by Roger Pearse. Andrew Smith of attalus.org had translated portions of the text of the Chronicle covering the Hellenistic era, down to the death of Tiberius, and formatted them as text keyed on Olympiad, year, and text. This provided a model for placing the text of the Chronicle online so that it could be translated, without the need to worry about the king-lists and numbers and the detailed format of the final product. This was the approach taken.
After a discussion with Steven Van Impe, in September 2004, a web page was placed online which contained on the left hand side some 160 text entries in Latin from Jerome's Chronicle, one after another, and on the right a box in which anyone might enter a translation. The text was broken down into very short sections of no more than a short sentence. The electronic Patrologia Latina Database text was used as a starting point, and then corrected to follow the 1923 edition of J. K. Fotheringham. The PL text contained a great many medieval additions which were mostly ignored, and the remainder placed in brackets.
The text was made available in weekly 'chunks' of no more than 160 sections, each being edited, uploaded and announced on a Saturday. Each chunk took around a week. The website then allowed anyone visiting the site to enter a translation or comments there and then, without the need for registration. The emphasis was on each section being so short that anyone with any knowledge of Latin would be able to do something, and thereby people of all levels of Latin would be encouraged to participate. Quality was assured by keeping the length of the chunk short, so that when a chunk was done people could then review what had been done in the remainder of the week.
The existence of each new chunk was publicised in a variety of online fora, including humanities.classics, soc.history.ancient and the LT-ANTIQ mailing list. The process took 14 weeks from September 2004 until Christmas 2004, starting with Gaius (Caligula) and proceeding to the end, then restarting with Abraham and continuing down to Tiberius; finally doing the praefationes in the same way.
After the bulk of the translation work was done, the translation had to be harmonised to try to ensure that the same words were translated the same way. This was not straightforward. The text was too large to edit in Microsoft Word or Frontpage. In the end, each sentence was placed online in a separate text file, numbered 1-2574, and a PHP script written so that the sentences could be browsed by number range (1-10, etc) or by searching for words in the text file. Using the latter approach, it was easier to display only those sections which contained a specific word to be harmonised. This process took a month.
Then the result had to be laid out in the format of the original, which took some three months until April 2004 and was very arduous. The format is 26 line pages and follows Helm's edition (1956). This proved extraordinarily difficult, involving some unusual HTML. The layout was done from the rear of the volume, and only once around 70% of the text had been formatted was a template that would work for every page successfully evolved. This process took until the end of April 2005, and around 20% had to be done again once the modus operandi had been established. However many features of the Chronicle only become clear once you actually try to lay out a copy on a page, electronic or otherwise.
The layout was done a page at a time in Dreamweaver 6. Attempts to edit larger files proved impractical. It quickly became clear that the HTML tables could not be allowed to resize as normally happens. Instead the tables were specified as fixed size and the properties of each cell specified in CSS. This ensured compatibility across browsers, such as Internet Explorer 6, Netscape 6 and Firefox.
Finally a question arose about colours in the text. Jerome's original text had the columns of kings coloured alternately red and black, in order to avoid confusion. This has been followed in the online text. There are no indications in either Helm or Fotheringham of the colour system. The Merton College manuscript is online, but since this has additional colours it could not be used without reservation. A colour strip of 27 pictures of the Bodleian manuscript was bought and used as a guide, but this mainly contained items from the latter portion of the Chronicle. The Assistant Librarian of the Bodleian, Dr. Bruce Barker-Benfield, kindly agreed to allow access to this treasure. A visit during May 2005 allowed the production of a marked up print-out of the translation which indicated which portions of the text were in which colour. In the process he found that the facsimile really was an extraordinarily accurate reproduction of the look and feel of the codex, colour aside. However the first original page was page 69. The colour on the pages before this point is therefore a reconstruction. The last page of the codex was also lost in late antiquity; again a guess has been made on the correct colours.
One problem that was encountered in the translation was a portion in Jerome's introduction. The original text was laid out in a specific tabular format by Eusebius, and following him, by Jerome. However at some time during the Dark Ages, a scribe chose to reformat the document by placing all of the columns of kings on the left, and all the text on the right. The first letter of the text was colour-coded to indicate to which column of numbers - up to nine - it related. To explain this, the scribe interpolated a short passage into Jerome's introduction. Unfortunately this passage is extremely terse and difficult to understand in the absence of a manuscript formatted and coded in this way. A manuscript of this family does exist in the British Library. Permission to view this manuscript has been granted but the opportunity to view it has not yet arrived. Until this can be checked, the translation of the interpolated passage must be considered provisional.
Translators and helpers
Around 25 people participated at various points during the 14 weeks of the experiment, and I would like to thank everyone who did so. In no particular order, the main translators and problem-solvers were: Roger Pearse (RP), Andrew S. Jacobs (ASJ), José Miguel Blasco Ibáñez (JMB), Jacob Wainwright Love (JWL), and an anonymous contributor known as '...'; together with contributions large and small by Argyros George Argyrou (AGA), Steven Van Impe (SVI), Benôit Jeanjean (BJ: whose splendid French translation of the last portion of the Chronicle appeared as our project was drawing to a close), Frank Gay (FG), Frank Van Heden (FVH), Mark DelCogliano (MD), Andrew Smith (AS), Michael Kuettner (MK), James Hannam (JH), DSV, TV, GAC, MDM, M. Guy, Kevin O'Donnell, Ayse Tuzlak (AT), FM, RAK, JWS, tks, EL, SJJC, DH, KS, Pe, AC, RIP and others who chose to remain entirely anonymous. (If anyone for whom I only have initials would like to contact me, I'd be glad to add your names). Many, many thanks to you all!
All errors of translation, revision and layout are solely the responsibility of Roger Pearse, of course. The translation does not pretend to be what it is not, and doubtless contains errata and corrigenda. All such will be gratefully received. The object of the translation was to explore the possibilities and limitations of online translation of works never before translated by a mixture of professionals and people not professionally involved in such activity, and in the process to make this fascinating work available to the general public, and thereby to encourage interest in ancient chronography. It is hoped that this will now occur.
Thanks are due to Dr. Bruce Barker-Benfield of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, who made it possible for the manuscript 'O' -- one of the treasures of that library -- to be consulted.
Key to codes used in the translation
The double-page openings of Jerome's copy are represented on-screen by the white rectangles. Areas in yellow indicate material not part of Jerome's text. The spine of the book is represented by a yellow column down the middle. Page numbers (a later addition) are indicated in square brackets at the top -- [220/221] is pages 220 and 221. These page numbers appear in Helm and Fotheringham.
A few things in the text may be obscure. These have been transcribed from the edition of Helm (1956).
g An entry -- The italic letter is not present in Jerome's text, but is a code devised by Rudolf Helm. All the text entries can be referenced by page number and letter, e.g. 303a.
* -- When an entry is marked with an asterisk in Helm's edition, it is supposedly not present in the Armenian translation of the original work by Eusebius. This means that it must be an entry added by Jerome. However Burgess states (p.24) that these are not very accurate. After some hesitation, I have transcribed them.
(*) -- Helm's code for an entry which is present in the Armenian, but in a somewhat shorter or different form.
*? -- Helm's code for another possible modification; I am unclear in what way.
The first column of years, underlined, is the years from Abraham, shown every 10 years. The reckoning of years AD and BC is shown for guidance, but did not form part of the original text.
Note that the text has been formatted for display under Internet Explorer 6. I have been unable to discover why it behaves erratically under Firefox. The task of converting the Chronicle to HTML for the first time has not been a trivial one, and the only way to find out how to do it was to learn by doing. There are certain irregularities of page width in the second portion of the Chronicle. I hope I may be forgiven for not redoing this portion entirely, using the page size and format of the pages in the first part. Such an enterprise would be useful, but it would take months, for purely cosmetic gain. At the moment I do not have the resources to redo it. If it causes deep pain, let me know.
It is possible to print off the tabular portion of the Chronicle, in landscape mode, resizing to paper width. An inkjet can give quite satisfactory results.
Latin text
After this was all done, there was very little energy left for anything else, and certainly not to create an online Latin text. The text used for the translation project consisted of the 'lemmas' of text only. But during the summer of 2005, JMB very heroically volunteered to incorporate this into the format of the translation, so that a Latin text would be available. This he did, and it now appears here with the English. The numerals have not been converted back to Roman numbers. If someone would care to volunteer for that task, it would be nice to complete the job.
Bibliography
The materials available to the editor were limited to whatever could be bought or photocopied by someone living in a rural town. These were:
Richard W. BURGESS, Studies in Eusebian and post-Eusebian Chronography, Stuttgart (1999). (Photocopy of portions).
Malcolm Drew DONALSON, A Translation of Jerome's Chronicon With Historical Commentary, Mellen University Press (1996). ISBN: 0773422587 (Photocopy of translation).
J. K. FOTHERINGHAM, The Bodleian Manuscript of Jerome's Version of the Chronicle of Eusebius Reproduced in Collotype. Oxford: Clarendon (1905) (Photocopy)
J. K. FOTHERINGHAM, Eusebii Pamphili Chronici canones, latine vertit, adauxit, ad sua tempora produxit. S. Eusebius Hieronymus. Edidit Iohannes Knight Fotheringham. London: Humphrey Milford (1923). (Photocopy -
online here)
R. HELM, Eusebius Werke 7: Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller 47 (1956). (Photocopy of text only)
Benoît JEANJEAN & Bertrand LANÇON, Saint-Jérôme, Chronique: Continuation de la Chronique d'Eusèbe, années 326-378 suivie de quatre études sur les Chroniques et chronographies dans l'An... e ronde du GESTIAT, Brest, 22 et 23 mars 2002, PU Rennes (1 octobre 2004), ISBN: 2753500185. (Purchased copy).
Josef KARST, Eusebius Werke, te Band: Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteeler der Ersten Jahrhunderte 20. (1911). (Photocopy of portions).
Alden A. MOSSHAMMER, The Chronicle of Eusebius and the Greek Chronographic Tradition, Lewisburg/London (1979), ISBN 0-8387-1939-2. (Photocopy)
Alfred SCHOENE, Eusebi Chronicorum Libri. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmann (1875) (Purchased copy, but not extensively used after reading Mosshammer's comments).
The other item available to the editor and translators, and used with wonder and delight for every chunk of translation, was the 9th century Merton College Oxford manuscript 315, available online from the Bodleian Library website.
Roger PEARSE
2005.
This text was written by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_chronicle_01_prefaces.htm
St. Jerome, Chronicle (2004-5). Preface of Jerome; Preface of Eusebius
St. Jerome, Chronicle (2004-5). Preface of Jerome; preface of Eusebius
Eusebius Hieronymus to his friends Vincentius and Gallienus, greetings.
There was an old custom of the scholars, that they would reduce Greek books to Latin speech for the purpose of exercizing their wits, and, what has even more difficulty in it, they would translate poems of illustrious men, with the added necessity of correctly rendering the metre. For the same reason our Cicero translated complete books of Plato word-for-word: and after he had published Aratus in Roman dress, in hexameter verses, he amused himself with Xenophon's Economics. In this work that golden stream of eloquence is so frequently obstructed by certain rough and turbulent obstacles, so that whoever does not know that they are translations does not believe they were said by Cicero.
For it is difficult for someone who is following another's lines not to stray outside them from time to time; when things were said well in another language, it is hard to preserve the same elegance in translation. An idea was captured appropriately by a single word: I do not have my own word to convey it, and while I seek to complete the sentence, in a long detour I hardly advance a brief distance along the road. The twists of hyperbaton 1, the dissimilarities of cases, finally the varieties of figures of speech are added to the sense itself and, so to speak, the native idiom of the language. If I translate word for word, it sounds absurd; if perforce I alter something in sequence or style, I shall seem to have failed in the duty of a translator.
Therefore, my dearest Vincentius, and you, Gallienus, part of my soul, I beg that you reread whatever in this work is hasty, not with the spirit of judges, but as friends: especially since I dictated as quickly as possible to a secretary, as you know; and also the style 2 of the divine books testifies to the difficulty of the task, which, when published by the LXX translators, did not retain the same flavour in the Greek language. For this reason Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion were roused up to produce almost different works from the same work: with the first expressing it word-for-word, and the next preferring to follow the sense, and the third not differing much from the ancients. However the fifth, sixth and seventh versions 3, although it is unknown from which authors they originate, yet they contain intrinsic variants that are so probably correct, that they have earned authority without having names.
That's how it comes about that Sacred Literature seems unpolished and harsh sounding, for while scholarly men -- not understanding that they were translated from Hebrew -- look at the outside but not into the kernel, they tend rather to be thoroughly horrified at the mean clothing, so to speak, before they find the fair body of the things within.
Indeed what is more melodious than the psalter, which like the works of our own Flaccus 4 or the Greek Pindar, now runs along in iambics, now rings out in alcaics, now swells in sapphics, and now walks in semifoot? What is more beautiful than the Song of Deuteronomy or Isaiah? What is more serious than Solomon? What is more perfect than Job? All of which compositions circulate among their own people in hexameter and pentameter verses, as Josephus and Origen write. When we read these in Greek, they sound like something else; when we read them in Latin, they are scarcely coherent.
For if it seems to someone that the grace of a language does not change in translation, let him present Homer word-for-word in Latin, -- let me say something more -- let it be translated into his own language in words of prose; he will see that the word-order has become ridiculous and a most eloquent poet barely readable.
What is the point of all this? Obviously so that it does not seem amazing to you, if we offend occasionally, if sluggish speech is either raspy in consonants or divided and split in its sounds, or constrained by the brevity of these matters, since the most learned men have struggled in this same task: and to the general difficulty that we have pleaded in every translation, this in particular is added to us: that the history is multiplex, possessing barbarian names, matters unknown to the Latin-speaking peoples, inexplicable numbers, and columns equally interwoven with events and numbers, so that it is almost more difficult to discern the order in which things must be read, than to arrive at an understanding of the meaning.
[5 In order that, moreover, it may be understood, with a clear indication of which number any text pertains to, let the reader attend to these inserted distinctions, so that, if the text must be related to the first number of kingdom previously marked out, let him look at the first letter in the explanation of the text: and, if he should see it in bright red, let him know that it must apply to that period or in the year, which the number similarly drawn, that is in bright red, will have suggested: but if he shall perceive that the number (=initial letter?) is not in a pure bright red, but was written after black was mixed in, the text must be related to the number of the second column: if however it must be related to the third column of numbers that has been written down, the middle of the number (initial letter?) will be seen in a pure bright red and the remaining part given solely in black. The fourth column of numbers will have nothing in bright red, but there will be for an indication how the text is bound to it (the column of numbers), when the letter done in bright red at the start of the explanation of the text, that must also be supplied for the signs above, is displayed anyway, (and) they corresponded in category to none of the signs mentioned above. If on the contrary, the (initial) letter was expressed, not actually in bright red but in mixed black and red, he will be able to turn to the number gleaming with red in the fifth column of numbers; and so the sixth column of numbers will be indicated like the second, the seventh like the third, and the eighth also like the fourth with a two-colour-appearing letter. But when there are none of those signs which we mentioned earlier either in the numbers or in the explanation of history, the ninth column which was annotated is referred to. However, not all of these requirements are needed when the number of columns is less.]
From this I think that it is necessary to warn in advance that, exactly as they have been written, the variety of colours should also be preserved; lest someone suppose that so great an effort has been attempted for a meaningless pleasure of the eyes, and, when he flees from the tedium of writing, inserts a labyrinth of error. For this has been devised so that the strips of the kingdoms, which had almost been mixed together because of their excessive proximity on the page, might be separated by the distinct indication of bright red, and so that the same hue of colour which earlier parchment pages had used for a kingdom, would also be kept on later ones.
And I am not unaware that there will be many people who from their customary desire to detract from all things, will sink their fangs into this volume, which cannot be avoided unless one writes nothing at all: they will misrepresent dates, change the order, dispute events, split syllables, and, because it is generally customary that this should happen, they will ascribe the negligence of copyists to authors.
Although I would be within my right to repel those that it displease, by saying let them not read, in short I prefer to send them away satisfied, so that they can both assign the fidelity of the Greek things to their own author, and what new matters we have inserted, they may recognize that they have been extracted from other very learned men. And indeed it should be known that I have filled the role of both translator and in part writer, because I have both most faithfully expressed the Greek, and I have added some things which seemed to me to have been omitted, in Roman history especially which Eusebius, the originator of this book, seems to me, not to have been thus ignorant, for he was most learned, but since he was writing in Greek, to have skipped over those things less necessary to his countrymen.
And so from Ninus and from Abraham down to the captivity of Troy is a simple translation from the Greek: from Troy down to the 20th year of Constantine many things are added or modified, which we have carefully excerpted from Tranquillus 6, and the other illustrious historians: but from the aforementioned year of Constantine down to the th consulate of the Emperor Valens and second of the Emperor Valentinian, is totally my own.
Contented with this end-point, I have reserved the rest of the time of Gratian and Theodosius for the pen of a broader history; not that I have been afraid to write freely and truly about living persons -- for the fear of God drives out the fear of men -- but because while the barbarians are still raging here in our land, all things are uncertain.
The Translated Preface of Eusebius.7
The most learned men -- Clement, and Africanus, and Tatian from among ourselves, and Josephus and Justus from among the Jews, all while compiling books of ancient history -- have related that Moses, of the Hebrew nation, who first of all the prophets before the advent of the Lord Saviour expounded the divine laws in the sacred texts, lived in the time of Inachus. Again, Inachus precedes the Trojan War by 500 years: indeed from among the pagans, that impious man Porphyry in the fourth book of his work which he with pointless labour concocted against us, affirms that Semiramis, who reigned over the Assyrians 150 years before Inachus, lived after Moses. And so, according to him, Moses is discovered to be older than the Trojan War by almost 850 years.
When these things are taken into consideration, I have considered that it is necessary to search after the truth more diligently, and on account of this in a prior book 8 I have noted in advance for myself, as a sort of source for a future work, all the dates of kings, of the Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Hebrews, Egyptians, Athenians, Argives, Sicyonians, Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Thessalians, Macedonians, and Latins who afterwards were called Romans.
In the present book, however, putting each set of dates in turn in a column side by side, and counting the years of each of the nations, in order that this was contemporary with that, I have thus joined them together in careful order. Nor has it escaped me that differing numbers of years are to be found in the Hebrew books, either more or less, depending on how it seemed to the translators; and I would rather follow that which a great number of copies have guaranteed.
But let anyone who wishes calculate it: he will find that, in the time of Inachus who they say first ruled at Argos, Israel was patriarch of the Hebrews, from whom the twelve tribes of the Jews drew the name of Israel. Morever it is clear that Semiramis and Abraham were contemporaries: for Moses, although he might be younger than the aforementioned, nevertheless is understood to be older than all of those whom the Greeks consider most ancient: that is, Homer and Hesiod, and the Trojan War, and much older than Hercules, Musaeus, Linus, Chiron, Orpheus, Castor, Pollux, Aesculapius, Liber, Mercury, Apollo, and all the other gods of the nations, and sacred figures, and oracles, even the deeds of Jupiter, whom Greece placed at the summit of divinity. I say that all of these whom we have enumerated, we prove that they also lived after Cecrops Diphyes, the first king of Attica.
Moreover the present history shows that Cecrops is coeval with Moses and precedes the Trojan War by 350 years. Which, lest it should seem doubtful to someone, the following reasoning will thus prove.
Christ was born in the 42th year of the rule of Augustus. He started to preach in the 15th year of Tiberius. If someone therefore, counting backward through the number of years, seeks the second year of Darius, king of the Persians, in whose reign the Temple in Jerusalem which had been destroyed by the Babylonians was rebuilt, he will find 548 years from Tiberius back to Darius.
Of course the second year of Darius was in the first year of the 45th Olympiad, and the 15th year of Tiberius occurred in the 201st Olympiad. Therefore there were 137 Olympiads between Darius and Tiberius, 548 years, counting four years in one Olympiad.
Then in the second year of Darius the 70th year from the destruction of the Temple is completed, from which 64 Olympiads, or 256 years, are counted backwards to the first Olympiad; the years are counted similarly backwards, from the aforementioned year of the destruction of the temple to the 50th year of Uzziah, King of the Jews, in whose reign Isaiah and Hosea lived.
And so, the first olympiad occurred in the age of Isaiah and the rest who prophesied with him.
Again, if you proceed from the first Olympiad to earlier times and until the capture of Troy, you will discover 406 years, which we both set out in an earlier little work, and which the most careful history of the Greeks records. Likewise according to the Hebrews from the aforementioned year of Uzziah and the times of Isaiah the prophet, back until Samson and the third year of the Judge Labdon, you will count 406 years. This however is the Samson, whom the descendants of the Jews report was similar to Hercules in bodily strength, and they seem to me to have not much time separating them, if indeed both lived around the time of the capture of Troy.
After these again go back to earlier things, and, when you have completed 329 years going back, you will find Cecrops Diphyes of the Greeks, and Moses of the Hebrews. For from the 45th year of Cecrops until the capture of Troy, and from the 80th year of the age of Moses, in which he led the people of Israel from Egypt, until Labdon and Samson, the judges, there are counted 329 years.
And so, without any ambiguity, Moses, and Cecrops who was the first king of the Athenians, lived at the exact same time.
Again this is that Cecrops Diphyes the indigene, in whose reign the first olive tree grew on the summit, and the city of the Athenians drew its name from the name of Minerva. He first of all of them called upon Jupiter, and discovers idols, set up an altar, burned sacrificial victims; never before had such things been seen in this manner in Greece.
And then other miraculous things, which are boasted about among the Greeks, are indicated much later than the years of Cecrops; however if they are later than Cecrops, they are consequently also later than Moses, who existed with Cecrops.
For it was after him that it is written that there was the flood in the time of Deucalion, the fire in the time of Phaethon, Erichthonius the son of Hephaestus and Earth, Dardanus who founded Dardania: about whom Homer said:
Whom Jupiter first fathered in the heavenly citadel; 9
also the abduction of Libera and Europa, the rites of Ceres and Isis, the sanctuary in Eleusis, the corn of Triptolemus, the kingdom of Tros;
Of whom Ganymede was born, who, carried off to the stars,
The gods wished to pour out the wines of great Jupiter at their meals. 10
At this time also Tantalus and Tityus lived, and Apollo was born. For Latona, consort of Jupiter, flees because of Tityus; however of Latona and Jupiter Apollo is the son; and after these events Cadmus comes to Thebes,
Who fathered Semele, from whom the most beautiful progeny,
Liber, emerged and brought a wholly deserving delight by his birth. 11
Again, Liber and the rest whom we will bring in next, lived 200 years after the year of Cecrops; Linus certainly, and Zetus, amd Amphion, Musaeus, Orpheus, Minos, Perseus, Aesculapius, the twin Castors, Hercules, with whom Apollo served Admetus, after which the fall of the Trojan city happened: which Homer follows after a long interval; but Homer is found to have lived long before Solon or Thales of Miletus and the others who together with them have been called the Seven Sages.
Then Pythagoras appeared, who wished it to be said that he was not a Sage, as those earlier, but a philosopher, that is, a lover of wisdom; Socrates followed him, who taught Plato; by whom philosophy was divided into its well-known parts. We shall put each of these in their place according to the order of the following history.
Therefore Moses preceded all those whom we have recorded above: for it has been shown that he lived in the age of Cecrops.
However, returning to earlier events, from the 80th year of Moses and the exodus of Israel from Egypt, until the first year of Abraham, you will find 505 years, which you will count similarly from the 45th year of Cecrops back to Ninus and Semiramis, leaders of the Assyrians. Of course Ninus, son of Belus, was the first to reign over all Asia, the Indies excepted. And so it is clear that Abraham was born in the age of Ninus, at least according to the figure the Hebrew account offers, which is shorter than the usual version.
Indeed, if you do not falter in carefulness and when you have diligently pored over the Divine Scripture, from the birth of Abraham back to the Flood of the whole earth, you will find 942 years, and from the flood back to Adam, 2242, in which no completely Greek, or barbarian or, to speak in general terms, gentile history is found.
That is why the present little work traces the later years from Abraham and Ninus down to our time; and starts by displaying Abraham of the Jews, Ninus and Semiramis of the Assyrians, because at this time Athens was not a city, nor had the kingdom of the Argives received its name, as the Sicyonians alone were flourishing in Greece: they say that among them, in the days of Abraham and Ninus, Europs was the second to have reigned. Why we too believe this will be demonstrated in the following.
For if you diligently count out from the distant age of Ninus until the capture of Troy, you will find 834 years: likewise in Sicyon from the 22nd year of King Europs, until the aforementioned period, you will find those same 834 years: among the Hebrews also from the nativity of Abraham until Labdon and Samson the Judges of the Hebrews, who led the people in the times of the Trojans, you will equally count 834 years: likewise among the Egyptians from the age of Ninus and Semiramis, in which time the 16th dynasty of Thebes was already ruling over the Egyptians, until the 20th dynasty, and King Thuorin of Egypt, who is called Polybus by Homer, in whose reign also Troy was captured, the aforementioned 834 years are also computed: therefore, consequently, we place at the head of our little book, at one and the same date, Abraham, Ninus, Europs, and the Theban Egyptians: and as we said earlier, the text following demonstrates that these things are so.
Now care must be taken to divide the years of the Hebrews into four periods of time;
from Abraham until Moses;
from Moses until the first building of the Temple;
from the first building of the Temple until its second rebuilding;
and from its rebuilding until the coming of Christ the Lord.
Of course, from the nativity of Abraham until Moses and the exodus of Israel from Egypt, there are counted 505 years: from Moses down to Solomon and the first building of the temple, 479 years, according, however, to the smaller number which the third book of Kings contains, -- for according to the volume of Judges 600 years are computed -- from Solomon however down to the restoration of the temple, which happened under Darius, king of the Persians, 512 years are counted: further, from Darius down to the preaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, and down to the 15th year of Tiberius the first citizen of the Romans, 548 years are completed.
And so likewise 2044 years happen from Abraham until the 15th year of Tiberius:
similarly 505 years from Ninus and Semiramis until Moses and Cecrops;
from Cecrops until the capture of Troy, 329 years;
from the capture of Troy until the first olympiad, 406 years;
from the first olympiad until the second year of Darius and the restoration of the temple, 256 years;
from the second year of Darius and the restoration of the temple until the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, 548 years.
Likewise there happen from Ninus and Semiramis until the 15th year of Tiberius 2044 years, which we have also shown counted from Abraham until Tiberius: from the 15th year of Tiberius, however, until the fourteenth year of Valens,12 in which he died, there are numbered 351 years. And so there are in all 2395 years of this history.
And, in case the long series of numbers should perhaps cause some confusion, we have separated the whole mass of years into decades, which, gathering together out of the histories of the individual nations in turn, we have placed opposite each other, so as to provide a simple method of discovering in which era, Greek or barbarian, the prophets, kings, and priests of the Hebrews existed, likewise when falsely-believed gods of various nations existed, when demi-gods, when any city was founded, concerning illustrious men, when philosophers, poets, princes, and writers of various works appeared, and any other ancient event, if it was thought deserving of recording. All of which we shall put in their proper places with the greatest brevity.
Footnotes
1. Word-order reversal, for emphasis.
2. instrumenta. Lewis & Short: "II.Trop. A. Of writings... B.Ornament, embellishment: felices ornent haec instrumenta libellos. Ov. Tr. 1,1,9."
3. Jerome is here referring to the parallel translations from Hebrew into Greek in the columns of Origen's Hexapla. The separate columns circulated separately.
4. Horace.
5. This paragraph is a later interpolation. One family of the manuscripts was reformatted by a later scribe, who wrote this paragraph as an explanation of the new format. His system placed all the columns of numbers on the left, and all the text at the right. Which column of numbers the text related to is controlled by colour coding. This paragraph describes the system, albeit obscurely. Manuscript L is of this family, and this translation is provisional, pending a visit to the British Library.
1. number=bright red; first letter of text=bright red
2. number=? (Probably black); first letter of text=mixed red/black
3. number=? (probably bright red); first letter of text=middle bright red, rest black
4. number=black; first letter of text=bright red
5. number=red; first letter of text=mixed red/black
6. Like #2
7. Like #3
8. Like #4, two colour
9. number=black; first letter of text=black
The 'probablies' I get by alternating the colour of the numbers.
6. Suetonius.
7. Translated by St. Jerome from Greek into Latin. The headings in this page are Jerome's.
8. Eusebius' Chronicle is found in Armenian translation in two books. Book 1 is the Chronography and consists of lists of kings and how long they reigned, for various kingdoms. Book 2 is the Chronological Canons, which is the table of dates and events. Jerome only translated book 2, and the two books seem to have circulated separately. Even in the manuscripts of the Armenian version there is evidence of this, since the end of book 1 and the start and end of book 2 are missing. This shows that the 2-book combination is copied from two books which circulated by themselves, since the end of book 1 and start of book 2 should be very well protected in the middle of a volume, if they are together. This preface by Eusebius to book 2 is otherwise lost, being in the missing portion in the Armenian.
9. Homer, Iliad 20.215
10. Homer, Iliad 20.231-235.
11. Homer, Odyssey 11.576-582.
12. Clearly Jerome has altered something here, since Eusebius ended his text in the reign of Constantine. Probably this sentence originally referred to the 20th year of Constantine, and Jerome updated it to the end of his own version, the death of Valens.
All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Translated by Roger Pearse and friends from the text of Fotheringham (1905). See introduction for details.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_chronicle_02_part .htm
Jerome, Chronicle (2005) pp.16-187
Jerome, Chronicle (2005) pp.16-187
[16/17]
The Kingship of the Assyrians
Beginning of the nation of the Hebrews
The Kingship of the Sicyonians
The Kingship of the Egyptians
BC
Ninus son of Belus was the first to reign over all Asia except for the Indies, for 52 years. In the 43rd year of the rule of this Ninus, Abraham was born.
In his reign Abraham is born among the Hebrews; when Abraham was 100 years old he fathered Isaac.
In Greece, however, Europs was the second to rule over the Sicyonians in Greece, for forty-five years. In the twenty-second year of his reign Abraham was born.
From here onwards was the 16th government among the Egyptians, which they call a dynasty, at which time the Thebans were ruling for 190 years.
43
a Ninus founded the city of Ninum in the land of the Assyrians, which the Hebrews call Nineveh.
b While Ninus is reigning among the Assyrians, in his final years Abraham is born.
1
22
e While Ninus was reigning among the Assyrians, Aegialeus, from whom Aegialea was named, which is now called the Peloponnesus, ruled first among the Sicyonians for 52 years. After whom the second was Europs, whose name was also used as a place name.
f While Ninus was reigning among the Assyrians, the Thebans rule over the Egyptians.
1
2016
44
2
23
2
45
3
24
3
46
4
25
4
47
5
26
5
2012
48
6
27
6
49
c The magus Zoroaster, king of the Bactrians, is considered important, against whom Ninus fought.
d Abraham, a Chaldaean by birth, wears away his youth among the Chaldaeans.
7
28
7
50
8
29
8
51
9
30
9
10 52
10
31
10
2007
nd of the Assyrians,
Semiramis for 42 years
1
11
32
g Semiramis, wife of Ninus, ruled over the Assyrians, of whom innumerable things are recounted. She also held Asia, and constructed mud-banks, because of a flood, restoring very many of the cities of Babylonia.
11
2
12
33
12
3
13
34
13
4
14
35
14
5
15
36
15
2002
6
16
37
16
7
17
38
17
8
18
39
18
1999
[18/19]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Egyptians
BC
9
19
45
19
1998
20
10
20
46
20
1997
11
21
47
21
12
22
48
22
13
23
49
23
14
24
50
24
rd of Sicyon, Telchin, for 20 years.
15
25
1
25
1992
16
26
2
26
17
27
3
27
18
28
4
28
19
29
5
29
30
20
30
6
30
1997
21
31
7
31
22
32
8
32
23
33
9
33
24
34
10
34
25
35
11
35
1982
26
36
12
36
27
37
13
37
28
38
14
38
29
39
15
39
40
30
40
16
40
1977
31
41
17
41
32
42
18
42
1975
[20/21]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Egyptians
BC
33
43
19
43
1974
34
44
20
44
th of Sicyon,
Apis, for 25 years
a The beginning of the 41st Jubilee, according to the Hebrews. Now, among them, the fiftieth year is called a 'jubilee'. Accordingly, after their calculation, there have been 2000 years from the time of Adam until the present.
b After whom Apia was named, which is now called the Peloponnesus, and was previously Aegialea.
35
45
1
45
1972
36
46
2
46
37
47
3
47
38
48
4
48
39
49
5
49
50 40
50
6
50
1967
41
51
7
51
42
52
8
52
rd of the Assyrians,
Zameis, also called
Ninyas, son of Ninus and
Semiramis, for 38 years.
1
53
9
c Cres the indigene was the first to reign in Crete.
53
2
54
10
54
3
55
11
55
1962
4
56
12
d Crete is named after the indigene Cres, whom they say was one of the Curetes, by whom Jupiter was kidnapped and raised. They established Knossos, a city on Crete, and the temple of Cybele the Mother.
56
5
57
13
57
6
58
14
58
7
59
15
59
60 8
60
16
60
1957
9
61
17
61
10
62
18
62
1955
[22/23]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Egyptians
BC
11
63
19
63
1954
12
64
20
64
13
65
21
65
1952
14
66
22
66
15
67
23
67
16
68
24
68
17
69
25
69
th of the Sicyonians, Thelxion, for 52 years.
70 18
70
1
70
1947
19
71
2
71
20
72
3
72
21
73
4
73
22
74
5
74
23
a When Abraham was 75 years old, he is considered worthy of being spoken to by God, and of the covenant that was established for him.
b First year of the Covenant of God with Abraham.
75
6
d From Abraham's 75th year, to Moses and the Hebrew nation's flight from Egypt, 430 years are counted, which Paul recalls as follows: "The law, which was made 430 years later, does not annul the covenant confirmed by God, so as to destroy the promise." 1 Also, Moses himself in Exodus agrees with this in saying: "The time that the children of Israel had lived in Egypt, and they and their fathers in the land of Canaan, was 430 years." 2
75
1942
24
76
7
76
25
77
8
77
26
78
9
78
27
79
10
79
80 28
80
11
80
1937
29
81
12
81
30
82
13
82
31
83
14
83
32
84
15
84
33
c 10th year of the covenant
85
16
85
1932
34
86
17
86
1931
(1) Galatians 3:17, where Jerome's Vulgate has non irritam facit ad evacuandam promissionem for non infirmat ad destruendam repromissionem.
(2) Exodus 12:40. The stay in Canaan is included in the 430 years in the Septuagint, but not in the Masoretic text (or, apparently, in Jerome s bible).
[24/25]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Egyptians
BC
35
a Through his female slave Hagar, Abraham fathers Ishmael, from whom come the race of Ishmaelites, later called Hagarenes, and finally Saracens.
87
18
87
1930
36
88
19
88
37
89
20
89
90 38
90
21
90
1927
th of the Assyrians,
Arius, for 30 years
1
91
22
91
2
92
23
92
3
93
24
93
4
94
25
94
5
b 20th year of the Covenant.
95
26
95
1922
6
96
27
96
7
97
28
97
8
98
29
98
9
99
30
99
100 10
c When he was 100 years old, Abraham fathered Isaac by his free wife, after which he lived another 75 years.
100
31
100
1917
Of the Hebrews, Isaac, son of Abraham: in the sixtieth year of his life, Isaac fathered Jacob.
11
d The word of God, when it appeared in human form, promises the calling of the gentiles to Abraham, the first of all the prophets, which in our time the word of Christ has brought to completion through preaching the Gospel among all nations.
1
32
101
12
2
33
102
13
3
34
103
14
4
35
104
15
e 30th year of the Covenant. 5
36
105
1912
16
6
37
106
1911
[26/27]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Egyptians
BC
17
7
38
107
1910
18
8
39
108
19
9
40
109
110 20
a 110th year of Abraham.
10
41
110
1907
21
11
42
111
22
12
43
112
23
13
44
113
24
14
45
114
25
b 40th year of the Covenant.
15
46
115
1902
26
16
47
116
27
17
48
117
28
18
49
118
29
19
50
119
120 30
c 120th year of Abraham.
20
51
120
1897
th of the Assyrians,
Aralius, for 40 years
1
21
52
121
th of the Sicyonians,
Aegydrus, for 34 years
2
22
1
122
3
23
2
123
4
24
3
124
5
d 50th year of the Covenant.
25
4
125
1892
6
26
5
126
7
27
6
127
8
28
7
128
1889
[28/29]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Egyptians
BC
9
29
8
129
1888
130 10
a 130th year of Abraham
30
9
f In Crete, Cres the indigene was the first to reign, as some have it. Others however proclaim that he reigned at the date written above.
130
1887
11
31
10
131
12
32
11
132
13
33
12
133
14
34
13
134
15
b 60th year of the Covenant
35
14
135
1882
16
36
15
136
17
37
16
137
18
38
17
138
19
39
18
139
140 20
c 140th year of Abraham
40
19
140
1877
21
41
20
141
22
42
21
142
23
43
22
143
24
44
23
144
25
d 70th year of the Covenant
45
24
145
1872
26
46
25
146
27
47
26
147
28
48
27
148
29
49
28
149
150 30
e 150th year of Abraham
50
29
150
1867
31
51
30
151
32
52
31
152
33
53
32
153
34
54
33
154
1863
[30/31]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Beginning of the kingship of the Argives
Egyptians
BC
35
a 80th year of the Covenant
55
34
155
1862
th of the Sicyonians,
Thurimachus for 45 years
36
56
1
156
37
57
2
157
38
58
3
158
39
59
4
159
160 40
b Twin sons are born to the sexagenarian Isacc: first Esau, also called Edom, from whom come the race of Idumaeans. Secondly Jacob, later called Israel, from whom come the Israelites, who are now called Jews.
c 160th year of Abraham
60
5
160
1857
th of the Assyrians, Xerxes, also called Balaneus, for 30 years.
Of the Hebrews, Jacob, son of Isaac, until the birth of his son Joseph, for 121 years. Jacob.
In these times among the Argives Inachus was the first to reign, for 50 years.
1
1
6
1
f Inachus's daughter Io, whom the Egyptians, having changed the name, call Isis and worship. The river Inachus at Argos is named after his father Inachus, the Bosphorus after his daughter Io.
161
2
2
7
2
162
3
3
8
3
163
4
4
9
4
164
5
d 90th year of the Covenant
5
10
5
165
1852
6
6
11
6
g Castor the Chronographer speaks thus concerning the Argive kingdom: "I will therefore trace the kings of the Argives from Inachus to Sthenelantus son of Crotops; the complete span of time of which is found to be 382 years."
166
7
7
12
7
167
8
8
13
8
168
9
9
14
9
169
10
e 170th year of Abraham, but 70th of Isaac.
10
15
10
170
1847
11
11
16
11
171
12
12
17
12
172
13
13
18
13
173
1844
[32/33]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
14
14
19
14
174
1843
15
a 100th year of the Covenant, in which Abraham dies having lived in total 175 years.
15
20
15
175
1842
16
16
21
16
176
17
17
22
17
177
18
18
23
18
178
19
19
24
19
179
180 20
b 80th year of Isaac
20
25
20
f Apis was the first in Egypt to be regarded as a god: him they called 'Serapis'.
180
1837
21
21
26
21
181
22
22
27
22
182
23
23
28
23
183
24
24
29
24
184
25
c 110th year of the Covenant
25
30
25
185
1832
26
26
31
26
186
27
27
32
27
187
28
28
33
28
188
29
29
34
29
189
190 30
d 90th year of Isaac
30
35
30
190
1827
th of the Assyrians,
Armamitres, for 38 years.
17th dynasty of the Egyptians, in which time the Shepherds were reigning for 103 years
1
31
36
31
g We conjecture that the Kings of the Egyptians were called 'Shepherds' because of Joseph and his brothers, who were attested to have gone down to Egypt in the beginning as shepherds.
1
2
32
37
32
2
3
33
38
33
3
4
34
39
34
4
5
e 120th year of the Covenant
35
40
35
5
1822
6
36
41
36
6
1821
[34/35]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
7
37
42
37
7
1820
8
38
43
38
8
9
39
44
39
9
200 10
a 100th year of Isaac
40
45
40
10
1817
th of the Sicyonians,
Leucippus, for 53 years
11
41
1
41
11
12
42
2
42
12
13
43
3
43
13
14
44
4
44
14
15
b 130th year of the Covenant
45
5
45
15
1812
16
46
6
46
16
17
47
7
47
17
18
48
8
48
18
19
49
9
49
19
210 20
c 110th year of Isaac
50
10
50
20
1807
nd of Argos,
Phoroneus, for 60 years.
21
51
11
1 e Phoroneus, son of Inachus and Niobe, was the first to establish laws and courts. Some consider Niobe to be his daughter. f Plato recalls these times in the Timaeus as if very ancient ones, saying: "And at one time, wanting to draw them on to conversations about ancient times, 1 what had happened among the oldest people of his civilisation, concerning Phoroneus, who was said, with this name, to be the first man, and Niobe, and those who lived after the Flood." 21
22
52
12
2 22
23
53
13
3 23
24
54
14
4 24
25
d 140th year of the Covenant
55
15
5 25
1802
26
56
16
6 26
27
57
17
7 27
28
58
18
8 28
1799
(1) Plato, Timaeus 22a. Jerome's translation omits anything here corresponding to Plato's le/gein e)pixeirei=n -- "he attempted to say".
[36/37]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
29
59
19
9
29
1798
220 30
a 120th year of Isaac
60
20
10
30
1797
31
61
21
11
31
32
62
22
12
32
33
63
23
13
g Thessalus, son of Graecus, reigns in Thessaly.
33
34
64
24
14
34
35
b 150th year of the Covenant
65
25
15
35
1792
36
66
26
16
h Jupiter slept with Niobe first of all women, so the Greeks tells us, from whom Apis was born, who they surname Serapis.
36
37
67
27
17
37
38
68
28
18
38
th of the Assyrians,
Belocus, for 35 years.
1
69
29
19
39
230 2
c 130th year of Isaac
70
30
20
i The Thelcisians and the Cariatians started a war against Phoroneus and the Parrhasians. 1
40
1787
3
71
31
21
41
4
72
32
22
42
5
73
33
23
43
6
74
34
24
44
7
d 160th year of the Covenant
75
35
25
45
1782
8
76
36
26
46
9
77
37
27
k Ogygus founded Eleusis in Attica, which anciently used to be called Acte, and very many other communities. In his time a virgin appeared at lake Triton, whom the Greeks named Minerva.
47
10
e Jacob went down into Mesopotamia and worked for Laban for 7 years. 2
78
38
28
48
11
79
39
29
49
240 12
f 140th year of Isaac
80
40
30
50
1777
13
81
41
31
51
14
82
42
32
52
1775
(1) Parrhasia, -ae. A district in the south of Arcadia, in the Peloponnese. T(h)elcisiis is the Latin for the people under "Telchis" the rd king of Sicyon. Cariatiis is probably the people under Car the son of Phoroneus as already mentioned (Pausanius 1.39.6).
(2) Genesis 29:13-20.
[38/39]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
15
83
43
33
53
1774
16
84
44
34
54
17
a Jacob fathered Reuben,
Jacob fathered Simeon,
Jacob fathered Levi,
Jacob fathered Judah, from whom the Jews were named.
b 170th year of the Covenant. 85
45
35
55
1772
18
86
46
36
56
19
87
47
37
57
20
88
48
38
58
21
89
49
39
59
250 22
c 150th year of Isaac 90
50
40
60
1767
23
91
51
41
61
24
d st year of Joseph; Jacob was in his 92nd year.
92
52
42
62
25
93
53
43
63
9th of the Sicyonians,
Messapus, for 47 years.
26
94
1
44
64
27
e 180th year of the Covenant. 95
2
45
65
1762
28
96
3
46
66
29
97
4
47
67
30
98
5
48
68
31
99
6
49
69
260 32
f 160th year of Isaac, but Jacob 100. 100
7
50 g The flood which happened in the reign of Ogygus.
h Messana, which is also called Mamertina, is founded.
70
1757
33
101
8
51 71
34
102
9
52
72
35
103
10
53
73
9th of the Assyrians,
Balaeus, for 52 years.
1
104
11
54
74
1753
[40/41]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
2
a 190th year of the Covenant
105
12
55
75
1752
3
106
13
56
76
4
107
14
57
77
5
b Joseph sold by his brothers when he was 17 years old.
108
15
58
78
6
109
16
59
79
270 7
c 170th year of Isaac, and Jacob 110th.
110
17
60
80
1747
rd of the Argives,
Apis, for 35 years
8
111
18
1
g They say that this Apis is Serapis: accordingly, when his brother king Aegialeus had been put in charge of Achaia, he himself sailed to Egypt with the people.
81
9
112
19
2
82
10
113
20
3
83
11
114
21
4
84
12
d 200th year of the Covenant
115
22
5
85
1742
13
116
23
6
86
14
117
24
7
87
15
118
25
8
88
16
119
26
9
h Telchines, having been conquered, founded Rhodes, which previously used to be called Ophiusa.
89
280 17
e Isaac dies at 180 years of age, leaving behind a son Jacob aged 120.
120
27
10
90
1737
18
121
28
11
91
Of the Hebrews, Joseph, leader of the Egyptians for 80 years
19
1
29
12
i Memphis in Egypt founded by Apis.
92
20
2
30
13
93
21
3
31
14
94
22
f 210th year of the Covenant
4
32
15
95
1732
23
5
33
16
96
1731
[42/43]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
24
6
34
17
97
1730
25
7
35
18
98
26
8
36
19
99
290 27
a In the second year of famine, Jacob having entered Egypt with his sons, when he was being asked by Pharaoh how old he was, he answers that he is 130 years old.
9
37
20
100 1727
28
10
38
21
101
29
11
39
22
102
30
12
40
23
103
The 18th dynasty of the Egyptians, the Diospolites, of whom the st was Amosis, for 25 years.
31
13
41
24
1
32
b 220th year of the Covenant
14
42
25
2
1722
33
15
43
26
3
34
16
44
27
4
35
17
45
28
5
36
18
46
29
6
300 37
c 140th year of Jacob
19
47
30
7
1717
10th of the Sicyonians,
Eratus for 46 years. f Sparta was founded by Spartus, son of Phoroneus.
38
d 50th year of Joseph
20
1
31
8
39
21
2
32
9
40
22
3
33
10
41
23
4
34
11
42
e 230th year of the Covenant
24
5
35
12
1712
th of the Argives,
Argus, for 70 years.
[44/45]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
43
25
6
1
13
1711
44
a Jacob died in the 147th year of his life, prophesying about Christ and the calling of the nations.
26
7
2
14
45
27
8
3
15
46
28
9
4
16
310
47
29
10
5
17
1707
48
b 60th year of Joseph
30
11
6
18
49
31
12
7
19
50
32
13
8
20
51
33
14
9
21
52
c 240th year of the Covenant
34
15
10
22
1702
10th of the Assyrians,
Altadas, for 32 years
1
35
16
11
23
2
36
17
12
24
3
37
18
13
25
nd, Chebron, for 13 years.
4
38
19
14
1
320 5
39
20
15
2
1697
6
d 70th year of Joseph
40
21
16
3
7
41
22
17
4
8
42
23
18
5
9
43
24
19
6
10
e 250th year of the Covenant
44
25
20
7
1692
11
45
26
21
8
12
46
27
22
9
13
47
28
23
10
1689
[46/47]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
14
48
29
24
11
1688
330 15
49
30
25
12
1687
16
a 80th year of Joseph
50
31
26
13
Of Egypt, Amenophis, for 21 years
17
51
32
27
e According the opinion of some, Prometheus lived in this time, by whom men recall that they were created. But the truth of the matter: because he was a wise man, he transformed their savagery and excessive ignorance into refinement and knowledge.
1
18
52
33
28
2
19
53
34
29
3
20
b 260th year of the Covenant
54
35
30
4
1682
21
55
36
31
5
22
56
37
32
6
23
57
38
33
7
24
58
39
34
8
340 25
59
40
35
9
1677
26
c 90th year of Joseph
60
41
36
10
27
61
42
37
11
28
62
43
38
12
29
63
44
39
13
30
d 270th year of the Covenant
64
45
40
14
1672
31
65
46
41
15
( 1)
11th of the Sicyonians,
Plemnaeus, for 48 years
32
66
1
42
16
11th of the Assyrians,
Mamynthus, for 30 years
1
67
2
43
17
1669
(1) At this point some late manuscripts, including T have this extra entry: "At that time, all the kings of the Egyptians were called Pharaohs, not having names of their own, but rather, for the sake of their dignity, kings would use this word, just as among our people, emperors are called Augusti. But each Pharaoh used to have his own name. Thus we set down this which has been read from the books of Manetho, priest of the Egyptians."
[48/49]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
2
68
3
44
18
1668
350 3
69
4
45
19
1667
4
a 100th year of Joseph
70
5
46
20
5
71
6
47
21
Of Egypt, Mephres, for 12 years
6
72
7
48
1
7
73
8
49
2
8
b 280th year of the Covenant
74
9
50
3
1662
9
75
10
51
4
10
76
11
52
5
11
77
12
53
6
12
78
13
54
7
360 13
79
14
55
8
1657
14
c Joseph dies in his 110th year, after which the Hebrews served among the Egyptians for 144 years. Altogether the years the Hebrews spent in Egypt make 215, which are counted from the time that Jacob descends into Egypt with his sons.
80
15
56
9
The servitude of the Hebrews in Egypt, for 144 years.
15
1
16
57
10
16
2
17
58
11
17
3
18
59
12
Of Egypt, Mispharmuthosis, for 26 years
18
d 290th year of the Covenant
4
19
60
4
1652
19
5
20
61
5
20
6
21
62
6
1650
[50/51]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
21
7
22
63
4
1649
22
8
23
64
5
370 23
9
24
65
6
1647
24
10
25
66
7
25
11
26
67
8
26
12
27
68
9
27
13
28
69
10
28
a 300th year of the Covenant
14
29
70
11
1642
th of Argos, Criassus, for 54 years
29
8
30
1
c In Argos, Callithias son of Pirantos was the first to discharge the duties of the priesthood.
12
30
9
31
2
13
12th of the Assyrians, Magchaleus, for 30 years
1
10
32
3
14
2
11
33
4
15
380 3
12
34
5
d Atlas, the brother of Prometheus, was particularly called "The Astrologer"; because of his learnedness in this discipline, he was even said to hold up the sky. But Euripides says that it is the highest mountain which is called "Atlas."
16
1637
4
13
35
6
17
5
14
36
7
18
6
15
37
8
19
7
16
38
9
20
8
b 310th year of the Covenant
17
39
10
21
1632
9
18
40
11
22
10
19
41
12
23
11
20
42
13
24
12
21
43
14
25
1628
[52/53]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
390
13
29
44
15
26
1627
Of Egypt, Tuthmosis, for 9 years
14
30
45
16
1
15
31
46
17
2
16
32
47
18
3
17
33
48
19
4
12th of the Sicyonians,
Orthopolis for 63 years
18
a 320th year of the Covenant
34
1
20
5
1622
19
35
2
21
6
20
36
3
22
7
21
37
4
23
8
22
38
5
24
9
Of Egypt, Amenophis, for 31 years
400 23
39
6
25
c When these were reigning, there was a Syrus, regarded as an indigene, from whose name Syria received its name.
1
d This is the Amenophis, whom they believe to be Memnon, the talking stone. 1
1617
24
40
7
26
2
25
41
8
27
3
26
42
9
28
4
27
43
10
29
e The Ethiopians, originating from the Indus River, settled near Egypt.
5
28
b 330th year of the Covenant
44
11
30
6 1612
29
45
12
31
7
30
46
13
32
8
1610
13th of the Assyrians,
Sphaerus, for 20 years
(1) Later manuscripts including T continue: "In fact, his statue was said to give out a voice at sunrise, until the advent of Christ."
[54/55]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
1
47
14
33
9
1609
2
48
15
34
10
410 3
49
16
35
11
1607
4
50
17
36
12
5
51
18
37
13
6
52
19
38
14
7
53
20
39
15
8
a 340th year of the Covenant
54
21
40
16
1602
9
55
22
41
17
10
56
23
42
18
11
57
24
43
19
12
58
25
44
20
420 13
59
26
45
21
1597
14
60
27
46
22
15
61
28
47
23
16
62
29
48
24
17
63
30
49
25
18
b 350th year of the Covenant
c Amram fathered Moses when he was 70 years old.
64
31
50
26
1592
19
65
32
51
27
20
66
33
52
28
14th of the Assyrians,
Mamylus, for 30 years.
1
67
34
53
29
2
68
35
54
d The city of Epidaurus was founded.
30
1588
th of Argos, Phorbas, for 35 years
[56/57]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians Argives
Egyptians
BC
430
3
69
36
1
21
1587
Of Egypt, Orus, for 38 years
4
70
37
2
e Some write that Prometheus, Epimetheus, Atlantis the brother of Prometheus, Argos 'all-seeing', and Io the daughter of Prometheus lived in these times; others that in fact they lived in the age of Cecrops, and a few that they lived even 60 or 90 years before Cecrops.
1
1586
5
71
38
3
2
6
72
39
4
3
1584
7
73
40
5
4
8
a 360th year of the Covenant
b 10th year of Moses 74
41
6
5
1582
9
75
42
7
6
10
76
43
8
7
1580
11
77
44
9
8
12
78
45
10
f Aemon was the first to reign in Thessaly.
9
1578
440 13
79
46
11
10
14
80
47
12
g Phorbas conquered Rhodes.
11
1576
15
81
48
13
12
16
82
49
14
h Hercules is reported to be the first to have beaten Antaeus in a wrestling match.
13
1574
17
83
50
15
14
18
c 370th year of the Covenant
d 20th year of Moses 84
51
16
15
1572
19
85
52
17
16
20
86
53
18
17
1570
21
87
54
19
i Trochilus is reported to have been the first to yoke a quadriga.
18
22
88
55
20
19
1568
450 23
89
56
21
20
24
90
57
22
k Xanthus from Triopa founded Lesbos.
21
1566
25
91
58
23
22
26
92
59
24
l Cydon reigned in Crete.
23
1564
[58/59]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Beginning of the kingship of the Athenians
Egyptians
BC
27
93
60
25
24
1563
28
94
a 380th year of the Covenant
b 30th year of Moses
61
26
25
29
95
62
27
26
1561
30
96
63
28
27
15th of the Assyrians, Sparetus for 40 years
13th of the Sicyonians, Marathius for 30 years
In these times in Acta, which is now called Attica, Cecrops, also called Diphyes, was the first to reign, for 50 years.
1
97
1
29
28
1559
2
98
2
30
29
460 3
99
c In the 35th year of Moses, Cecrops was ruling in Attica, from which time down to the capture of Troy, 375 years elapsed.
3
31
30
1557
4
100
4
32
1
g From Cecrops down to the first Olympiad there are 17 kings; 12 that in fact only Death limited as princes, about whom many marvels are told among the Greeks.
31
5
101
5
33
2
32
1555
6
102
6
34
3
33
7
103
7
35
4
34
1553
th of Argos,
Triopas for 46 years
8
104
d 390th year of the Covenant
e 40th year of Moses
8
1
5
35
1552
9
105
9
2
6
h When Cecrops was reigning, an olive tree emerged for the first time in the citadel, and from the name of Minerva, which is Athena in Greek, Athens was named. Cecrops was named 'Diphyes' that is to say 'of two natures' either because of the length of his body or on account of the fact that, since he was Egyptian, he knew both languages, Greek and Egyptian.
36
10
106
10
3
7
37
1550
11
107
f Moses, leaving Egypt behind, goes to practice philosophy in the desert.
11
4
8
38
Of Egypt, Achencheres, for 12 years
12
108
12
5
9
1
1548
470 13
109
13
6
10
2
14
110
14
7
11
i Cecrops being the first to immolate an ox, he called upon Jupiter; and the region was called Cecropia after him.
3
1546
15
111
15
8
12
4
16
112
16
9
13
5
1544
[60/61]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
17
113
17
10
14
g The Curetes and Corybantes founded Cnossos: who discovered the musical and harmonious dance in arms.
6
1543
18
114
a 400th year of the Covenant
b 50th year of Moses
18
11
15
7
19
115
19
12
16
8
1541
20
116
20
13
17
9
21
117
21
14
18
h The Chaldeans fight against the Phoenicians.
10
1539
22
118
22
15
19
11
480 23
119
23
16
20
i Musicus, the son of Euctaeius and Nymphe, is well known.
12
1537
Athoris, for 9 years
24
120
24
17
21
k Deucalion began to reign among those who were living around Parnassus.
1
25
121
25
18
22
2
1535
26
122
26
19
23
l It is pretended that the trial took place, before Cecrops, of the gods Neptune and Minerva about the extent of their territory.
3
27
123
27
20
24
4
1533
28
124
c 410th year of the Covenant
d 60th year of Moses
28
21
25
5
29
125
29
22
26
6
1531
30
126
30
23
27
m Jupiter slept with Io daughter of Iasus, after whom, having been changed, so it is said, into an ox, the Bosporus was named.
7
14th of the Sicyonians, Marathus for 30 years
31
127
1
24
28
n Cecrops founded Athens in Euboea, which they also call Diada: this city the Euboeans call Orchomenon.
8
1529
32
128
2
25
29
9
Chenchres for 16 years
490 33
129
3
26
30
1
1527
34
130
4
27
31
o The flood which happened in the time of Deucalion in Thessaly, and the conflagration which happened in the time of Phaeton.
2
35
131
5
28
32
3
1525
36
132
6
29
33
4
37
133
7
30
34
p In Ethiopia, as Plato recounts, many local plagues broke out.
5
1523
38
134
e 420th year of the Covenant f 70th year of Moses 8
31
35
6
[62/63]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
39
135
9
32
36
7
1521
40
136
10
33
37
8
16th of the Assyrians,
Ascatades, for 40 years
1
137
11
34
38
f From Deucalion, Hellene and Pyrrha, those who were previously called Greeks were now called Hellenes: and Acte in their time was called Attica.
9
1519
2
138
12
35
39
10
500 3
139
13
36
40
11
1517
4
140
14
37
41
12
5
141
a Moses is blessed by the divine presence on Mount Sinai
15
38
42
13
1515
6
142
16
39
43
g Corinth founded, which previously used to be called Ephyra.
14
7
143
17
40
44
15
1513
8
144
b 430th year of the Covenant c 80th year of Moses 18
41
45
h According to some, Io proceeded to Egypt, and there was named Isis, who married Telegonus later, and fathered Epaphus.
16
Of the Hebrews: In the 80th year that Moses is leader, the journey of the Hebrew nation out of Egypt is brought about, handing over the law to them in the desert throughout 40 years.
Of Egypt, Acherres, for 8 years.
9
1
d From this point down to Solomon and the building of the temple 480 years are numbered.
19
42
46
i Temple of Apollo at Delos built by Erysichthon.
1
1511
10
2
20
43
47
2
15th of the Sicyonians, Echyreus for 55 years
k Hercules is considered important in Phoenicia under the name of Desinaus: for which reason all the way down to our own time, he is called Desinaus by the Cappadocians and Elians.
l The court of the Areopagus established with that name.
11
3
1
44
48
3
1509
12
4
2
45
49
4
510 13
5
e Aaron, brother of Moses, was the first among the Hebrews to be appointed as high priest.
3
46
50
m The vine is discovered by Dionysus, but not the son of Semele.
5
1507
th of Argos, Crotopus, for 21 years. nd of the Athenians, Cranaus, for 9 years.
n In Egypt reigned Telegonus.
[64/65]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
14
6
4
1 Oris, son of a shepherd, is the th from Inachus. 1
b Cranaus the indigene, after the name of whose daughter Atthis Attica was named.
6
1506
15
7
5
2 2
7
16
8
6
3 3
8
1504
Of Egypt, Cherres, for 15 years.
17
9
7
4
4
c In Crete reigned Apteras, who also founded a city.
1
1503
18
10
8
5
5
2
19
11
9
6
6
3
1501
20
12
10
7
7
4
21
13
11
8
8
5
1499
22
14
12
9
9
6
rd of the Athenians, Amphictyon, for 10 years
520 23
15
a Moses was in charge of the Jewish nation in the desert.
13
10
1
d Deucalion's son Dionysus -- but not the one who was Semele's son -- when he arrived in Attica, he was received as a guest by Semachus and gave his daughter the pelt of a goat.
7
1497
24
16
14
11
2
8
25
17
15
12
3
9
1495
26
18
16
13
4
10
27
19
17
14
5
11
1493
28
20
18
15
6
12
29
21
19
16
7
13
1491
30
22
20
17
8
14
31
23
21
18
9
e The temple of Delos constructed by Erysichthon the son of Cecrops.
15
1489
Of Egypt, Armais, also called Danaus, for 5 years.
f Epaphus, the son of the younger Io and Jupiter, founded Memphis when he ruled in Lower Egypt.
32
24
22
19
10
1
1488
[66/67]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
th of the Athenians, Ericthonius, for 50 years.
580 33
25
a Sthenelus of the Argives. Castor's [statement], concerning the leaders of the Argives:
23
20
1
c Lacedaemon founded by Lacedaemon son of Semele.
2
1487
34
26
24
21
2
3
9th of Argos, Sthelenus, for 11 years.
35
27
25
1
3
d Erichthonius son of Vulcan and Minerva, who is called Erechtheus by Homer, lived while these were reigning.
4
1485
36
28
26
2
4
5
After whom Ramesses, also called Aegyptus, for 68 years.
37
29
"When Danaus had expelled Sthenelus, he held Argos, and his descendants continued until Eurystheus son of Sthenelus, nephew of Perseus, after whom the Pelopidae received power, Atreus reigning first."
27
3
5
e Arcas the son of Jove and Callisto, after bringing the Pelasgii back into subjection named their region Arcadia.
1
1483
38
30
28
4
6
2
39
31
29
5
7
3
1481
40
32
30
6
8
4
17th of the Assyrians, Amynthes, for 45 years.
f Egypt, which was previously called Aeria, received its name from Aegyptus who was then ruling there.
1
33
31
7
9
5
1479
2
34
32
8
10
6
590 3
35
33
9
11
g Dardanus founded Dardania.
7
1477
4
36
34
10
12
8
5
37
35
11
13
h After Sthelenus, Gelanor reigned at Argos; when the Argives had driven him from power, they handed over the kingship to Danaus.
9
1475
10th of Argos, Danaus, for 50 years.
6
38
36
1
14
i Danaus claimed Argos for himself when he was expelled from Egypt, and made the same city abundant in waters.
10
1474
7
39
37
2
15
11
8
40
b Death of Moses.
38
3
16
12
1472
[68/69]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
Of the Hebrews, after Moses Joshua is appointed leader for 27 years a The five books of Moses, according to the translation of the LXX elders, contain 3,730 years until this point.
b Start of the 51st Jubilee according to the Hebrews.
9
1
c Among the Hebrews Eleazer received the pontificate.
39
4
17
e Erichthonius put together the first four horse chariot team in Greece. Of course it existed already in other nations.
13
1471
10
2
40
5
18
14
11
3
41
6
19
15
1469
12
4
42
7
20
16
550
13
5
43
8
21
f Danaus killed the 50 sons of his brother Aegyptus through his 50 daughters; only Lynceus escaped, who reigned after him. Now such a multitude of sons shouldn't seem incredible among the barbarians, since they have innumerable concubines.
17
1467
14
6
44
9
22
18
15
7
45
10
23
19
1465
16
8
46
11
24
20
17
9
47
12
25
21
1463
18
10
d Joshua the successor of Moses distributes the land of the Palestinians to the Jewish nation by lot.
48
13
26
22
19
11
49
14
1
27
g In Crete reigned Lapis.
23
1461
20
12
50
15
28
24
21
13
51
16
29
25
1459
22
14
52
17
30
h Busiris the son of Neptune and of Lybia, daughter of Epaphus, in the places close to the Nile exercises tyranny, killing travelling guests with cruel crimes.
26
560
23
15
53
18
31
27
1457
24
16
54
19
32
28
25
17
55
20
33
29
1455
16th of Sicyon, Corax, for 30 years.
26
18
1
21
34
i Phoenix and Cadmus, having set out from Egyptian Thebes into Syria, reigned in Tyre and Sidon.
30
1454
27
19
2
22
35
31
28
20
3
23
36
32
1452
29
21
4
24
37
33
1. The first th century page in the Bodleian manuscript 'O' starts on this line, on f.33r. Folio 32v is part of the 15th century replacement pages, and being in the long lines format does not match very well.
[70/71]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
30
22
5
25
38
e The temple of Delphi burned down by Phlegyas.
34
1450
31
23
6
26
39
35
32
24
7
27
40
36
1448
570 33
25
8
28
41
f In Crete Asterius reigned.
37
34
26
9
29
42
38
1446
35
27
10
30
43
39
st judge of the Jews, Gothoniel, for 40 years.
g Jupiter slept with Europa, the daughter of Phoenix; afterwards, Asterius, King of Crete, received her as his wife and fathered Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Sarpedon by her.
36
1
a After the death of Joshua, strangers held the Hebrews subject for 8 years, which are included in the date-range of Gothoniel, according to the traditions of the Jews.
11
31
44
40
1444
37
2
12
32
45
41
38
3
13
33
46
42
1442
39
4
14
34
47
43
40
5
15
35
48
44
1440
41
6
16
36
49
45
42
7
b Gothoniel the judge, from the tribe of Judah.
17
37
50
46
1438
1
th of the Athenians, Pandion for 40 years.
580 43
8
c Among the Jews 2 Phineas received the pontificate.
18
38
1
h Pandion, son of Erichthonius, whose daughters were Procne and Philomela.
47
1437
44
9
19
39
2
48
45
10
20
40
3
49
1435
18th of the Assyrians, Belochus, for 25 years.
i At Argos Hypermnestra daughter of Danaus carried out the duties of the priesthood.
1 d His daughter Actosa, also called Semiramis, reigns with her father for seven years. 11
21
41
4
k Rhadamanthus and Sarpedon (were) kings of the Lycians.
50
1434
2 12
22
42
5
l Abduction of Europa.
51
3 13
23
43
6
52
1432
1. This line is the first line of f.33v/f34r in Ms. O, and so marks the start of the full th century portion of the manuscript.
2. In 'O' this reads 'Among the Hebrews', and is in red.
[72/73]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
4
14
24
44
7
53
1431
5
15
25
45
8
a Cadmus reigned at Thebes; from his daughter Semele was born Dionysius--that is, Father Liber--in whose reign also Linus the Theban musician was.
54
6
16
26
46
9
55
1429
7
17
27
47
10
56
590
8
18
28
48
11
57
1427
9
19
29
49
12
58
10
20
30
50
13
b The cities of Melus, Paphos, Thasos and Callista founded.
59
1425
17th of the Sicyonians, Epopeus, for 35 years.
11th of Argos, Lynceus, for 41 years.
c Bithynia, which previously used to be called Mariandina, founded by Phoenix.
11
21
1
1
14
60
1424
12
22
2
2
15
61
13
23
3
3
16
62
1422
14
24
4
4
17
d Linus from Thebes, along with Zethus and Amphion, are important in the art of music.
63
15
25
5
5
18
64
1420
16
26
6
6
19
65
17
27
7
7
20
e The Dactyls of Ida were in this time, who also discovered iron.
66
1418
600 18
28
8
8
21
67
19
29
9
9
22
68
1416
f Amphion and Zethus were reigning at Thebes.
Of Egypt, Menophis, for 40 years.
20
30
10
10
23
g In Dardania Erichthonius, son of Dardanus, reigned.
1
1415
21
31
11
11
24
h The things which are said concerning Demeter, who they say was the Egyptians' goddess Isis, and concerning Danae, from whom Perseus is born, happen at this time.
2
22
32
12
12
25
3
1413
23
33
13
13
26
4
24
34
14
14
27
5
1411
25
35
15
15
28
6
[74/75]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
19th of the Assyrians, Bellepares, for 30 years.
1
36
16
16
29
c Ephyra, which is now called Corinth, founded by Sisyphus.
7
1409
2
37
17
17
30
d Harmonia carried off by Cadmus.
8
610
3
38
18
18
31
9
1407
4
39
19
19
32
e Minos, son of Europa, reigns in Crete. 10
5
40
20
20
33
11
1405
Of the Hebrews, Ehud, for 80 years. a After the death of Gothoniel, strangers held the Hebrews subject for 18 years, which are included in the date-range of Ehud, according to the traditions of the Jews.
f The Cadmea, and Side in Cilicia, founded.
6
1
b Ehud the judge from the tribe of Ephraim.
21
21
34
g Celeus reigned at Eleusis, coaeval with Triptolemus, whom Philochorus says approached the cities in a long ship to distribute grain, and on that account aroused mistrust, because his ship was a winged serpent: and this is a picture that it is possible to accept.
12
1404
7
2
22
22
35
13
8
3
23
23
36
14
1402
9
4
24
24
37
15
10
5
25
25
38
16
1400
11
6
26
26
39
17
12
7
27
27
40
18
1398
h Pelops, from whom the Peloponnese was named, reigned 59 years at Argos; th of the Athenians, Erectheus, for 50 years.
i Achaia founded by Achaeus.
620 13
8
28
28 k son of Pandion, in whose reign the Mysteries began. 1
l The fable of Proserpina, whom Aidoneus carried off --that is, Orcus, king of the Molossians. His dog named Cerberus, of enormous size, devoured Pirithous, who had come to abduct his (Aidoenus') wife with Theseus. When the latter found himself already in mortal danger, Hercules arrived and set him free. For this reason he (Hercules) is spoken of as if he had been received from the underworld: so Philochorus writes in the second book of the Atthis.
19
1397
14
9
29
29 2
20
15
10
30
30 3
21
1395
16
11
31
31 4
22
17
12
32
32
5
23
1393
18
13
33
33
6
24
19
14
34
34
7
25
1391
20
15
35
35
8
26
[76/77]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
18th of the Sicyonians, Laomedon, for 40 years.
21
16
1
36
9
27
1389
22
17
2
37
10
a Dionysus who in Latin is called father Liber is born of Semele.
28
630
23
18
3
38
11
b Boreas the Thracian, son of Astraeus, carried off Orithyia daughter of Erechtheus, who the myths pretend was the north wind. At this time also the mysteries began.
29
1387
24
19
4
39
12
30
25
20
5
40
13
31
1385
26
21
6
41
14
c Those things which are said of Perseus.
32
12th of Argos, Abas, for 23 years.
27
22
7
1
15
33
1383
28
23
8
2
16
d According to the opinion of some, it seems that in this age Phrixus, along with his sister Helle, fleeing the treacheries of their step-mother, was carried through the sea by a ram with golden fleece. In fact there was a ship prepared for his flight, of which the ram was the sign. Further, Palaephatus affirms that the ram by which he was freed was called 'Nurse'.
34
29
24
9
3
17
35
1381
30
25
10
4
18
36
20th of the Assyrians, Lamprides, for 32 years.
1
26
11
5
19
37
1379
2
27
12
6
20
38
640 3
28
13
7
21
39
1377
4
29
14
8
22
40
19th Dynasty of Egypt, of whom first, Sethus, for 55 years.
e After Cadmus had been expelled from Thebes, Amphion and Zethus reigned.
5
30
15
9
23
1
6
31
16
10
24
f Those things which are told concerning Procne and Philomela.
2
7
32
17
11
25
3
[78/79]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
8
33
18
12
26
4
1372
9
34
19
13
27
5
10
35
20
14
28
b The war, which happened in the time of Eumolpus.
6
1370
11
36
21
15
29
7
12
37
22
16
30
8
1368
650 13
38
23
17
31
c Melampus the seer is well known.
9
14
39
24
18
32
10
1366
15
40
25
19
33
d In Dardania Tros reigned, after whom the Trojans are named.
11
16
41
26
20
34
12
1364
17
42
27
21
35
13
18
43
28
22
36
e It is reported that, at Delphi, the prophetess Phemonoe was the first to have chanted the future in hexameters.
14
1362
19
44
29
23
37
15
13th of Argos, Proetus, for 17 years.
20
45
30
1
38
f Tantalus ruled over the Phrygians, who before that point were called Maeones.
16
1360
21
46
31
2
39
17
22
47
32
3
40
g On account of the abduction of Ganymedes, war broke out between Tros the father of Ganymede and Tantalus, as Phanocles the poet writes. Therefore, the fable of Jupiter is in vain; and the abducting Eagle is invented.
18
1358
660 23
48
33
4
41
19
24
49
34
5
42
20
1356
25
50
35
6
43
21
26
51
36
7
44
22
1354
27
52
37
8
45
23
28
53
38
9
46
h Tityus banqueted with Tantalus. Tityus lived at the time of Leto mother of Apollo, who with Hercules served Admetus.
i Those things that are said about Phrixus and Melicerta happened, in whose time the Isthmian games were celebrated.
24
1352
29
54
39
10
47
25
30
55
40
11
48
26
1350
a From whom the Sicyonians were named but previously they were called Aegialeans. 19th of the Sicyonians, Sicyon, for 45 years.
Note: In the editions of Fotheringham and Helm, pp.78-9 have 27 lines rather than the 26 of all the other pages. Unfortunately 'O' is a 30-line manuscript and I have no access to any 26-line manuscripts, so cannot tell whether this is intentional or merely an unfortunate error in Fotheringham. I myself did not notice this until most of the pages had been laid out, since I started with the endmost portion, which forced me to repeat this feature. It is perhaps possible that Helm had the same experience and was obliged to follow the pattern for the same reason. No-one who has not laid out 200+ pages of the Chronicle will fully appreciate the impossibility of rectifying such an error at a late stage.
[80/81]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Argives Athenians
Egyptians
BC
31
56
1
12
49
27
1349
32
57
2
13
50
a Pelops married Hippodamia.
28
21st of the Assyrians, Sosares, for 20 years.
th of the Athenians, Cecrops the younger, for 40 years.
670
1
58
3
14
1
b Brother of Erectheus.
29
1347
2
59
4
15
2
c Perseus fought against the Persians, holding the decapitated head of the licentious Gorgon, which on account of her extraordinary beauty so rendered the minds of her spectators impotent, that she was thought to turn them into stones: Didymus writes in his Foreign History, and exposes its author.
30
3
60
5
16
3
31
1345
4
61
6
17
4
32
After whom 14th, Acrisius, for 31 years.
5
62
7
1
5
33
1343
6
63
8
2
6
d Pegasus was the very swift horse of a certain woman, or, so Palaephatus writes, the ship of Bellerophon.
34
7
64
9
3
7
35
1341
8
65
10
4
8
36
9
66
11
5
9
37
1339
10
67
12
6
10
38
680 11
68
13
7
11
39
1337
12
69
14
8
12
e The city of Cyrene was founded in Libya.
40
13
70
15
9
13
41
1335
14
71
16
10
14
42
15
72
17
11
15
f Ion the strong man, from whose name the Athenians called themselves Ionians.
43
1333
16
73
18
12
16
44
17
74
19
13
17
g The deeds of Perseus.
45
1331
18
75
20
14
18
h Dionysius, also called father Liber, fighting against the Indians, founded the city of Nysa by the Indus river.
46
19
76
21
15
19
47
1329
20
77
22
16
20
48
[82/83]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
The kings of the Argives come to an end Athenians
Egyptians
BC
22nd of the Assyrians, Lampares for 30 years
690 1
78
23
17
21
c Amphion reigned at Thebes, who is said to have moved the rocks with the song of the cithara. In reality there were certain listeners who were hard hearted and, so to speak, like stones.
49
1327
2
79
24
18
22
50
3
80
25
19
23
51
1325
Of the Hebrews, Deborah with Barak, for 40 years.
a After Ehud, foreigners drove the Hebrews into subjection for 20 years, which are joined together to the time of Deborah and Barak, according to the Hebrew tradition.
4
1
26
20
24
52
1324
5
2
27
21
25
53
6
3
28
22
26
54
1322
7
4
b Debora (was) of the tribe of Ephraim, Barak of the tribe of Naphtali.
29
23
27
d According to some, Cadmus reigned in Thebes.
55
Of Egypt, Ramses, for 66 years.
8
5
30
24
28
1
1320
9
6
31
25
29
e Europa was carried off by the Cretans in a ship whose sign was a bull.
2
10
7
32
26
30
3
1318
700 11
8
33
27
31
f When Pelops was reigning in the Peloponnese, he also presided over the Olympics. Later, taking up arms against Ilium, he was defeated by Dardanus.
4
12
9
34
28
32
g Those things which are recorded about the Sparti, which Palaephatus writes; since they were of the neighbouring regions, they suddenly formed an alliance against Cadmus, and on account of the way they seemed to spring up suddenly from the earth, and coming together from all directions, they were called 'Sparti' (Sown Men).
5
1316
13
10
35
29
33
6
14
11
36
30
34
7
1314
15
12
37
31
35
8
16
13
38
The kings of the Argives came to an end, who ruled for 544 years down 36
h After Acrisius, in Mycenae by the power of the Argives the kings were: Perseus, Sthenelus, Eurystheus, Atreus, Thyestes, Agamemnon, Aegistus, Orestes and Tsiamneus and Penthilus and Cometes down to the descent of the Heraclidae.
9
1312
17
14
39
37
10
18
15
40
38
i Midas reigned in Phyrgia.
11
1310
19
16
41
39
12
[84/85]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Mycenaeans Athenians
Egyptians
BC
20
17
42
to Pelops, who reigned for 59 years, and in Mycenae, power having been transferred, after Acrisius, Eurystheus son of Sthenelus reigned for 45 years.
40
a Ilium founded by Ilus.
13
1308
th of the Athenians, Pandion, for 25 years.
710 21
18
43
1
b Perseus, after Acrisius was involuntarily killed, migrated from Argos and reigned.
14
1307
22
19
44
2
15
23
20
45
3
16
1305
20th of the Sicyonians, Polybus, for 40 years.
1
2
24
21
1
3
4
c Laius carried off Chrysippus.
17
1304
25
22
2
4
5
18
26
23
3
5
6
d The temple in Eleusis built.
19
1302
27
24
4
6
7
20
28
25
5
7
8
21
1300
29
26
6
8
9
22
30
27
7
9
10
e Some claim the deeds of Liber Pater, and those things which are recorded concerning India, Lycurgus, Actaeon, and Pentheus happened at this time; in what way while standing against Perseus, he is slain in battle, says Dinarchus, the poet not the rhetor. However whoever wants can see the tomb of Liber Pater himself at Delphi next to Golden Apollo. Now, Liber is depicted with a delicate and womanly body, on account of the women who fought in his entourage: For he would bind men and women to weapons equally, as Philochorus says in the second book of the Atthis.
23
1298
23rd of the Assyrians, Pannias, for 45 years.
720 1
28
8
10
11
24
1297
2
29
9
11
12
25
3
30
10
12
13
26
1295
4
31
11
13
14
27
5
32
12
14
15
28
1293
6
33
13
15
16
29
7
34
14
16
17
30
1291
8
35
15
17
18
31
9
36
16
18
19
32
1289
[86/87]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Mycenaeans Athenians
Egyptians
BC
10
37
17
19
20
33
1288
730 11
38
18
20
21
34
12
39
19
21
22
d Miletus founded.
35
1286
13
40
20
22
23
e Europa the daughter of Agenor, as we read in some (books), is carried off, which is consistent with those things which are said about Minos.
36
Of the Hebrews, Gideon, for 40 years. a After Deborah, strangers drove the Hebrews into subjection for 7 years, which are conjoined with the time of Gideon according to the traditions of the Jews.
14
1
21
23
24
37
1284
15
2
22
24
25
38
9th of the Athenians, Aegeus son of Pandion, for 48 years.
f Philammon the Delphian is considered renowned, who first set up the choral dance at the Pythia.
b Gideon the judge (was) from the tribe of Manasseh.
g Pandion flees, having suffered plots against him by the Metionides.
16
3
23
25
1
h These are the fables that are said about Daedalus, who seems to have made sculptures composed of different parts, he was the first that separated the feet of every sculpture from each other, whereas others had fabricated them together, as Palaephatus notes. Also how, with his son Icarus, he escaped from Minos in a ship; and, because his escape was traceable, he is supposed to have flown away on wings.
39
1282
17
4
24
26
2
40
18
5
25
27
3
41
1280
19
6
26
28
4
42
20
7
27
29
5
43
1278
740 21
8
28
30
6
44
22
9
29
31
7
45
1276
23
10
30
32
8
46
24
11
31
33
9
47
1274
25
12
c Tyre founded 240 years before the Temple of Jerusalem, as Josephus writes in his rd book.
32
34
10
48
26
13
33
35
11
49
1272
27
14
34
36
12
i Cyzicus founded.
50
28
15
35
37
13
k The story of the Argonauts.
51
1270
29
16
36
38
14
l After Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes divided power in the Peloponnesus.
52
30
17
37
39
15
53
1268
[88/89]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Mycenaeans Athenians
Egyptians
BC
750
31
18
38
40
16
54
1267
32
19
39
41
17
a The voyage of the Argonauts.
55
33
20
40
42
18
b Orpheus the Thracian is considered important, whose pupil was Musaeus the son of Eumolpus.
56
1265
21st of the Sicyonians, Inachus, for 42 years.
34
21
1
43
19
c Linus, the teacher of Hercules in all things, becomes noted.
57
1264
35
22
2
44
20
58
36
23
3
45
21
d Those things which are recorded about Hypsipyle in Lemnos.
59
1262
Of the Mycenaeans, Atreus and Thyestes for 65 years.
e At Mycenae reigned Eurystheus, for 40 years
37
24
4
1
22
f Those things happened which are said about the sphinx, and Oedipus, and the Argonauts, among whom were Hercules, Asclepius, Castor and Pollux. However if Castor and Pollux were among the Argonauts, in what way is it possible to believe that Helen was their sister, who after many years is carried off by Theseus as a virgin? Palaephatus writes that the Sphinx was really the wife of Cadmus, and, fleeing from poison on account of Harmonia's jealousy, a war was started against the Cadmeans.
60
1261
38
25
5
2
23
61
39
26
6
3
24
62
1259
40
27
7
4
25
63
760 41
28
8
5
26
64
1257
42
29
9
6
27
65
43
30
10
7
28
66
1255
Of Egypt Amenophis for 40 years.
44
31
11
8
29
1
1254
45
32
12
9
30
2
24th of the Assyrians, Sosarmus, for 19 years.
1
33
13
10
31
3
1252
2
34
14
11
32
4
[90/91]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Mycenaeans Athenians
Egyptians
BC
3
35
15
12
33
a Minos controlled the sea and gave laws to the Cretans, as Paradius relates, which Plato proves to be false.
5
1250
4
36
16
13
34
6
5
37
17
14
35
7
1248
770 6
38
18
15
36
b Thamyris son of ammon is considered notable.
8
7
39
19
16
37
9
1246
8
40
20
17
38
c Hercules finishes his labors, slays Antaeus, devastates Ilium. Antaeus, however, is said to be the son of the earth, because he was most versed in the art of wrestling in single matches that are staged on the earth, and on that account was seen to be aided by the earth as his mother. But Plato asserts that a Hydra was (just) a most cunning sophistry.
10
Of the Hebrews, Abimelech son of Gideon, for 3 years
9
1
21
18
39
11
1244
10
2
22
19
40
12
11
3
23
20
41
13
1242
After whom Thola for 22 years.
12
1
24
21
42
d War between the Lapiths and Centaurs, who, Palaephatus writes in the first book of his On Incredible Things were noble knights of Thessaly.
14
1241
13
2
25
22
43
15
14
3
26
23
44
16
1239
15
4
27
24
45
17
780 16
5
28
25
46
18
1237
17
6
29
26
47
e Priam reigned after Laomedon.
19
18
7
30
27
48
20
1235
10th of the Athenians, Theseus, for 30 years.
f Medea the Colchian abandons Aegeus.
19
8
31
28
1
g The seven who fought against Thebes.
21
1234
25th of the Assyrians, Mithraeus, for 27 years.
h Androgeus is killed at Athens by deceit.
1
9
32
29
2
22
1233
[92/93]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Mycenaeans Athenians
Egyptians
BC
2
10
33
30
3
a These things are said about the Minotaur, who, Philochorus writes in the second book of the Atthis, was the teacher of Minos, by name Taurus (*), inhuman and cruel; and because Minos had set up a contest upon the death of Androgeus, offering up Athenian boys as a prize, and he, the strongest in the contest, defeated everyone else in the games. At last it happened that he was overcome by Theseus in wrestling, on account of which the Athenian boys were freed from the tributary penalty, as the Knossians themselves are also reported to say.
23
1232
3
11
34
31
4
24
4
12
35
32
5
25
1230
5
13
36
33
6
26
6
14
37
34
7
27
1228
790 7
15
38
35
8
28
8
16
39
36
9
29
1226
9
17
40
37
10
30
10
18
41
38
11
31
1224
11
19
42
39
12
32
22nd of the Sicyonians, Phaestus, for 8 years.
12
20
1
40
13
b Theseus carried off Helen, whom in turn her brothers recovered, after they had travelled abroad and captured Theseus' mother.
33
1222
13
21
2
41
14
34
14
22
3
42
15
35
1220
After whom, Jair, for 22 years. From the tribe of Manasseh.
c When Theseus had gathered the Athenians, who had previously lived in scattered groups throughout the region, into one community, he was ignominiously banished through ostracism, this being the selfsame rule he had been the first to establish.
15
1
4
43
16
36
1219
16
2
5
44
17
37
800 17
3
6
45
18
38
1217
18
4
7
46
19
39
19
5
8
47
20
d Minos established laws and rights.
40
1215
After whom 23rd Adrastus, for 4 years.
Of Egypt, Ammenemes for 26 years
e Philistius writes that in this time Carthage was founded by Zorus and Carthago, the Tyrians.
20
6
1
48
21
1
21
7
2
49
22
2
[94/95]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Mycenaeans Athenians
Egyptians
BC
22
8
3
50
23
c Hercules establishes the Olympic games, from which there are counted 430 years until the first Olympiad.
3
1212
23
9
4
51
24
4
24th of the Sicyonians, Polyphides, for 31 years.
24
10
1
52
25
d Theseus left Athens a fugitive.
5
1210
25
11
2
53
26
6
26
12
3
54
27
e The Amazon war against Thebes.
7
1208
810 27
13
4
55
28
8
26th of the Assyrians, Tautanes, for 32 years.
f The fable of Meleager and the Calydonian wild boar.
1
14
a In the time when Tautanes was king of the Assyrians, Troy was captured.
5
56
29
9
1206
2
15
6
57
30
10
11th of the Athenians, Menestheus (son of) Peteus, for 23 years.
3
16
7
58
1
g Minos, while taking up arms in Sicily against Daedalus, is slain by the daughters of Cocalus.
11
1204
4
17
8
59
2
12
5
18
9
60
3
13
1202
6
19
10
61
4
h Atreus reigns at Argos.
14
7
20
11
62
5
i Phaedra loves Hippolytus.
15
1200
8
21
12
63
6
k In Libya, Hercules slays Antaeus.
16
9
22
13
64
7
17
1198
Of the Hebrews, Jephthah, for 6 years b After Jair, the Ammonites bring the Hebrews under their control for 18 years, and they are included in the dates of later judges according to the traditions of the Jews.
l Menelaus reigns in Lacedaemon.
820 10
1
14
65
8
m Agamemnon rules at Mycenae for 35 years, and in the 18th year of his reign Troy is captured.
18
1197
Of the Mycenaeans, Agamemnon for 35 years.
n The slain men's progeny, who were called Epigoni, declare war against Thebes.
[96/97]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Mycenaeans Athenians
Egyptians
BC
11
2
15
1
9
d Hercules, when he had fallen into a pestilent illness, as a remedy from his suffering, threw himself into the flames, and thus by death did he come to his end in the 52nd year of his life; certain people, however, write that he perished in his 30th year.
19
1196
12
3
a In the book of Judges, 1 Jephthah says from the era of Moses to himself is reckoned to be 300 years.
16
2
10
20
13
4
17
3
11
21
1194
14
5
18
4
12
22
15
6
19
5
13
23
1192
After whom Esebon, for 7 years.
16
1
20
6
14
e Alexander carried off Helen. The 10-year-long Trojan war broke out because of an apple, which was the prize for judging three women's beauty, one of these offering Helen to the shepherd-judge.
24
1191
17
2
21
7
15
25
18
3
22
8
16
26
1189
Of Egypt, Thuoris, for 7 years.
19
4
23
9
17
1
830 20
5
24
10
18
2
1187
21
6
25
11
19
3
22
7
26
12
20
f Memnon and the Amazons brought help to Priam.
4
1185
Of the Hebrews, Labdon, for 8 years. b After Hesebon in the book of the Hebrews Aelon is considered to have ruled as Judge over the people for 10 years, which LXX translators do not have.
23
1
27
13
21
g Mopsus reigned in Cilicia, from whom Mopsicrene and Mopsistiae.
5
1184
24
2
28
14
22
6
1183
25
3
29
15
23
7
1182
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
16
~~~~
~~~~~
Troy Captured
17
c From the capture of Troy down to the first Olympiad makes 406 years.
18
Troy Captured
~~~
h Menestheus dies in Melos returning from captured Troy, after whom Demophoon reigned at Athens.
(1) Judges 11:26.
[98/99]
Troy
Captured
Troy
Captured
a The entire period up to the present day is counted thus:
b From the first year of Cecrops, who first reigned over Attica, until the capture of Troy, and until the twenty-third year of Menestheus, whom Homer mentions, there are reckoned 375 years. Similarly, from Moses' thirty-fifth year there take place 375 years.
c Thuoris, King of Egypt, by Homer is called Polybus, Alcandra's husband, whom he mentions in the Odyssey, saying that after the capture of Troy, Menelaus and Helen sojourned with him.
According to the Assyrians
from the 43rd year of the reign of Ninus
835 years
According to the Hebrews
from the first year of the birth of Abraham
835 years
According to the Sicyonians
from the 20 and nd year of Europs
similarly 835 years
But from the birth of Moses
410 years
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[100/101]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Athenians First king of the Latins after the fall of Troy
Egyptians
BC
Assyrians: the rest of the years of Tautanis.
Hebrews: the rest of the years of Labdon.
12th of the Athenians, Demophon son of Theseus, for 33 years. After the third year of the Trojan captivity or, as some would have it, after 8 years, Aeneas reigned over the Latins, who later were called Romans, for 3 years.
From the rd book of Manetho. 20th Dynasty of Egypt, of the Diospolites, for 178 years.
1
26
4
30
1
2
1181
27
5
31
2
3
25th of the Sicyonians, Pelasgus, for 20 years.
28
6
1
3
4
1179
29
7
2
4
1
c Before Aeneas, Janus, Saturnus, Picus, Faunus and Latinus reigned in Italy for about 150 years. *
5
840 30
8
a After Labdon, foreigners bring the Hebrews under their control for 40 years, which are included in the dates of later judges according to the traditions of the Jews.
3
5
2
6
1177
After whom Sampson, for 20 years.
31
1
4
6
3
d Aegisthus reigns at Mycenae.
7
1176
After whom nd, Ascanius, for 38 years.
32
2
b Samson was the strongest of all, so that by certain people his deeds are likened to the labors of Hercules.
5
7
1
e The Lydians controlled the sea. 1
8
1175
27th of the Assyrians, Teutaeus, for 40 years.
f At Mycenae after the murder of Aegisthus Orestes reigned for 15 years.
1
3
6
8
2
g Ascanius, the son of Aeneas, founded the city of Alba.
9
1174
2
4
7
9
3
10
3
5
8
10
4
h Palaephatus writes in book 1 of his Incredible Things those things which they say about Ulysses: how the 'Scylla' that he escaped was a Tyrrhenian trireme that used to rob guests, and how the 'Sirens' were whores who used to deceive people sailing.
11
1172
4
6
9
11
5
12
5
7
10
12
6
13
1170
6
8
11
13
7
14
7
9
12
14
8
15
1168
850
8
10
13
15
9
16
1. This entry is in black in manuscript 'O'; however all the other entries on rulers of the sea are in red.
2. The asterisk '*' indicates an entry not found in the Armenian translation of Eusebius' original text of the Chronicle, so most likely an addition by Jerome.
[102/103]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Athenians Latins
Egyptians
BC
9
11
13
16
10
c The kingdom of Lavinius having been left to his stepmother, Ascanius founded Alba Longa, and with the greatest loving piety raised his brother Sylvius Posthumus, son of Aeneas by Lavinia. *
17
1166
10
12
14
17
11
18
11
13
15
18
12
19
1164
12
14
16
19
13
20
13
15
17
20
14
21
1162
14
16
18
21
15
22
15
17
19
22
16
d Pyrrhus, in the temple of Apollo at Delphi, is slain by Orestes for his betrayal of the priest Machaereus; certain men say that Homer lived at this time.
23
1160
a Some suppose that, a great time after, the Byzantine Baths were so named to preserve his memory.
After whom, Zeuxippus, for 31 years.
16
18
1
23
17
24
1159
17
19
2
24
18
25
860 18
20
3
25
19
26
1157
After whom Eli the priest, for 40 years.
b In the Hebrew book 40 years are found; but in the LXX translation, 20.
e At Mycenae Tisamenus the son of Orestes reigned.
19
1
4
26
20
27
1156
20
2
5
27
21
28
21
3
6
28
22
f The sons of Hector recaptured Ilium, after the progeny of Antenor had been expelled, Helenus bringing help to them.
29
1154
22
4
7
29
23
30
23
5
8
30
24
31
1152
24
6
9
31
25
32
25
7
10
32
26
33
1150
26
8
11
33
27
34
13th of the Athenians, Oxyntes, for 12 years.
g According to some, the descent of the Heraclids.
27
9
12
1
28
35
1148
870
28
10
13
2
29
36
[104/105]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Athenians Latins
Egyptians
BC
29
11
14
3
30
b The Amazons burned the temple of Ephesus.
37
1146
30
12
15
4
31
38
31
13
16
5
32
39
1144
32
14
17
6
33
40
33
15
18
7
34
c The Lycian Games first held.
d Ascanius fathered Julius, from whom the Julian family originated; and on account of the age of the little one, because it was not appropriate for ruling citizens, he left the kingship as a bequest to his brother Sylvius Posthumus. *
41
1142
34
16
19
8
35
42
35
17
20
9
36
43
1140
36
18
21
10
37
44
37
19
22
11
38
e Because he appeared after the death of his father, Sylvius Posthumus was raised in the country, and took the names 'Sylvius (Woodsman)' and 'Posthumus (After-Burial), whence all the Alban kings are called 'Sylvius'. *
45
1138
rd of the Latins, Silvius son of Aeneas, for 29 years.
980 38
20
a Castor, the chronographer, concerning the kingdom of the Sicyonians: "We shall set forth the kings of the Sicyonians from Aegialeus to Zeuxippus, who together reigned for 962 years, and the six priests of (Apollo) Carneus, who presided for 33 years. After these Charidemus was appointed priest, who fled, unable to meet his debts."
23
12
1
46
1137
After whom 14th Aphidas, for 1 year.
f Castor concerning the kingship of the Athenians: "We list also the Athenian rulers known as the Erechtheids and Cecropids, up to Thymotes, all together come up to a period of 429 years. After them, Melanthus the son of Pylian Andropompus received the kingdom; and the latter's son Codrus, who together ruled for 58 years. "
39
21
24
1
2
47
1136
After whom 15th Thymoetes for 8 years.
40
22
25
1
3
48
1135
28th of the Assyrians, Thineus, for 30 years.
1
23
26
2
4
49
1134
2
24
27
3
5
50
3
25
28
4
6
51
1132
4
26
29
5
7
52
5
27
30
6
8
53
1130
[106/107]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Sicyonians
Athenians Latins
Egyptians
BC
6
28
31
7
9
d After the rule of the Erechtheids had been destroyed, the kingship of the Athenian princes was transferred to another nation, when Xanthus the Boeotian had challenged Thimoetes to fight, and Thimoetes had been refusing, Melanthus of Pylos the son of Andropompus had taken up single combat, and had reigned thereafter. And from this, Apaturion, that is, the festival of Deceptions, is celebrated, for the victory had appeared by fraud.
54
1129
7
29
The kings of Sicyon came to an end, who for reigned 962 years; and after them, the priests of Carneus 1 were founded.
8
10
55
After whom, 16th Melanthus, for 37 years.
890
8
30
1
11
56
1127
9
31
2
12
57
10
32
3
13
58
1125
11
33
4
14
59
12
34
5
15
60
1123
13
35
6
16
61
14
36
7
17
62
1121
15
37
8
18
63
16
38
9
19
64
1119
17
39
10
20
65
900 18
40
11
21
66
1117
Of the Hebrews, Samuel and Saul for 40 years.
a After the death of Eli the priest, the Ark of the Covenant is possessed by foreigners: and then it was in the house of Aminadab for 20 years.
19
1
b Saul was the first king, from the tribe of Benjamin.
12
22
67
1116
20
2
13
23
68
21
3
14
24
69
1114
22
4
15
25
70
23
5
16
26
71
1112
24
6
17
27
72
25
7
c Samuel was prophesying.
18
28
73
1110
26
8
19
29
74
(1) Apollo Carneus.
[108/109]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Athenians
Latins First king of the Lacedaemonians
First king of the Corinthians Egyptians
BC
th of the Latins, Aeneas Silvius, for 31 years.
b In another history we learn that fourth to have reigned was Silvius the Latin, the son of Lavinia and Melampus, that is, born from the same mother as his brother Posthumus, and that the fifth, who is now placed here as the fourth, was Silvius Aeneas, the son of Posthumus. *
27
9
20
1
75
1108
910 28
10
21
2
76
29
11
22
3
77
1106
30
12
23
4
78
29th of the Assyrians, Dercylus, for 40 years.
1
13
a According to the opinion of some, Homer is judged to have been in these times. However, how much disagreement there was among the ancients about him, can be revealed from the following. Some, among them Crates, place him before the descent of the Heraclids, 80 years after the Trojan War. Eratosthenes, after 100 years from the Trojan captivity. Aristarchus, at the time of the Ionian migration, or after 100 years. Philochorus, after the Ionian migration at the time when Archippus held the magistracy of the Athenians and 180 years after the capture of Troy. Apollodorus the Athenian, 240 years after the overthrow of Ilium. Others have come forward, who think that he lived earlier, a short time before the Olympiads began,
24
5
In Lacedaemon, Eurystheus was the first to reign, for 42 years.
At Corinth Aletes was the first to reign, for 35 years. 79
1104
2
14
25
6
80
3
15
26
7
81
1102
4
16
27
8
1
1
82
5
17
28
9
2
2
83
1100
6
18
29
10
3
3
84
7
19
30
11
4
c The descent of the Heraclids into the Peloponnesus.
4
85
1098
920 8
20
31
12
5
5
86
9
21
32
13
6
6
87
1096
10
22
33
14
7
7
88
11
23
34
15
8
d Eurystheus and Procles conquered Sparta.
8
89
1094
12
24
35
16
9
9
90
13
25
36
17
10
10
91
1092
14
26
37
18
11
11
92
17th of the Athenians, Codrus, son of Melanthus, for 21 years.
15
27
1
19
12
12
93
1090
[110/111]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Athenians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
16
28
400 years from the Trojan captivity, granted that Archilochus calculates the year as the 23rd Olympiad and the 500th from the Trojan collapse.
2
20
13
13
94
1089
17
29
3
21
14
14
95
930 18
30
4
22
15
15
96
1087
19
31
5
23
16
16
97
20
32
6
24
17
c The fugitive Ionians betook themselves to Athens.
17
98
1085
21
33
7
25
18
18
99
22
34
8
26
19
19
100
1083
23
35
9
27
20
20
101
24
36
10
28
21
21
102
1081
25
37
11
29
22
d The Peloponnesians fight against Athens.
22
103
26
38
12
30
23
23
104
1079
27
39
13
31
24
24
105
th of the Latins, Latinus Silvius, for 50 years.
940 28
40
14
1
25
e The incursion into Asia of both the Amazons and the Cimmerians.
25
106
1077
First king of the Hebrews, David from the tribe of Judah, for 40 years.
29
1
a David from the tribe of Judah is the first to reign among the Hebrews.
15
2
26
26
107
1076
30
2
16
3
27
27
108
31
3
17
4
28
28
109
1074
32
4
18
5
29
29
110
33
5
19
6
30
30
111
1072
34
6
20
7
31
31
112
35
7
b The high priest of the Hebrews
21
8
32
32
113
1070
[112/113]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Athenians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
Abiathar After whom the leaders whom death finished: of whom the first, Medon son of Codrus, for 20 years
is
considered
a The Peloponnesians fight against the Athenians.
important.
36
8
There were prophesying:
1
9
13
33
114
1069
37
9
Gad
2
10
14
b Codrus, handing himself over to death following a personal oracle, is murdered in the Peloponnesian war, in which the kingship of the Erechtheids is destroyed, which had lasted for 487 years.
34
115
950 38
10
Nathan
3
11
15
35
116
1067
Asaph
nd of the Corinthians, Ixion, for 37 years.
39
11
4
12
16
1
117
1066
40
12
5
13
17
2
118
30th of the Assyrians, Eupales, for 38 years.
1
13
6
14
18
3
119
1064
2
14
7
15
19
4
120
3
15
8
16
20
5
121
1062
4
16
9
17
21
6
122
5
17
10
18
22
7
123
1060
nd of the Lacedaemonians, Agis, for 1 year.
6
18
11
19
1
8
124
1059
After whom, Echestratus, for 35 years.
7
19
12
20
1
9
125
1058
960 8
20
13
21
2
c The Pelasgians controlled the sea.
10
126
9
21
14
22
3
11
127
1056
[114/115]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Athenians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
10
22
15
23
4
12
128
1055
11
23
16
24
5
13
129
12
24
17
25
6
a Magnesia in Asia founded.
14
130
1053
13
25
18
26
7
15
131
14
26
19
27
8
16
132
1051
15
27
20
28
9
b Mycena in Italy -- or Cumae -- founded.
17
133
nd of the Athenians, Acastus, for 36 years.
16
28
1
29
10
18
134
1049
17
29
2
30
11
19
135
970 18
30
3
31
12
20
136
1047
19
31
4
32
13
c Myrina founded.
21
137
20
32
5
33
14
d Ephesus founded by Andronicus.
22
138
1045
21
33
6
34
15
23
139
22
34
7
35
16
24
140
1043
23
35
8
36
17
25
141
24
36
9
37
18
26
142
1041
25
37
10
38
19
27
143
26
38
11
39
20
e Carthage was founded by Carchedon from Tyre, as some suppose; but others though suppose it was founded by his daughter Dido, 143 years after the Trojan War.
28
144
1039
27
39
12
40
21
29
145
980 28
40
13
41
22
30
146
1037
nd of the Hebrews, Solomon son of David, for 40 years.
29
1
14
42
23
f The Ionian emigration, in which some write that Homer participated.
31
147
1036
30
2
15
43
24
32
148
31
3
16
44
25
33
149
1034
[116/117]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Athenians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
32
4
17
45
26
34
150
1033
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
Solomon begins to build the temple in Jerusalem, and completes the work in 7 years.
the exodus of Israel from Egypt until the present time, is counted as 480 years, as the third Book of Kings bears witness.
Morever the whole time, from Moses and
33
5
a According to the third book of Kings, from Moses and the departure of Israel from Egypt down to Solomon and the building of the Temple, there are counted 480 years.
From the flood until Moses, 1,447 years.
From Adam until the flood, 2,242 years.
Altogether 4,169 years.
18
46
27
35
151
1032
34
6
19
47
28
36
152
35
7
20
48
29
37
152
1030
rd of the Corinthians, Agelaus, for 37 years.
36
8
21
49
30
1
153
1029
37
9
22
50
31
2
154
th of the Latins, Alba Silvius, son of Aeneas Silvius, for 39 years.
990 38
10
23
1
32
3
155
1027
31st of the Assyrians, Laosthenes, for 45 years.
1
11
24
2
33
4
156
1026
2
12
25
3
34
5
157
3
13
26
4
35
6
158
1024
th of the Lacedaemonians, Labotes, for 37 years.
b Zadok, th priest of the Hebrews from Aaron, is considered illustrious.
4
14
27
5
36 1
1
7
159
1023
5
15
28
6
37 2
8
160
6
16
29
7
38 3
9
161
1021
Note: I have followed the layout in 'O' for the '~~~' and the arrangement on the page of the red text rather than sticking exactly to that in Helm. The '~~~' in the original consist of a decorative pattern of this character, with a dot under and over it (which I cannot show here). The dots are in the other colour to the line.
1. I have chosen here to reproduce a mistake made by the copyist of 'O', where he wrote in 36-38, crossed them out and placed in 1-3. This is a mistake I have made myself while laying out these pages. It shows that the ancient copyist copied the numbers first and then titles were inserted in the gaps, and then smaller text wherever there was room. I can testify that if you work in this sequence, the mistake is a perfectly natural one to make, and indeed an inevitable one.
[118/119]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Athenians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
7
17
30
8
4
10
163
1020
8
18
a There were prophesying:
31
9
5
11
164
9
19
Zadok,
32
10
6
12
165
1018
1000 10
20
Achias Silonites,
33
11
7
b Some say that Homer and Hesiod lived in these times.
13
166
11
21
and Sameas.
34
12
8
14
167
1016
12
22
35
13
9
15
168
13
23
36
14
10
16
169
1014
rd of the Athenians, Archippus, for 19 years.
c According to some Carthage is founded by Dido. Others indeed proclaim the date written above.
14
24
1
15
11
17
170
1013
15
25
2
16
12
18
171
16
26
3
17
13
19
172
1011
17
27
4
18
14
20
173
18
28
5
19
15
21
174
1009
19
29
6
20
16
22
175
1010 20
30
7
21
17
23
176
1007
21
31
8
22
18
d The Thracians were the third to control the sea, for 19 years.
24
177
22
32
9
23
19
25
178
1005
In Egypt in the 21st Dynasty reigned Smendis, for 26 years.
23
33
10
24
20
26
1
1004
24
34
11
25
21
27
2
25
35
12
26
22
28
3
1002
26
36
13
27
23
29
4
27
37
14
28
24
30
5
1000
[120/121]
Assyrians
Hebrews
Beginning of the Hebrews in Samaria
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
28
38
Among the Hebrews, who were in Samaria and were called Israel, Jeroboam was the first to reign, for 22 years.
15
29
25
31
6
999
29
39
16
30
26
32
7
1020 30
40
17
31
27
33
8
997
rd of the Hebrews, Rehoboam, for 17 years. a After the death of Solomon, sedition having arisen in the Jewish nation, and the kingdom having been divided into two, Jeroboam reigned in Samaria over ten tribes. Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Jerusalem with two tribes subject to him, which were called Judah on account of the kings of the Jews who had descended from the line of Judah, and so the name of Judah fell to the whole people of the Jews. 1
31
1
1
18
32
28
34
9
996
32
2
2
19
33
29
35
10
th of the Athenians, Thersippus for 41 years.
33
3
3
1
34
30
36
11
994
34
4
4
2
35
31
37
12
th of the Corinthians, Prymnis for 35 years
35
5
5
3
36
32
1
13
992
36
6
6
4
37
33
2
14
37
7
7
5
38
34
3
15
990
38
8
8
6
39
35
4
16
b Susacin, king of Egypt, fighting against the Jews, despoils the temple.
th of the Latins, Aegyptus Silvius, for 24 years.
c Silvius Atis, or Aegyptus, was the son of the previous King of Alba. *
39
9
9
7
1
36
5
17
988
1030 40
10
10
8
2
37
6
18
th of the Lacedaemonians, Dorysthus, for 29 years.
41
11
11
9
3
1
d Samos founded, and Smyrna expanded into city status.
7
19
986
42
12
12
10
4
2
8
20
43
13
13
11
5
3
9
21
984
(1) I.e. JUDAeorum.
[122/123]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
44
14
14
12
6
4
10
22
983
45
15
15
13
7
5
11
23
32nd of the Assyrians, Peritiades, for 30 years.
1
16
16
14
8
6
12
24
981
2
17
17
15
9
7
13
25
After whom th Abijah, for 3 years.
3
1
18
16
10
8
14
26
979
After whom Pseusennes for 41 years.
4
2
19
17
11
9
15
1
978
1040 5
3
20
18
12
10
16
2
After whom th Asa, a righteous man, for 41 years.
6
1
21
19
13
11
17
3
976
7
2
a Abimelech, high priest of the Hebrews, is considered illustrious.
22
20
14
12
18
4
nd of the Hebrews of Israel, Nadab, for 2 years.
There were prophesying Ahijah,
Shemaiah,
8
3
and he who had been at the altar of Samaria, 1
21
15
13
18
5
974
9
4
Jehu,
2
22
16
14
19
6
Jehoiada, After whom rd Baasha, for 24 years.
c The Thracians crossing over from Strymo occupied Bebrycia which is now called Bithynia.
Azariah, also called Iddo,
b Start of 61st jubilee according to the Hebrews 10
5
and Ananiah.
1
23
17
15
20
7
972
11
6
2
24
18
16
21
8
[124/125]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
12
17
3
25
19
17
23
9
970
13
18
4
26
20
18
24
10
14
19
5
27
21
19
25
11
968
1050 15
20
6
28
22
20
a The Thracians controlled the sea. 2
26
12
16
21
7
29
23
21
27
13
966
17
22
8
30
24
22
28
14
th of the Latins, Capis Silvius, for 28 years.
b Son of the previous king Atis. *
18
23
9
31
1
23
29
15
964
19
24
10
32
2
24
c The Thracians controlled the sea. 2
30
16
20
25
11
33
3
25
31
17
962
21
26
12
34
4
26
32
18
22
27
13
35
5
27
33
19
960
23
28
14
36
6
28
34
20
24
29
15
37
7
29
35
21
958
th of the Lacedaemonians, Agesilaus, for 44 years
th of the Corinthians, Bacchis, for 35 years.
1060 25
30
16
38
8
1
d From him their kings were surnamed Bacchids
1
22
957
26
31
17
39
9
2
2
23
27
32
18
40
10
3
3
24
955
28
33
19
41
11
4
4
25
th of the Athenians, Phorbas, for 31 years
29
34
20
1
12
5
5
26
953
30
35
21
2
13
6
6
27
33rd of the Assyrians, Ophratheus, for 20 years 1
(1) In Helm's edition, this entry is on two lines. This suggests something is wrong with the layout of that edition on this page. The same problem affects the same page in Fotheringham's edition. It appears on two lines in 'O', mid-page.
(2) This entry appears twice in Helm, and also in 'O'.
[126/127]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
1
26
22
3
14
7
7
28
951
2
27
23
4
15
8
8
29
3
28
24
5
16
9
9
30
949
After whom th, Hela, for 2 years
4
29
1
6
17
10
10
31
948
1070 5
30
2
7
18
11
11
32
th of the Hebrews of Israel, Ambri for 12 years.
6
31
1
8
19
12
12
33
946
7
32
2
9
20
13
13
34
8
33
3
10
21
14
14
35
944
9
34
4
11
22
15
15
36
10
35
5
12
23
16
16
37
942
11
36
6
13
24
17
17
38
12
37
7
14
25
18
18
39
940
13
38
8
15
26
19
19
40
14
39
9
16
27
20
20
41
938
Of the Egyptians, Nephercheres, for 4 years.
1080 15
40
10
17
28
21
21
1
937
9th of the Latins, Carpentus Sylvius, for 13 years
a Carpentus Sylvius (was) the son of Capys, the previous king. *
16
41
11
18
1
22
22
2
936
th of the Hebrews in Judah, Jehosaphat, a righteous man, for 25 years.
[128/129]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
17
1
12
19
2
23
23
3
935
th of the Hebrews in Israel, Ahab, for 22 years.
18
2
1
20
3
24
24
4
934
Of the Egyptians, Amenophis, for 9 years.
19
3
2
21
4
25
25
1
933
20
4
3
22
5
26
26
2
34th of the Assyrians, Ophratanes, for 50 years.
1
5
a Among the Hebrews
4
23
6
27
27
3
931
2
6
there were prophesying:
5
24
7
28
28
4
3
7
Obadiah
6
25
8
29
29
5
929
4
8
Jehu
7
26
9
30
30
6
1090 5
9
Uzziah
8
27
10
31
31
7
927
6
10
Micaiah;
9
28
11
32
32
8
7
11
but false prophets
10
29
12
33
33
9
925
were:
After whom Osochor, for 6 years.
Zedekiah
8
12
Eliezer
11
30
13
34
34
1
924
After whom Tiberinus Sylvius for 8 years.
b Tiberinus, son of Carpentius, (flourished) from whom also a river was named Tiber which previously used to be called the Albula. (*)
9
13
12
31
1
35
35
2
923
th of Athenians, Megacles, for 30 years
th of the Corinthians, Agelas, for 30 years.
[130/131]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
10
14
13
1
2
36
1
3
922
11
15
14
2
3
37
2
4
12
16
15
3
4
38
3
5
920
13
17
16
4
5
39
4
6
After whom Psinaches, for 9 years
14
18
17
5
6
40
5
1
918
1100 15
19
18
6
7
41
6
2
16
20
1
19
7
8
42
a The Rhodians controlled the sea fourth, for 23 years. 1
7
3
916
11th of the Latins, Agrippa Silvius, for 40 years.
b Agrippa (was) the son of Tiberinus. *
17
21
20
8
1
43
8
4
915
18
22
21
9
2
44
9
5
th of the Lacedae- monians, Archelaus, for 60 years.
19
23
22
10
3
1
c In the Latin history we discover these things written word-for-word: "When Agrippa is reigning among the Latins, the poet Homer is important in Greece," as Apollodorus the Grammarian and Euphorbus the Historian testify, 124 years before the founding of Rome, and so Cornelius Nepos says, 100 years before the first Olympiad. *
10
6
913
th of the Hebrews of Israel, Ahaziah, for 2 years.
20
24
1
11
4
2
12
7
912
21
25
2
12
5
3
13
8
th of the Hebrews of Judah, Joram, for 8 years.
After whom th, Joram, for 12 years.
22
1
1
13
6
4
14
9
910
Of the Egyptians, Pseusennes, for 35 years.
1. In 'O' the notice about the Rhodians appears on the left-hand page, at the place marked '1'.
[132/133]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
23
2
a There were prophesying:
2
14
7
5
14
1
909
24
3
Elijah
3
15
8
6
15
2
1110 25
4
Elisha
4
16
9
7
16
3
907
26
5
5
17
10
8
17
4
27
6
6
18
11
9
18
5
905
28
7
b Elijah is caught up (to heaven).
7
19
12
10
19
6
29
8
8
20
13
11
20
7
903
After whom th, Ahaziah, for 1 year
30
1
9
21
14
12
21
8
902
After whom, his mother Athaliah, for 7 years
31
1
c Jonadab son of Rehab is considered important.
10
22
15
13
22
9
901
32
2
11
23
16
14
23
10
33
3
12
24
17
15
24
11
899
After whom 9th, Jehu for 28 years.
34
4
1
25
18
16
25
12
898
1120 35
5
2
26
19
17
26
13
36
6
d Jehoiada is considered a most notable high priest among the Hebrews, who alone after Moses lived for 130 years.
3
27
20
18
27
14
896
37
7
4
28
21
19
28
15
After whom 10th, Joash, for 40 years.
38
1
5
29
22
20
29
16
894
39
2
6
30
23
21
30
17
[134/135]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
th of the Athenians, Diognetus, for 28 years
th of the Corinthians, Eudemus, for 25 years.
40
3
7
1
24
22
b The Phrygians controlled the sea fifth, for 25 years.
1
18
892
41
4
8
2
25
23
2
19
891
42
5
9
3
26
24
3
20
890
43
6
10
4
27
25
4
21
889
44
7
11
5
28
26
5
22
888
1130 45
8
a Zechariah, prophet of the Hebrews, is murdered.
12
6
29
27
6
23
887
46
9
13
7
30
28
7
24
886
47
10
14
8
31
29
8
25
885
48
11
15
9
32
30
9
26
884
49
12
16
10
33
31
c Lycurgus is considered notable.
10
27
883
50
13
17
11
34
32
11
28
882
35th of the Assyrians, Acrazapes, for 42 years
1
14
18
12
35
33
12
29
881
2
15
19
13
36
34
13
30
880
3
16
20
14
37
35
14
31
879
4
17
21
15
38
36
15
32
878
1140 5
18
22
16
39
37
16
33
877
6
19
23
17
40
38
17
34
876
12th of the Latins, Aremulus Silvius, for 19 years.
d Sylvius remulus, son of Agrippa, the previous king, stationed a garrison of the Alban people among the hills where Rome now is; who on account of his impiety, died later having been struck by
7
20
24
18
1
39
18
35
875
22nd Dynasty of Egypt. Sesonchosis, for 21 years.
[136/137]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
8
21
25
19
2
40
lightning. The son of this man was Julius, the great-grandfather of Julius Proculus, who, migrating with Romulus to Rome, founded the gens Julia. (*)
19
1
874
9
22
26
20
3
41
20
2
873
10
23
27
21
4
42
21
3
872
11
24
28
22
5
43
22
4
871
10th of Israel, Joachaz, for 17 years
12
25
1
23
6
44
23
5
870
13
26
2
24
7
45
24
6
869
14
27
3
25
8
46
25
7
868
th of the Corinthians, Aristomedes, 35 years
1150 15
28
4
26
9
47
1
8
867
16
29
5
27
10
48
2
9
866
17
30
6
28
11
49
3
10
865
th of the Athenians, Phereclus, for 19 years.
c The Cypriots controlled the sea sixth, for 32 years. 1
18
31
7
1
12
50
4
11
864
19
32
a The prophet Elisha dies.
8
2
13
51
5
12
863
20
33
9
3
14
52
6
13
862
21
34
10
4
15
53
7
14
861
22
35
b Among the Hebrews, the prophet Zechariah is killed by King Joash.
11
5
16
54
8
15
860
23
36
12
6
17
55
9
16
859
24
37
13
7
18
56
10
17
858
25
38
14
8
19
57
11
18
857
1. This entry is omitted in 'O', no doubt accidentally. I have restored it from Helm, and coloured the same as the other Thassalocracies.
[138/139]
Assyrians
Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedaemonians
Corinthians Egyptians
BC
13th of the Latins, Aventinus Sylvius, for 37 years.
26
39
15
9
1
58
a Aventinus, the elder son of the previous king, Remulus, having died and been buried on that hill which is now a part of the City, gave that place its permanent name. *
12
19
856
27
40
16
10
2
59
13
20
855
11th of the Hebrews in Judah, Amaziah, for 29 years.
28
1
17
11
3
60
14
21
854
11th of Israel, Joash, for 16 years.
th of the Lacedaemonians, Teleclus, for 40 years.
Of Egypt, Osorthon, for 15 years.
29
2
1
12
4
1
15
1
853
30
3
2
13
5
2
16
2
852
31
4
3
14
6
3
17
3
851
32
5
4
15
7
4
b Some think that Carthage was founded in this period; but others in fact as we recounted above.
18
4
850
33
6
5
16
8
5
19
5
849
34
7
6
17
9
6
20
6
848
1170 35
8
7
18
10
7
21
7
847
36
9
8
19
11
8
22
8
846
9th of the Athenians, Ariphron, for 20 years.
c During the time of Ariphron, the kingdom of the Assyrians was destroyed, and Sardanapalus, as some tend to write.
37
10
9
1
12
9
23
9
845
38
11
10
2
13
10
24
10
844
39
12
11
3
14
11
25
11
843
40
13
12
4
15
12
26
12
842
41
14
13
5
16
13
27
13
841
42
15
14
6
17
14
28
14
840
36th of the Assyrians,
[140/141]
Assyrians Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedae- monians
Corinth- ians Egyptians
BC
Thonos Concoleros, who used to be called Sardanapalus in Greek, for 20 years
1
16
15
7
18
15
29
15
839
After whom Tacelothis, for 13 years.
2
17
16
8
19
16
30
1
838
After whom 12th, Jeroboam, for 41 years.
1180 3
18
1
9
20
17
a The Phoenicians controlled the sea seventh for 45 years.
31
2
837
4
19
2
10
21
18
32
3
836
5
20
3
11
22
19
33
4
835
6
21
4
12
23
20
34
5
834
7
22
5
13
24
21
35
6
833
9th of the Corinthians, Agemon, for 16 years.
8
23
6
14
25
22
1
7
832
9
24
7
15
26
23
2
8
831
10
25
8
16
27
24
b Sardanapalus at the same time founded Tarsus and Anchiale: and, conquered in battle by Arbaces the Mede, he burned himself up in a fire.
3
9
830
11
26
9
17
28
25
4
10
829
12
27
10
18
29
26
5
11
828
1190 13
28
11
19
30
27
6
12
827
14
29
12
20
31
28
7
13
826
12th of Judah of the Hebrews, Azariah, also called Oziah, for 52 years.
10th of the Athenians, Thespiseus, for 27 years.
23rd dynasty of Egypt. Petubastis for 25 years
[142/143]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedae- monians
Beginning of the kingship of the Macedonians Corinth- ians Egyptians
BC
15
1
13
1
32
29
8
1
825
16
2
14
2
33
30
9
2
824
17
3
15
3
34
31
10
3
823
18
4
16
4
35
32
11
4
822
19
5
17
5
36
33
12
5
821
20
6
18
6
37
34
13
6
820
~~~~
History declares that the kings of the Assyrians existed up to this time, and together they make up 1197 years. However all the years of the kingship of the Assyrians from the first year of Ninus add up to 1240.
14th of the Latins, Procas Silvius, for 23 years.
c The son of Aventinus the previous king. *
In Media the first to reign was Arbaces for 28 years.
d Lycurgus codifies the laws for the Lacedaemonians.
1
7
b After the Assyrian empire had been destroyed, Arbaces the Mede transferred the kingdom to the Medes, and government was meanwhile exercised without princes until Deioces, king of the Medes. However in the intervening time, the Chaldaeans almost prevailed, of whose kings separate successions are recounted. The rest of the nations also had their own kings.
19
7
1
35
14
7
819
2
8
20
8
2
36
15
8
818
1200 3
9
21
9
3
37
16
9
817
10th of the Corinthians, Alexander, for 25 years.
4
10
22
10
4
38
1
10
816
5
11
23
11
5
39
2
11
815
6
12
24
12
6
40
e Temple of Juno burned down.
3
12
814
9th of the Lacedaemonians, Alcamenes, 1 for 37 years.
First king of the Macedonians, Caranus, for 28 years.
7
13
25
13
7
1
1
4
13
813
8
14
26
14
8
2
2
5
14
812
9
15
27
15
9
3
3
6
15
811
(1) See introduction for a discussion of this copying mistake and correction by Jerome himself. Eusebius had 'Alcamenes.' In 'O' Thalcames.
[144/145]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedae- monians
Macedo- nians
Corinth- ians Egyptians
BC
10
16
28
16
10
4
4
7
16
810
11
17
29
17
11
5
5
c Hesiod is considered notable, as Porphyry maintains.
8
17
809
12
18
30
18
12
6
6
9
18
808
1210 13
19
31
19
13
7
7
10
19
807
14
20
32
20
14
8
8
11
20
806
15
21
33
21
15
9
9
12
21
805
16
22
a Among the Hebrews
34
22
16
10
10
13
22
804
17
23
were prophesying:
35
23
17
11
11
14
23
803
18
24
Hosea
36
24
18
12
12
15
24
802
19
25
Amos
37
25
19
13
13
16
25
801
Isaiah
d The Egyptians nicknamed their king Osorthon "Hercules."
Of Egypt, Osorthon, for 9 years.
Jonah
20
26
38
26
20
14
14
17
1
800
21
27
39
27
21
15
15
18
2
799
11th of the Athenians, Agamestor, for 20 years.
22
28
40
1
22
16
16
e Phidon the Argive was the first to discover weights and measures.
19
3
798
1220 23
29
41
2
23
17
17
20
4
797
13th of Israel, Zechariah, for 6 months. After him, Shallum for days. After him, Menahem for 10 years.
15th of the Latins, Amulius Sylvius, for 44 years.
f The Laws of Lycurgus adopted in this period in Lacedaemon, according to the opinion of Apollodorus.
24
30
b Numitor the elder son of the previous king, Proca, expelled from the kingdom by his brother Amulius, lived on his own farm. * 3
1
18
18
21
5
796
25
31
1
4
2
19
19
22
6
795
26
32
2
5
3
20
20
23
7
794
[146/147]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-
ians
Latins Lacedae- monians
Macedo- nians
Corinth- ians Egyptians
BC
27
33
His daughter was selected as a vestal virgin to remove any possibility of a child. She was buried alive in the earth according to the law, because in the 27th year of her uncle's reign she had given birth to twin babies. Indeed, Faustulus, a palace shepherd, carried off the little ones exposed near the bank of the Tiber to his wife, Acca Laurentia. She, on account of her beauty and greed to make money from her body 1, used to be named 'Lupa' (She-wolf) by the neighbours, whence down to our own memory, brothels of whores are called 'lupanaria' (wolf dens). When the boys had grown up, having gathered a band of shepherds and robbers, after Amulius had been killed at Alba, they restored their grandfather Numitor to power. *
3
6
4
21
21
24
8
793
28
34
4
7
5
22
22
25
9
792
nd of the Medes, Sosarmus, for 30 years.
11th of the Corinthians, Telestes, for 12 years. After whom Psammus for 10 years
1
35
5
8
6
23
23
1
1
791
2
36
6
9
7
24
24
2
2
790
3
37
7
10
8
25
25
a The first trireme sailed in Corinth.
3
3
789
4
38
8
11
9
26
26
4
4
788
1230 5
39
9
12
10
27
27
5
5
787
6
40
10
13
11
28
28
6
6
786
After whom Phaceas, for 10 years.
nd of the Macedonians, Coenus, for 12 years.
7
41
1
14
12
29
1
7
7
785
8
42
2
15
13
30
2
b After the Phoenicians, the Egyptians controlled the sea.
8
8
784
9
43
3
16
14
31
3
9
9
783
10
44
4
17
15
32
4
10
10
782
Dynasty 24. Bocchorus for 44 years.
11
45
5
18
16
33
5
11
1
781
12
46
6
19
17
34
6
12
2
780
13
47
7
20
18
35
7
After him, Automenes for 1 year; after these, the yearly prytaneis were established in Corinth.
~~~~~~
779
12th of the Athenians, Aeschylus, for 23 years.
The first king of the Lydians, Ardysus, son of Alyattes, for 36 years.
14
48
8
1
19
36
8
1
3
778
(1) Literally: "and the greed of her money-making body".
[148/149]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Atheni-
ans
Latins Lacedae- monians Macedo- nians
Lydians
Egyptians
BC
1240
15
49
9
2
21
37
9
2
4
777
f The kings of the Lacedaemonians came to an end.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
a First
Olympiad
g First
Olympiad
From the captivity of Troy, until the first Olympiad, 405 years.
h Africanus writes that the first Olympiad was in the times of Joathan, king of the Hebrews.
i Bocchorus established laws for the Egyptians, in whose reign a lamb spoke.
b In the second year of Aeschylus, judge of the Athenians, the first Olympiad held, in which Coroebus the Elian was champion.
c The Elians hold a contest every fifth year, with four years elapsed between, in which four annual leaders are created; Iphitus, son of Praxonides or of Haemo, was the first to create this system of Olympiads.
k Also, our own computation has shown it at this same time period. Moreover Africanus writes — I will transcribe his words — in this manner: "Aeschylus, son of Agamestor, held leadership among the Athenians for 28 years; in this period, Joathan was ruling in Jerusalem." We ourselves have also placed Joathan in the first Olympiad.
d From this time, Greek history is believed to be true in the matter of dates: for before this, as it seemed to everyone, they have advanced different opinions.
st Olympiad
16
50
10
3
21
10
3
5
776
17th of Israel, Phacee, for 20 years.
e In his reign, Tiglath Pileser, king of the Assyrians, carried off a large part of the people of the Jews to Assyria.
17
51
1
4
22
11
l Arctinus of Miletus is considered as a most eminent versifier.
4
6
775
18
52
2
5
23
12
5
7
774
13th of the Hebrews of Judah, Joatham, for 16 years.
rd of the Macedonians, Tyrimmas for 38 years.
[150/151]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athen-ians
Latins Macedo- nians
Lydians
Egyptians
BC
19
1
3
6
24
1
d Romulus and Remus are born of Mars and Ilia.
6
8
773
nd Olympiad
20
2
4
7
25
2
7
9
772
21
3
5
8
26
3
e The trireme sailed at Athens for the first time, with Aminocleus leading the way.
8
10
771
22
4
6
9
27
4
9
11
770
23
5
a Those also above were prophesying.
7
10
28
5
10
12
769
rd Olympiad
24
6
8
11
29
6
11
13
768
1250 25
7
9
12
30
7
f Hesiod is considered important, according to some.
12
14
767
26
8
10
13
31
8
13
15
766
27
9
b There were prophesying:
11
14
32
9
14
16
765
th Olympiad
Hosea
g Cynaethon, the Lacedaemonian poet, who wrote the Telegonia, is well-known.
28
10
Joel
12
15
33
10
15
17
764
29
11
Isaiah
13
16
34
11
16
18
763
30
12
Oded
14
17
35
12
17
19
762
rd of the Medes, Madyus, for 40 years.
h The people of Thera founded Cyrene, the oracle so decreeing, and Battus, whose real name was Aristaeus, was the founder of the city.
1
13
15
18
36
13
18
20
761
th Olympiad
2
14
c The poet Eumelus who composed the Pagonia and the Europia, and (the poet) Arctinus who composed the Aethiopis and the Iliupersis (the sack of Troy), are well known.
16
19
37
14
19
21
760
3
15
17
20
38
15
i Aradus the island (-town) is founded.
20
22
759
4
16
18
21
39
16
21
23
758
14th of the Hebrews of Judah, Ahaz, for 16 years.
k In Lacedaemon the first ephor 1 --which is the name of the magistracy--is established: however it was under the Lacedaemonian kings for 350 years.
1260
5
1
19
22
40
17
22
24
757
(1) The word 'Ephor' is given in Greek in Helm and appears in 'O' as 'εφοροc'.
[152/153]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Hebrews of Israel
Athenians
Latins Macedo- nians
Lydians
Egyptians
BC
th Olympiad
6
2
20
23
41
18
f Cyzicus founded.
23
25
756
Of Israel, Osee for 9 years. Alcmaeon for 2 years, 13th of the Athenians.
7
3
a Rome founded on the Palilia 1, which is now a festal day. * 1
1
42
19
g Several Roman writers report that Rome was founded.
24
26
755
8
4
2
2
43
20
25
27
754
b Remus slain with a pastoral shovel by Fabius, the general of Romulus. *
14th of the Athenians, Charops for 10 years.
h The leaders at Athens who had ruled the state for life came to an end; and in 10 years the custom changed to have a magistrate: and the first to reign was Carops, son of Aeschylus.
9
5
c Because of the security of the place of refuge, a vast multitude is gathered to Romulus. * 3
1
44
21
26
28
753
th Olympiad
16th of the Latins, Romulus reigns for 38 years
d The Sabine women carried off at the Consus Games in the third year from the founding of the city, and one, the most beautiful of the virgins, is picked out by the shouted agreement of all the abductors for Romulus' general Thalassus; whence during wedding ceremonies they shout from the crowd 'For Thalassus!' - which is to say the bride is so pretty it is right for Thalassus to have her. *
10
6
4
2
1
22
27
29
752
11
7
5
3
2
23
28
30
751
12
8
6
4
3
24
29
31
750
13
9
7
5
4
25
i The Milesians controlled the sea for 18 years, and they constructed Naucratis, a city in Egypt.
30
32
749
th Olympiad
14
10
8
6
5
26
31
33
748
1270 15
11
9
7
6
27
k Thales of Miletus, the natural philosopher, is well known.
32
34
747
e The first captivity of Israel.
The ten tribes of the nation of the Jews who were called Israel, and were in the part of Samaria conquered by Sennacherib, also called Shalmaneser, King of the Chaldeans, were taken off into the mountains of Media: and the kingship is in Samaria for 250 years.
l Sennacherib, king of the Chaldeans, sent Assyrians into the neighbouring regions to garrison the region of Judaea, who, having become enviers of the law of the Jews, were called Samaritans: which in the Latin language is expressed as 'guards'.
(1) The Palilia or day of Pales the god of shepherds, sometimes called the Parilia by other ancient writers, is 21 April, the anniversary of Rome's founding. Ovid, Fasti iv.721; Dionysius of Halicarnassus i.88; Varro, De ling. Lat. vi.15; Varro, De re rust, ii.1; Pliny, HN xviii.66.
[154/155]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Athenians
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
16
12
a The Ceninenses, Antemnates, Crustumini, Fidenates and Veientes, who had made war on account of the abduction of the Sabine women, are conquered by Romulus. *
8
7
28
33
c The Lacedaemonians were waging war against the Messenians for 20 years.
35
746
17
13
9
8
29
34
36
745
9th Olympiad
18
14
10
9
30
35
37
744
15th of the Athenians, Aesimides, for 10 years
d Eumelus of Corinth the versifier is well known; also the Erythrean Sybil.
19
15
1
10
31
36
38
743
nd of the Lydians, Alyattes, for 14 years
20
16
2
11
32
1
39
742
15th of the Hebrews of Judah, Hezekiah, for 29 years.
e Midas reigned in Phrygia.
21
1
3
12
33
2
40
741
10th Olympiad
f Naxus founded in Sicily.
22
2
4
13
34
3
41
740
23
3
b Among the Hebrews Isaiah and Hosea were prophesying.
5
14
35
4
42
739
24
4
6
15
36
5
g Syracuse founded in Sicily.
43
738
1280 25
5
7
16
37
6
44
737
11th Olympiad
26
6
8
17
38
7
h Catinia is founded in Sicily.
45
736
th of the Macedonians, Perdiccas for 51 years.
25th Dynasty of Egypt. Sabacho the Ethiopian for 12 years.
27
7
9
18
1
8
i Messenia is captured by the Lacedaemonians.
46
735
28
8
10
19
2
9
47
734
1. After the captivity of Israel, the colours for kingdoms change in 'O', and the change is reproduced here.
[156/157]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Athenians
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
b This happen-ed in the first year of Romul-us. But because the page was empty it was written here.
29
9
a Tarpeia was crushed by the round-shields of the Sabines; from which the Tarpeian hill takes its name, on which the Capitol now stands. * After whom Clidicus for 10 years. Year 1. 20
3
10
3
733
12th Olympiad
30
10
2
21
4
11
4
732
31
11
3
22
5
12
5
731
32
12
4
23
6
13
6
730
33
13
5
24
7
14
7
729
13th Olympiad
c When Tatius, King of the Sabines, was ruling with Romulus, the Romans came to be called 'Quirites' from Cures. 1 *
rd of the Lydians, Meles, for 12 years.
34
14
6
25
8
1
d Romulus was the first to recruit soldiers from the people, and 100 of the most noble old men as senators on account of their age, and on account of the similarity of care, he called them fathers. Also he constructed the temples and the walls of the Roman city. (*)
8
728
1290
35
15
7
26
9
2
9
727
36
16
8
27
10
3
10
726
37
17
9
28
11
4
11
725
14th Olympiad
38
18
10
29
12
5
12
724
After whom Hippomenes, for 10 years.
e Sabacho, having captured Bocchoris alive, exiled him.
Of Egypt, Sebichos, for 12 years.
39
19
1
30
13
6
1
723
40
20
2
31
14
7
2
722
th of the Medes, CARDICEAS for 13 years
1
21
3
32
15
8
f The Carians controlled the sea.
3
721
15th Olympiad
2
22
4
33
16
9
h The war that was waged in Thyrea between the Lacedaemonians and the Argives.
4
720
3
23
5
34
17
10
5
719
4
24
6
35
18
11
6
718
1300
5
25
7
36
19
12
i In Sicily, Chersonesus founded.
7
717
16th Olympiad
th of the Lydians, Candaules, for 17 years.
(1) A Sabine town. Plutarch Numa 3.4; a false etymology; see Ernout and Meillet s.v.
[158/159]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Athenians
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
6
26
a Romulus never reappeared from the She-Goat Marsh; and, by the persuasion of Lucius Proculus, he was deified with the name of Quirinus.
8
37
20
1
8
716
7
27
9
38
21
2
9
715
nd of the Romans, Numa Pompilius, for 41 years.
b After Romulus had died, Senators ruled the republic for five days, and so 1 year was completed, which period was called the Interregnum.
8
28
10
1
22
3
e Numa Pompilius added two months to the year -- January and February --, although before this there had been only ten months among the Romans. Also, he constructed the Capitol from the ground up and he gave a public donation: coppers, woodens, and leatherns.
10
714
18th of the Athenians, Leocrates, for 10 years.
9
29
1
2
23
4
11
713
17th Olymp. 16th of the Hebrews of Judah, Manasseh, for 55 years.
10
1
2
3
24
5
f The Sibyl, who is also called Herophila in Samos, is considered notable.
12
712
c Numa Pompilius did not wage any wars with his neighbours. *
Of Egypt, Taracus the Ethiopian, for 20 years.
11
2
3
4
25
6
g Nicomedia founded, which previously used to be called Astacus.
1
711
12
3
4
5
26
7
2
710
13
4
5
6
27
8
3
709
18th Olympiad
h Croton and Parium and Sybaris founded.
th of the Medes, Deioces, for 53 years.
d Diocles founded Ecbatana.
1
5
6
7
28
9
4
708
1310 2
6
7
8
29
10
5
707
3
7
8
9
30
11
i The ones who were called the 'virgin-born' founded Tarentum, and then the Corinthians founded Corcyra.
6
706
4
8
9
10
31
12
7
705
[160/161]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Athenians
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
19th Olympiad
5
9
10
11
32
13
8
704
After whom, Apsander, for 10 years.
6
10
1
12
33
14
9
703
7
11
2
13
34
15
10
702
8
12
3
14
35
16
11
701
20th Olympiad
9
13
4
15
36
17
12
700
After whom th, Gyges, for 36 years
10
14
5
16
37
1
13
699
11
15
6
17
38
2
14
698
1320 12
16
7
18
39
3
15
697
21st Olympiad
13
17
8
19
40
4
a When Midas was reigning among the Phrygians, he died from drinking the blood of a bull.
16
696
14
18
9
20
41
5
17
695
15
19
10
21
42
6
18
694
20th of the Athenians, Eryxias, for 10 years.
16
20
1
22
43
7
b Glaucus of Chios first figured out how to stick iron to itself.
19
693
22nd Olympiad
692
17
21
2
23
44
8
20
26th Dynasty of Egypt. MERRES the Ethiopian reigned for 11 years.
[162/163]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Athenians
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
18
22
3
24
45
9
b In Sicily Gela, in Pamphylia Phaselis are founded.
1
691
19
23
4
25
46
10
2
690
20
24
5
26
47
11
3
689
23rd Olympiad
31
25
6
27
48
12
c The most noted Hipponax is restored.
4
688
1330 32
26
7
28
49
13
5
687
33
27
8
29
50
14
6
686
34
28
9
30
51
15
d Chalcedon founded.
7
685
24th Olympiad
th of the Macedonians, Argaeus, for 38 years.
35
29
10
31
1
16
8
684
36
30
At Athens, annual leaders were established. After the kingship had been ended, nine leaders, chosen from the city's nobles, presided over the Athenians.
~~~~
32
2
17
9
683
37
31
33
3
18
10
682
38
32
34
4
19
11
681
25th Olympiad
39
33
35
5
20
12
680
After whom Stephinathis, for 7 years.
40
34
36
6
21
e Cyzicus, and Locris in Italy, founded.
1
679
41
35
37
7
22
2
678
1340 42
36
38
8
23
3
677
26th Olympiad
43
37
39
9
24
4
676
44
38
40
10
25
5
675
45
39
41
11
26
6
674
a Tullus Hostilius was the first of the kings of the Romans to use purple and the fasces, and afterwards he was burned up with his house by lightning. rd of the Romans, Tullus Hostilius, for 32 years.
[164/165]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
36
40
1
12
27
7
673
27th Olympiad
Of Egypt, Nechepsos, for 6 years.
37
41
2
13
28
1
672
38
42
3
14
29
2
671
39
43
4
15
30
b After the Carians, the Lesbians controlled the sea, for 68 years.
3
670
40
44
5
16
31
4
669
28th Olympiad
41
45
6
17
32
c The barefoot festival first held in Lacedaemon.
5
668
1350 42
46
7
18
33
6
667
After whom, Necho, for 8 years.
43
47
8
19
34
d The Sibyl, who is also called Herophila, is considered noble in Samos.
1
666
44
48
9
20
35
2
665
29th Olympiad
a Tullus Hostilius, after a long peace, revived wars; he conquered the Albans, Veii, inhabitants of Fidenae, and, the Caelian Hill having been added on, he enlarged the City. *
45
49
10
21
36
e Archilochus and Simonides, and Aristoxenus the musician, are considered illustrious.
3
664
th of the Lydians, Ardys, for 37 years.
46
50
11
22
1
f Zeleucus, proposer of laws among the Locrians, is celebrated for his abundant eloquence.
4
663
47
51
12
23
2
5
662
48
52
13
24
3
6
661
30th Olympiad
g Cypselus exercises a tyranny in Corinth for 28 years.
49
53
14
25
4
7
660
50
54
15
26
5
h Byzantium founded.
8
659
Psammetichus, for 44 years.
i Alcmaeon is considered important, and Lesches of Lesbos, who composed the Little Iliad.
51
55
16
27
6
1
658
[166/167]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
17th of the Hebrews of Judah, Amon, for 12 years
1360 52
1
a According to the translation of the LXX elders, Amon reigned for twelve years; according to the Hebrews, for two years.
17
28
7
b The community of Histrus founded in Pontus.
2
657
31st Olympiad
53
2
18
29
8
3
656
54
3
19
30
9
c Acanthus and Stagera founded.
4
655
th of the Medes, Phraortes, for 24 years.
1
4
20
31
10
d Lampsacus and Abdera founded.
5
654
2
5
21
32
11
6
653
32nd Olympiad
3
6
22
33
12
e Phalaris exercises a tyranny over the Agrigentines.
7
652
4
7
23
34
13
8
651
5
8
24
35
14
f In Sicily, Selinus founded.
9
650
6
9
25
36
15
10
649
33rd Olympiad
7
10
26
37
16
11
648
1370 8
11
27
38
17
g In Pontus, Boristhenes founded.
12
647
th of the Macedonians, Philip, for 38 years.
9
12
28
1
18
13
646
After whom, 18th, Josiah the Just for 32 years.
10
1
29
2
19
14
645\\gd
[168/169]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
34th Olympiad
11
2
30
3
20
15
644
12
3
31
4
21
16
643
13
4
a Hilkiah, high priest of the Hebrews, is considered notable.
32
5
22
17
642
th of the Romans, Ancus Marcius, for 23 years.
e Terpander the musician is considered notable.
14
5
1
6
23
18
641
35th Olympiad
15
6
b Thales the Milesian, son of Examius, the first natural philosopher, is well known, who they say lived down to the 58th Olympiad.
2
7
24
19
640
16
7
3
8
25
f Greece first used the Dodonean Oracle.
20
639
17
8
4
9
26
21
638
1390 18
9
5
10
27
g Messenia withdrew from the alliance of the Lacedaemonians.
22
637
36th Olympiad
19
10
6
11
28
23
636
20
11
7
12
29
h The Scythians penetrated as far as Palestine.
24
635
21
12
8
13
30
25
634
22
13
c Jeremiah began to prophesy.
9
14
31
i Myrtaeus the Athenian poet is recognised.
26
633
37th Olympiad
23
14
10
15
32
k Battus founded Cyrene.
27
632
24
15
11
16
33
28
631
th of the Medes, Cyaxares, for 32 years.
l Sinope founded.
1
16
12
17
34
m Lipara founded.
29
630
2
17
d The woman Hulda was prophesying among the Hebrews.
13
18
35
30
629
38th Olympiad
n Periander exercised a tyranny among the Corinthians.
3
18
14
19
36
31
628
[170/171]
Medes Hebrews of Judah
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
1390
4
19
15
20
37
d Prusias founded.
32
627
th of the Lydians, Sadyattes, for 15 years. e Epidamnus founded, which afterwards was called Dyrrachium.
5
20
16
21
1
33
626
6
21
a Zephaniah and Jeremiah were prophesying.
17
22
2
f The tyranny of Phalaris destroyed.
34
625
39th Olympiad
7
22
18
23
3
g Draco, proposer of laws, is well known, as it seems to some.
35
624
8
23
19
24
4
36
623
9
24
b Ancus Martius, the grandson of Numa by his daughter, added the Aventine Hill and the Janiculum to the city, and founded Ostia on the sea, at the 16th milestone from the City: at the end, he perished in an illness. *
20
25
5
h Cyaxares, fighting against the Assyrians, captures the city of Nineveh.
37
622
10
25
21
26
6
38
621
40th Olympiad
11
26
22
27
7
39
620
12
27
23
28
8
40
619
th of the Romans, Tarquinius Priscus, for 37 years.
i Tarquinius Priscus constructed the Capitol.
k Arion of Methymna is considered important, who is said to have been carried from Delphi to (Cape) Taenarum.
13
28
1
29
9
41
618
1400 14
29
2
30
10
42
617
41st Olympiad
15
30
c Josiah, King of the Jews, is slain when he encounters Necho King of the Egyptians, and it strikes me as a miracle how each meets the other in the present time, especially when the Divine Scripture calls this same Pharaoh 'Necho'. 1
3
31
11
43
616
16
31
4
32
12
44
615
Of Egypt, a second Nechao, also called Nechepsos, for 6 years.
l Panaetius was the first to seize the tyranny in Sicily.
17
32
5
33
13
1
614
19th of the Hebrews of Judah,
(1) cf Rg23:29. Is there a pun on necare, 'to slay'? Necho=Neco=I slay. Since following Allen and Greenough (236), the Latin suffix -o, -onis indicates 'a person employed in some specific art or trade.' For example from Gero, gero-geronis: carrier. From Neco (that is a contraction from neca-o) necao-necaonem would mean 'killer' if it were in the dictionary. The text reads, "...quomodo in praesens tempus sibi uterque convenerit, maxime cum Scriptura divina hunc eumdem Pharaonem, Nechaonem appellet." In the manuscript T we read instead: "...quomodo in presens tempus ista conveniunt maxime cum scriptura divina hunc eundem pharaonem nechaonem appellet." Maybe: "...in which way, in this time (in presens tempus) these things (ista) are appropriate (conveniunt) in the highest degree (maxime) since holy scripture calls this same Pharaoh 'Necho'(Killer)?"
[172/173]
Medes Jews
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
Jehoahaz, for 3 months. After whom 20th Eliakim, also called Jehoiakim, for 11 years.
18
6
34
14
2
613
42nd Olympiad
19
1
7
35
15
3
612
th of the Lydians, Alyattes, for 49 years.
20
2
8
36
1
d Stesichorus the poet is considered important.
4
611
21
3
a In the third year of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia, captures Judah, and after very many of the Jews have been taken away into his jurisdiction, when he had also seized a part of the Temple's vessels, and made Jehoiakim into a tributary, he returns as a victor to his homeland.
9
37
2
5
610
22
4
10
38
3
e Alcman, so it seems to some, is well known.
6
609
43rd Olympiad
th of the Macedonians, Aeropus, for 36 years.
After whom Psammuthes the second, also called Psammetichus, for 12 yrs.
f Cyaxares the Mede overthrew the city of Nineveh.
23
5
11
1
4
1
608
1410 24
6
12
2
5
g Pittacus of Mytilene, who was (one) of the Seven Sages, when he encountered the Olympic winner Phryno the Athenian, killed him.
2
607
25
7
13
3
6
3
606
26
8
b In Babylon Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael are considered important.
14
4
7
4
605
44th Olympiad
27
9
15
5
8
5
604
28
10
16
6
9
6
603
29
11
c This Babylonian king drags him off captive with him, while coming a second time to Judah.
17
7
10
h Perinthus founded.
7
602
Of the Hebrews of Juda, Jehoiachin,
[174/175]
Medes Jews
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
also called Jechoniah, for 3 months. After whom Zedekiah, for 11 years.
30
1
a Jeremiah and Baruch were prophesying.
18
8
11
c The city of Camerina founded.
8
601
45th Olympiad
31
2
19
9
12
d The poets Sappho and Alcaeus are considered important.
9
600
32
3
20
10
13
10
599
th of the Medes, Astyages, for 38 years.
1
4
b Tarquinius Priscus built the Circus at Rome, augmented the number of Senators, instituted the Roman games, built walls and sewers, and finally was slain by the sons of Ancius, his king, to whom he himself had succeeded. *
21
11
14
e Massilia founded, a city in Gaul.
11
598
1420 2
5
22
12
15
12
597
46th Olympiad
f Epimenides purified Athens.
Of Egypt, Vaphres, for 30 years.
3
6
23
13
16
1
596
4
7
24
14
17
2
595
5
8
25
15
18
g After the laws of Draco had been rejected, except for those which pertained to shedding blood, Solon established his own laws.
3
594
6
9
26
16
19
4
593
47th Olympiad
7
10
27
17
20
5
592
8
11
28
18
21
6
591
The first year of the captivity of Jerusalem.
The people of Judah
are captured.
[176/177]
Medes Captivity of the Jews
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
a Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldeans, after Jerusalem had been captured, burned down the temple, which from the start of its construction had stood for 442 years.
Indeed, Clement agrees with our opinion in the first book of the Stromateis, asserting that the Captivity of the Jews took place in the 47th Olympiad, while Vaphres was reigning in Egypt, and Phenippus in Athens; and by calculation, 70 years from the destruction of the Temple until the second year of Darius.
c When Jerusalem had been captured, the remanant of the Jews fled from the Assyrians over to Vaphres 1, the king of Egypt. Even the Prophet Jeremiah makes mention of this Vaphres.
d In these times, those competing in contest were given a 'tragus' -- that is, a goat -- whence they say tragedians are so-called.
Of the captivity of the Hebrews and the destruction of the Temple that was in Jerusalem, 70 yrs.
9
1
29
19
22
7
590
10
2
30
20
23
8
589
48th Olympiad
11
3
31
21
24
e The monarchy of the Corinthians was destroyed.
9
588
1930 12
4
32
22
25
10
587
13
5
33
23
26
f An eclipse of the sun happened, as Thales had said beforehand would happen.
11
586
14
6
b In Bablyon prophesied
34
24
27
12
585
(1) Apries, called Vaphres by Eusebius, and Hophra by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 44:30.
[178/179]
Medes Captivity of the Jews
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
49th Olympiad
Daniel
15
7
Ezechiel
35
25
28
13
584
16
8
36
26
29
14
583
th of the Macedonians, Alcetas, for 29 years.
17
9
37
1
30
c Alyattes and Astyages fought.
15
582
th of the Romans, Servius, for 34 years.
18
10
a Servius, the son of a captive but noble-born servant, added three hills to the City: the Quirinal, the Viminal, and the Esquiline. He drew trenches around the walls. He was first to institute a census of the Roman citizens. And, in the end, he was slain by the wicked deed of Tarquinius Superbus, his own son-in-law and son of the previous king. *
1
2
31
d The Isthmian games, after Melicertes, and the Pythian games first held.
16
581
50th Olympiad
19
11
2
3
32
17
580
20
12
3
4
33
e The seven sages so called.
18
579
21
13
4
5
34
19
578
1440 22
14
5
6
35
f Astyages fights against the Lydians.
20
577
51st Olympiad
23
15
6
7
36
g Anaximander of Miletus the natural philosopher is well known.
21
576
24
16
7
8
37
22
575
25
17
8
9
38
23
574
26
18
9
10
39
h The Nemean games first held by the Argives, after those that had been in the time of Archemoros.
24
573
52nd Olympiad
27
19
b After Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Babylonians, had died, Evilmerodach received power, to whom succeeded his brother Belshazzar, in whose reign Daniel interpreted the writing that had appeared on the wall, signifying that the power of the Chaldaeans would pass to the Medes and Persians.
10
11
40
25
572
28
20
11
12
41
i Phalaris exercised a tyranny for 16 years.
26
571
29
21
12
13
42
27
570
30
22
13
14
43
28
569
53rd Olympiad
k Abaris came from Scythia into Greece.
31
23
14
15
44
29
568
[180/181]
Medes Captivity of the Jews
Romans
Macedo- nians Lydians
Egyptians
BC
1450
32
24
15
16
45
b Eugamon the Cyrenaean, who made [wrote] the Telegony, is well known. 1
30
567
Of Egypt, Amasis, for 42 years.
33
25
16
17
46
c The gymnastic games which are called the Panathenaeon held.
1
566
34
26
17
18
47
2
565
54th Olympiad
35
27
18
19
48
d Aesop is murdered by the Delphians.
3
564
36
28
19
20
49
4
563
9th of the Lydians, Croesus, for 15 years.
37
29
20
21
1
e Pisistratus, tyrant of the Athenians, crosses into Italy.
5
562
38
30
21
22
2
6
561
55th Olympiad
Cyrus destroyed the power of the Medes and reigned over the Persians, having overthrown Astyages, king of the Medes.
f Anaximenes the natural philosopher is well known.
a Cyrus, after the captivity of the Hebrews had been relaxed, caused nearly 50,000 men to return to Judaea. They built an altar and laid the foundations of the Temple. However, because construction was held up by neighbouring nations, the work remained unfinished down to the time of Darius, with only the altar standing.
First of the Persians, Cyrus, for 30 years.
1
31
22
23
3
g The poet Stesichorus dies.
7
560
2
32
23
24
4
h Simonides is considered important.
8
559
3
33
24
25
5
9
558
1460 4
34
25
26
6
10
557
56th Olympiad
i Chilo, who was of the Seven Sages, in Lacedaemon is appointed ephor.
5
35
26
27
7
11
556
(1) The work by Eugamon (or Eugammon) of Cyrene was a poem in two books and concerned Telegonus, the supposed son of Odysseus by Circe. It is lost, but a summary survives in Proclus, Chrestomathia, book II (see Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica by Hugh G. Evelyn-White, 1914 (Loeb Classics #57)). There is an anecdote about this author in Eusebius, PE X.12.
[182/183]
Persians Captivity of the Jews
Romans
Macedo- nians The kingship of the Lydians ended.
Egyptians
BC
6
36
a Haggai and Zechariah were prophesying; in this period, Jeshua son of Jozadak and Zerubbabel, of the royal family, son of Shealtiel, are considered important, who were also the leaders of those who returned to Judaea.
27
28
8
12
555
7
37
28
29
9
d Xenophanes of Colophon is considered important.
13
554
9th of the Macedonians, Amyntas, for 50 years.
8
38
29
1
10
e Those things which are recorded about Croesus, how he tested the oracle.
14
553
57th Olympiad
9
39
30
2
11
15
552
10
40
31
3
12
f Croesus initiated a war against Cyrus.
16
551
11
41
32
4
13
17
550
12
42
The whole period of the captivity of the Jews is reckoned as 70 years, which according to some are counted from the third year of Joachim to the 20th year of Cyrus king of the Persians. Further, according to others, (this number of years is counted) from year 13 of Josiah king of the Judaeans, in whose reign Jeremiah began to prophesy, until the first year of the aforementioned king Cyrus. In fact the 70 years of the desolation of the temple are completed in the time of Darius the king.
33
5
14
g The temple of Delphian Apollo burned down for the second time.
18
549
58th Olympiad
13
43
34
6
15
h Thales dies.
19
548
th of the Romans, Tarquinius, for 35 years
Croesus was taken prisoner by Cyrus: and the kingdom of the Lydians, which lasted for 130 years, was destroyed. i Cyrus captures Sardis.
1970 14
44
c Tarquin the Proud contrived chains, leather whips, clubs, shackles, quarry-chains, prisons, exiles, and mines.
1
7 k Harpagus, who Cyrus used to consider as his best general 1, fights against Ionia.
20
547
15
45
2
8
21
546
16
46
3
9
22
545
59th Olympiad
l Theognis the poet is considered important.
17
47
4
10
23
544
18
48
5
11
24
543
19
49
6
12
m Pisistratus for the second time reigns in Athens.
25
542
20
50
7
13
n Pherecides the historian is considered important.
o Hybicus the writer of poems is well known.
26
541
60th Olympiad
p Simonides the lyric poet, and Phocylides, and Xenophanes the natural philospher and writer of tragedies are considered important.
21
51
8
14
27
540
22
52
9
15
28
539
23
53
10
16
29
538
(1) Lit. "who was held by Cyrus in the first place".
[184/185]
Persians Captivity of the Jews
Romans
Macedo- nians
Egyptians
BC
1980
24
54
a Tarquinius Superbus, after his father-in-law Servius had been murdered, seized the throne. He subjugated the Volsci, the Gabii, Suessa, and Pometia: and when he attacked Ardea, on account of his son, Tarquin the Younger, who had defiled Lucretia, he was driven out from the kingship. *
11
17
30
537
61st Olympiad
25
55
12
18
f Anacreon the lyrical poet is well known.
31
536
26
56
13
19
32
535
27
57
14
20
33
534
28
58
15
21
g At Samos three brothers Polycrates, Sylus, and Pantagnostus exercise tyranny.
34
533
62nd Olympiad
29
59
16
22
35
532
30
60
b Tomyris, queen of the Massagetai, killed Cyrus.
17
23
36
531
nd of the Persians, Cambyses, for 8 years
h The Samians founded Dicaearchia, which is now called Puteoli.
1
61
c They say that this Cambyses was called by the Hebrews Nebuchadnezzar II, in whose reign the story of Judith is composed.
18
24
i Pythagoras the natural philosopher is considered important.
37
530
2
62
19
25
38
529
63rd Olympiad
3
63
20
26
k Hipparchus and Hippias exercise tyranny in Athens.
39
528
1990 4
64
d Among the Hebrews, the high priest Jeshua son of Jozadak and the leader of the nation, Zerubbabel are considered important.
21
27
40
527
5
65
22
28
41
526
6
66
23
29
42
525
64th Olympiad
27th Dynasty of Egypt, of the Persians. Indeed Cambyses occupied Egypt in the th year of his reign. Until Darius son of Xerxes, for 111 years
7
67
e Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the most recent to prophesy among the Hebrews.
24
30
524
8
68
25
31
523
rd of the Persians, two magi brothers, for 7 months, after whom, th, Darius, for 36 years
[186/187]
Persians
Captivity of the Jews
Romans
Maced-
onians
BC
1
69
26
32
a The nd year is written twice because 1 year is comput-ed in the 7 months of the Magi brothers.
2
70
27
33
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
a In the second year of Darius the king, the Temple in Jerusalem is constructed by Zerubbabel, and the work is concluded in the th year.
d Clement also agrees with this, writing thus in the first book of his Stromateis:
"And the captivity lasted for 70 years down to the second year of Darius the son of Hystaspes, who reigned over the Persians, Assyrians, and Egypt: in whose reign Haggai and Zechariah, and one of the Twelve who is called 'Messenger' (Malachi), prophesied, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak discharged the high priesthood. The aforementioned man (writes) these things."
However, that the seventy years of the abandonment of the Temple had been completed in the second year of Darius, Zechariah the prophet bears internal witness, saying in Darius's second year: "Almighty Lord, how long will you not have pity on Jeruslem, and on the cities of Judah, which you disdained?" That year is the 70th.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
b However the end of the captivity of the Jews, and the permission to rebuild the temple began under Cyrus: the temple is finished in fact under Darius; because the neighbouring nations had impeded the building with unremitting attacks.
65th Olympiad
c In which was the second year of Darius, son of Hystaspis, king of the Persians.
1. This is the last page of the double-page arrangement of the Chronicle. Hereafter the Chronicle appears on successive pages normally. In 'O', there are stubs of parchment sticking out of the spine, suggesting that pages were removed. This is the exact middle of the codex.
This text was translated and edited by Roger Pearse and friends, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_chronicle_03_part .htm
Jerome, Chronicle (2005) pp.188-332
Jerome, Chronicle (2005) pp.188-332
[188/189]
Persians
Beginning of the Consuls of the
Romans Macedonians BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
2
a Harmodius and Aristogiton killed the tyrant Hipparchus, and the courtesan Leaena their friend, when compelled with torments, lest she betray her companions, she amputated her tongue with her teeth. 28
34
520
68th Olympiad a The Aeginatans controlled the sea 17th for 20 years until the crossing of Xerxes.
3
29
35
519
14
46
508
1510
15
47
507
16
b Valerius, the colleague of the consul Brutus, died so poor that he was interred at public expense. *
48
506
4
30
36
518
17
49
505
1500
5
31
37
517
69th Olympiad
66th Olympiad
18
c At Rome, after a census had been taken, there were found to be 120,000 men.
50
504
6
b The temple of Jerusalem is completed, when Haggai and Zechariah are prophesying among the Jews. 32
38
516
Of the Macedonians, Alexander, for 43 years
7
33
39
515
d Nine years after the kings were expelled, a new rank was created, that is, the dictatorship, and the Master of the Horse, who would answer to the dictator. Largius was the first Dictator, and Spurius Cassius the Master of Horse. (*)
8
34
40
514
9
35
41
513
67th Olympiad
~~~~
19
1
503
10
c After the kings had been expelled from the City, Rome was holding power barely as far as the 15th milestone. The seven kings of the Romans from Romulus until Tarquinius Superbus reigned for 240 years, or as some prefer, 243. (*)
42
512
20
2
502
21
3
501
11
43
511
70th Olympiad e Hellanicus the historian, and Democritus the philosopher, and Heraclitus surnamed 'the Dark', and Anaxagoras the natural scientist are considered important.
22
4
500
23
5
499
24
6
498
12
44
510 1520
25
f Pythagoras the philosopher dies.
7
497
d After the kings had been expelled, first two consuls began to exist at Rome, from Brutus; then tribunes of the plebs and dictators, and then consuls again controlled the Republic for close to 464 years, until Julius Caesar, who was the first to seize sole rule, in the 183rd Olympiad.
71st Olympiad g The Volsci destroyed Corioli. *
26
h Aeschylus the writer of tragedies is well known.
8
496
13
45
509
27
i The Latins rebelled against the Romans.
9
495
28
l After an uprising had happened, the people of Rome, seceded from the fathers.
10
494
[190/191]
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
29
a Marcius, who had captured Corioli, withdrew his army from its seige of the City (Rome) by the intervention of his mother Veturia and his wife Volumnia. *
11
493
3
a Choerilus and Phrynicus are considered illustrious.
21
483
b Diagoras is well known, and the followers of his natural philosophy.
4
22
482
72nd Olympiad
5
c Xerxes, when he had come to Athens, burned down the city, at the time of the leadership of Callias.
23
481
30
b The war that was waged in Marathon, and those things that are written about Miltiades and Aristides who was surnamed the Just.
12
492
31
13
491
75th Olympiad
32
14
490
6
d The war that was waged in Thermopylae. and the naval battle off Salamis.
24
480
33
c Panyasis the poet is considered illustrious.
15
489
d 300 nobles of the Fabian family slaughtered by the people of Veii. *
7
e The Athenians fortify Piraeus with a wall.
25
479
e When the Roman soldiers were besieged on mount Algidus, they were freed by the dictator Quintius Cincinnatus. *
8
f Hieron reigns at Syracuse.
26
478
1540
9
g Aeschylus the tragedian is well known.
27
477
76th Olympiad
10
h War in Plateia and Mycale.
28
476
73rd Olympiad
11
i After Gelon, Hieron exercises tyranny at Syracuse.
29
475
34
f Egypt was severed from Darius.
16
488
12
30
474
1530
35
g Gelo occupied Syracuse.
17
487
13
k Pindar the musician is considered important.
31
473
36
h Pindar and Simonides the lyrical poets are considered notable.
486
77th Olympiad
14
l Themistocles flees to the Persians.
32 n Start of the 71st jubilee accord-
ing to the Heb-
rews. 472
i At Rome, the Vestal Virgin Pompilia, discovered in unchastity, was buried alive.
18
15
m Sophocles, the tragedian, first published the works of his ingenuity.
33 471
th of the Persians, Xerxes son of Darius, for 20 years.
1
19
485
16
o At Rome, the vestal virgin Sunia, discovered in unchastity, was buried alive.
34 470
74th Olympiad k Xerxes captures Egypt.
2
l Aristides is expelled with ignominy.
20
484
17
p Sophocles and Euripides are considered important. 35
469
[192/193]
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
78th Olympiad
subsequent deeds which are reported to have been performed by them, would not have been silent about Esther.
a Herodotus the historical writer is well known.
3
a Sicily was ruled by the people.
42
462
18
b Bacchylides and Diagoras are celebrated at Athens for their superlative eloquence.
36
468
4
b Cimon overcomes the Persians in naval and land battle near the Eurimedontis: and halts the Median war.
43
461
1550
19
c Zeuxis the painter is well-known; some people judge that the so-called 'the bath of the Byzantines' is one of his paintings, many of which he made on commission. *
37
467
Of the Macedonians, Perdiccas, for 28 years.
c An eclipse of the sun happened.
80th Olympiad
d Themistocles dies from a draught of bull's blood.
5
d Anaxagoras dies.
1
460
e Heraclitus is considered important.
20
e Socrates is born.
38
466
f Evenus the poet is important.
f A stone fell from the sky into the Aegon River.
g Ezra the priest, notable among the Hebrews, is well-known, in whose time the high priesthood was held by Eliashib, son of Joakim, son of Jeshua, son of Jozadak. Moreover Ezra was most well-learned in the Divine Law, and an important teacher of all the Jews who had returned from captivity to Judaea.
th of the Persians, Artabanus, for 7 months, after whom, th, Artaxerxes, who was surnamed Long-Hand, for 40 years.
6
2
459
39
465
7
3
458
1560
8
4
457
81st Olympiad h Empedocles and Parmenides are considered most notable natural philosophers.
79th Olympiad g These things were written about Esther and Mordecai: some affirm that they took place under this king, which I do not think; for Ezra, who writes that in this time Ezra and Nehemiah were returned from Babylon, and the
9
5
456
1
40
464
i Zeno and Heraclitus the Dark are well known.
10
k Pherecydes the second writer of history is well known.
6
455
2
41
463
11
Cratinus and Plato the writers of comedies 7
454
[194/195]
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
are considered important.
1570
18
permission of his master, came to Judaea from Babylon in his 20th year, and in his 32nd year restored the walls and the city. Ezra writes that the task was completed under the high priest Joiada, Joasib, who was succeeded by his own son, Jonathan, who lived in the time of Alexander of Macedon.
14
447
a Aristarchus the tragedian is well known.
b The very famous centennial games of Rome first held.
12
c 302 years from the founding of the City, the Decemvirs were created, and after one year they were ejected on account of Appius Claudius, who wished to abduct the daughter of a certain Virginius who was fighting against the Latins in Algidum. *
8
453
19
a Up to this point, the divine Scriptures of the Hebrews contain annals of time: those things which happened among them after these things, we provide from the book of Maccabees, and Josephus, and from the writings of Africanus, which thereafter continued the universal history until the Roman period.
15
446
82nd Olympiad
13
d The Romans through ambassadors sought out laws from the Athenians, from which the Twelve Tables were inscribed.
9
452
20
b The Athenians and Lacedaemonians initiate a treaty of 30 years.
16
445
14
e Crates the writer of comedies, and Telesilla and Bacchylides the lyric poets, are considered important: likewise, Praxilla and Cleobulina are renowned.
10
451
c Herodotus was honoured for reading his books in the assembly at Athens.
84th Olympiad
15
f The temple of Juno that had been at Argos burned down.
11
450
21
d Melissus the natural philosopher is well known.
17
444
22
e Euripides the tragedian is considered important, and Protagoras the sophist, whose books the Athenians burned by a public decree.
18
443
16
g Abaris the Hyperborean Seer is well known.
12
449
23
19
442
83rd Olympiad h Tribunes of the plebs and aediles created at Rome, after the consuls had been ejected.
24
20
441
85th Olympiad
17
i Nehemiah the Hebrew, the attendant of King Artaxerxes, with the
13
448
25
f At Rome consuls again created.
21
440
26
g Phidias makes an ivory Minerva.
22
439
[196/197]
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
a The Fidennates rebel against the Romans. *
35
a The Athenians suffer in the plague.
3
430
27
b Theaetetus the mathematician is well known. Aristophanes is considered important, and Sophocles the tragic poet.
23
438
b Thucydides is well known.
1580
28
24
437
36
c Pericles dies.
4
429
86th Olympiad
88th Olympiad
c The Campanian gens established in Italy.
37
d Eupolis and Aristophanes, writers of comedies, are well-known.
5
428
29
d Democritus of Abdera, and Empedocles, and Hippocrates the doctor, Gorgias, and Hippias, and Prodicus and Zeno and Parmenides the philosophers are considered notable.
25
436
30
26
435 1590
38
6
427
31
27
434
39
e Fire erupted from Mount Etna.
7
426
32
28
433
e Socrates is celebrated for his superlative eloquence.
f Among the Locrians, when Atlantis had been split off by an earthquake, the city became an island.
f Ezra recalls that Nehemiah, who constructed the walls of Jerusalem, had finished the work in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians. If someone should count from this point the 70 weeks (of years), written of by Daniel, which come to 490 years, he will find them fulfilled in the reign of Nero, in whose reign Jerusalem, after it had begun to be besieged, is seized in the second year of Vespasian.
40
g Plato is born.
8
425
89th Olympiad
th of the Persians, Xerxes the second, for two months. After which the 9th, Sogdianus, for seven months. To whom succeeds 10th Darius, surnamed Nothus, for 19 years.
11th of the Macedonians, Archelaus for 24 years.
1
h The Lacedaemonians and Athenians strike a treaty.
9
424
87th Olympiad
2
i Eudoxus the Cnidian is considered important.
10
423
33
g Beginning of the Peloponnesian war.
1
432
3
k The Lacedaemonians found the city of Heraclea, fulfilling a sacred vow. (*)
11
422
h Bacchylides the song writer is well known.
4
12
421
34
2
431
90th Olympiad
[198/199]
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
Egyptians BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
Egyptians
BC
5
13
1
420
of Darius and Parysatis, for 40 years. a In the reign of this king, it seems to me, the story which is contained in the book of Esther came to pass: of course he is the one who is called 'Ahasuerus' by the Hebrews, and 'Artaxerxes' by the LXX translators.
6
14
419
7
15
418
1
1
3
405
1600
8
16
417
94th Olympiad
91st Olympiad
Egypt is severed from the Persians and Amyrtaeus the Saite reigned for 6 years.
9
a The calamity which happened to the Athenians in Sicily. 17
416
2
2
4
404
10
18
415
3
3
5
403
11
19
414
4
4
6
402
12
b Alcibiades fled as a fugitive to Tisaphernes. 20
1
413
b Dionysius exercises a tyranny at Syracuse.
14th of the Macedonians, Amyntas, for 1 year.
After whom Achoris, for 12 years.
92nd Olympiad
13
c Euboea secedes from the federation of the Athenians. 21
2
412
c The Athenians support tyranny.
14
22
3
411
15
23
4
410
5
d Isocrates the orator is well known. 1
1
401
16
24
5
409
After whom Pausanias, for 1 year.
93rd Olympiad
Of the Macedonians, Orestes, for 3 years.
2
e 29th dynasty of Egypt, of the Mendesians.
17
d Euripides dies staying with Archelaus, and Sophocles at Athens. 1
6
408
f Democritus dies.
28th Dynasty of Egypt. Nepherites for 6 years.
g Pharnabazus kills Alcibiades.
1610
18
2
1
407
h The Anabasis of King Cyrus, about which Xenophon writes.
19
3
2
406
95th Olympiad
11th of the Persians, Artaxerxes, who was surnamed Mnemon, son e Dionysius exercises tyranny in Sicily.
13th of the Macedonians, Archelaus, for 4 years.
6
i The tyrants overthrown at Athens. 1
2
400
k The Athenians began to use 24 letters, when previously they had only had 16 letters.
1. At this point, in mid-page in 'O', the column of Macedonian regnal years which is black up to this point suddenly turns red. This is clear evidence that the scribe copied the colours from his exemplar, and did not amend them. It also shows that the exemplar did indeed have 26 lines, because the colour change occurs at the page-break (as here) in such an exemplar, rather than in mid-page, as in 'O'.
2. This entry should be red, but is in fact black in 'O'.
[200/201]
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
Egyptians BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
Egyptians
BC
a Xenophon the son of Gryllus, and Ctesias are considered important.
After whom Amyntas for 6 years.
Nectanebis for 18 years.
7
b Socrates drinks poison.
1
3
399 1630
19
a Evagoras driven mad when he was reigning in Cyprus. 1 5
1
387
8
c Temple at Ephesus burned down again. 2
4
398
20
6
2
386
1620
9
d The followers of Socrates are considered important. 3
5
397
21
7
3
385
96th Olympiad
99th Olympiad
10
e Diogenes the Cynic is well known. 4
6
396
22
b 30th dynasty of Egypt, of the people of Sebennythos. 8
4
384
11
f Speusippus is considered notable. 5
7
395
23
9
5
383
12
6
8
394
24
10
6
382
g Dionysius persists in tyranny. After whom Argaeus for 2 years.
25
11
7
381
100th Olympiad
13
h The famous Carthaginian War. 1
9
393
26
c The Peloponnesian cities of Helica and Bura were swallowed up in a great earthquake. 12
8
380
97th Olympiad
27
13
9
379
14
i Eudoxus the astrologer is well known. 2
10
392
28
14
10
378
After whom Amyntas again for 18 years.
1 11
1640
29
d The Praenesti conquered by the Romans at the River Allia by Quinctius Cincinnatus. (*) 15
11
377
15
k The Senones Gauls occupied Rome, except for the Capitol. (*)
391
16
2
12
390
Of Egypt, Psammuthes, for 1 year.
e The Athenians made leaders of Greece.
101st Olympiad
17
3
1
389
30
f Isocrates the rhetor is well known. 16
12
376
98th Olympiad l Plato the philosopher is well known.
After whom Nepherites for 4 months.
31
17
13
375
32
g Plato and Xenophon, and likewise other followers of Socrates are considered important. 18
14
374
18
m The military tribunes began to be in place of the consuls. * 4
1
388
Of the Macedonians, Alexander, for 1 year.
After whom
33
1
15
373
(1) Diodorus 14.110.5.
[202/203]
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
Egyptians BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
The kingship of the Egyptians was destroyed.
BC
102nd Olympiad
After whom Ptolemy Alorites, for 4 years.
Of the Macedonians, Philp, for 26 years.
4
1
6
362
34
1
16
372
5
2
7
361
35
2
17
371
105th Olympiad
36
3
18
370
6
a Demosthenes the orator is well known. 3
8
360
Of Egypt, Teo, for 2 years.
7
b Ochus, having captured Apodasmus of the Jews, settled her deported inhabitants in Hyrcania, by the Caspian sea. 4
9
359
a Teo the king of Egypt flees to Arabia.
8
5
10
358
37
4
1
369 1660
9
6
11
357
103rd Olympiad
After whom Perdiccas, for 6 years.
106th Olympiad
10
c Dionysius is driven from Sicily. 7
12
356
38
b Dionysius the king of Sicily dies in his 19th year, after whom Dionysius the younger takes possession of the kingdom. 1
2
368
11
d Alexander, son of Philip and Olympias, is born. 8
13
355
30th Dynasty of the Egyptians. Nectanebo, for 18 years.
12
e Dion of Syracuse is murdered. 9
14
354
13
f Hipparinus the son of Dionysus exercises tyranny over Syracuse. 10
15
353
107th Olympiad
1650
39
c Aristotle, during the 18th year of his life, is a hearer of Plato. 2
1
367
14
g Erinna the poetess is well known. 11
16
352
40
3
2
366
15
h Ochus held Egypt, Nectanebo having been expelled into Ethiopia, in whom the kingship of the Egyptians was destroyed. Up to this point, (the narrative is according to) Manetho. 12
17
351
12th of the Persians, Artaxerxes, also called Ochus, for 26 years
16
13
18
350
17
14
@@@@@@ 349
1
4
3
365
108th Olympiad
104th Olympiad d Alexander of Pherae is well-known.
18
i Ochus overthrew Sidon, and annexed Egypt to his empire. 15
2
5
4
364 1670
19
16
3
e Camillus defeats the Gauls, who had made war on the Romans. 6
5
363
k Demosthenes the Orator
[204/205]
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians BC
Persians
Consuls
Macedonians
BC
is celebrated in the opinion of all.
After whom Darius, 14th, son of Arsamus, for 6 years.
a Manasseh, the brother of Jad the high priest of the Jews, constructs a temple on Mount Garizin.
20
a The Romans defeat the Gauls.
17
346
21
b Dionysius sailed to Corinth under a truce.
18
345
1
b Alexander, fighting successfully against the Illyrians and Thracians, having destroyed Thebes, took up arms against the Persians, and at the River Granicus, overpowering the royal generals, captures the city of Sardis.
2
335
c Plato dies, after whom Speusippus headed the Academy.
2
3
334
3
4
333
109th Olympiad d The Romans, since they had defeated the Samnites in two battles, brought all the neighbouring regions back under their own rule because they had withdrawn from her alliance.
22
19
344
23
20
343
c The Roman consul Manlius Torquatus beat his son with rods and executed him with an axe, because he had disobeyed orders by fighting against the enemy. (*)
24
21
342
25
e Dionysus driven away to Corinth.
22
341
110th Olympiad f At Rome, a survey having been carried out, there were found to be 160,000 citizens.
26
23
340
112th Olympiad
13th of the Persians, Arses, son of Ochus, 4 years. g Jad, high priest of the Jews, is considered important.
4
d After the capture of Tyre, Alexander takes possession of Judaea, and being received favourably there, sacrifices victims to God, compliments the high priest of the temple with many honors, and as guardian of the holy places sends forth Andromachus, whom the Samaritans later kill: on account of which things, after returning from Egypt, Alexander put them to death with great torment, and hands over their captured city to the Macedonians to dwell in. (*)
5
332
1
h Speusippus dies, to whom Xenocrates succeeded.
24
339
2
25
338
1680
3
26
337
5
6
331
111th Olympiad
Of the Macedonians, Alexander, son of Philip, for 12 years, 6 months.
6
e Alexandria founded in Egypt, in the seventh year of Alexander's reign: at which time also the Latins were subdued by the Romans.
7
330
4
1
336
[206/207]
The kingship of the Persians was destroyed
Consuls
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Macedo-nians
BC
a Alexander occupied Babylon after Darius had been killed, in whom the kingship of the Persians was destroyed.
In Egypt Ptolemy son of Lagus was the first to reign, for 40 years.
Over the Macedonians, Philip, also called Aridaeus, brother of Alexander, reigned for 7 years.
Alexander reigns in Asia in the th year of his reign and holds it all for 12 years.
a At Rome Appius Claudius Caecus is considered important, who introduced the Claudian water and laid out the Appian Way. *
Of Alexander
1
b Lysimachus held Lydia, Thrace and the Hellespont.
1
324
8
b Anaximenes and Epicurus are considered important.
329
c The generals of the Macedonians turned to sedition.
c Alexander captures the Hyrcanians and Mardians, and returning, he founded Paraetonium in Ammon.
2
d Agathocles exercises tyranny at Syracuse.
2
323
113th Olympiad
e The war against Lamia set in motion.
9
d Alexander captures the Aorn rock and crosses the River Indus.
328
f Perdiccas fights against the Egyptians.
3
g Ptolemy the son of Lagus, after he had gained control of Jerusalem and Judaea by treachery, transferred very many captives into Egypt.
3
322
1690
10
e Alexander's war in India against Porus and Taxila.
327
11
f Harpalus flees to Attica.
h Onias the high priest of the Jews, the son of Jad, is considered important.
12
g The Romans subjugate the Samnites, and plant colonies.
326
4
i Menander, showing his first play, named Orgen, 1 wins.
4
321
114th Olympiad
h Alexander dies in the 32nd year of his life in Babylon. After him, power was transferred into many hands.
k Theophrastus the philosopher is well-known, who, so Cicero says, received this name because of his god-like speech. (*)
(1) ΟΡΓΗΝ = 'anger'.
[208/209]
Alexandrians
Consuls
First in Syria
Macedo-nians First inAsia
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria
Macedo-nians Asia
BC
115th Olympiad
16
a Theodorus the Atheist is well known.
4
9
10
309
5
a Demetrius of Phalerum is considered illustrious.
5
320
118th Olympiad
17
b Demetrius of Phalerum went to Ptolemy, and persuaded him to restore democracy at Athens.
5
10
11
308
b The Romans battling against the Samnites for a long time, finally reduce them to servitude.
In Asia, Antigonus reigns for 18 years.
1710
18
6
11
12
307
6
6 319
19
7
12
13
306
7
7
1
318
20
8
13
14
305
Of the Macedonians, Cassander, for 19 years.
119th Olympiad
21
c Seleucus founded the cities of Antioch, Laodicia, Seleucia, Apamia, Edessa, Beroea, and Pella, of which he constructed Antioch in the 12th year of his kingship.
9
14
15
304
1700
8
1
2
317
116th Olympiad
22
10
15
16
303
9
c The philosophers Menedemus and Speusippus are considered notable.
2
3
316
10
3
4
315
23
11
16
17
302
11
4
5
314
24
12
17
18
301
12
5
6
313
d Seleucus occupied Babylon.
117th Olympiad
120th Olympiad
In Asia, Demetrius, also called Poliorcetes, for 17 years
d The Hebrew history of the Maccabees reckons the kingship of the Greeks from this year. But these books are not accepted as part of divine Scripture.
In Syria and Babylon and the upper regions reigned Seleucus Nicator, for 32 years.
e The high priest of the Jews, Simon the son of Onias, is considered important, to whom 'the Just' was the sobriquet because of his religious reverence towards God and his clemency towards his fellow-citizens.
25
13
18
1
302
26
14
19
2
303
Of the Macedonians, the sons of Cassander, Antigonus and Alexander, for 4 years.
13
e The Romans defeat the Marsi, Umbri, and Peligni.
1
6
7
312
27
15
1
3
302
From this point the Edessenes calculate their dates. 14
f The Romans plant colonies.
2
7
8
311 1720
28
16
2
4
301
g Lysimachia founded in Thrace.
121st Olympiad
15
h Ptolemy invaded Cyprus.
3
8
9
310
29
f Demetrius, king of Asia,
17
3
5
300
[210/211]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria
Macedo-nians Asia
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria
Macedo-nians Asia
BC
30
surnamed Poliorcetes, devastates the city of the Samaritans, which Perdiccas had constructed.
18
4
6
295
both in Syria and Asia.
Demetrius, for 6 years.
39
a Serapis was introduced at Alexandria.
27
2
15
286
a A census of Rome having been taken, there were found to be 270,000 Roman citizens were found.
31
19
1
7
294
40
b Ariminum and Beneventum founded by the Romans. *
28
3
16
285
124th Olympiad
32
b Ambassadors of the Alexandrians having been sent for the first time to Rome by Ptolemy, they procured friendship. *
20
2
8
293
nd of Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus, for 38 years
1
c Sostratus of Cnidius constructed the Pharos in Alexandria.
29
4
17
284
122nd Olympiad
Demetrius handed himself over to Seleucus.
33
c Menander the writer of comedies dies. 21
3
9
292
d Antigonus, surnamed Gonatas, occupied Lacadaemon.
d The Romans defeat the Gauls and the Tyrrhenians: and the land of the Sabines is apportioned by lot.
e The Romans capture Croton.
34
22
4
10
291
2
f Ptolemy Philadelphus permitted the Jews, who were in Egypt, to be free men: and, transmitting a votive vessel to Eleazar, high priest at Jerusalem, he arranged for the divine scriptures -- which he had in the Alexandrian library that he had collected for himself from every kind of literature -- to be translated into Greek speech from the Hebrew language by LXX translators.
30
5
283
e Seleucus transfers Jews into those cities that he had constructed, granting them the right of citizenship and municipal rank in honour equal to the Greeks.
Of the Macedonians, Ptolemy, surnamed ΚΕΡΑΥΝΟΣ. 1
35
23
5
11
3
31
1
282
36
24
6
12
Meleager for 2 months, Antipater for 45 days, after whom Sosthenes for 2 years.
123rd Olympiad
Of the Macedonians, Pyrrhus, for 7 months
f Eleazar the brother of Simon took over the supervision of the temple as high priest of the Jews, because Onias the son of Simon was still a young boy.
37
25
13
After whom, Lysimachus, for 5 years.
g After capturing Demetrius in Cilicia, Seleucus ruled
1720
38
26
1
14
1. In 'O' this reads 'Ceraunos' in Roman letters.
[212/213]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
4
22
1
281 1750
18
and many cities in Sicily were joined to them. 14
13
267
In Syria and Asia, after Seleucus reigned Antiochus Soter, for 19 years.
19
a At Rome a vestal virgin detected in unchastity ends her life with a noose. * 15
14
266
125th Olympiad
20
16
15
265
5
1
2
280
129th Olympiad
Antigonus Gonatas, for 36 years.
21
b Zeno the Stoic dies, after whom (comes) Cleanthes. 17
16
264
6
2
1
279
22
c The Romans capture Syracuse. 18
17
263
7
3
2
278
d King Nicomedes, enlarging a city of Bithynia, named it Nicomedia.
1740
8
4
3
277
23
19
18
262
126th Olympiad
In Syria, Antiochus, who was called Theos, for 15 years.
9
a One of the Roman virgins, caught in an (act of) corruption, is punished. 5
4
276
24
1
19
261
10
b Milo handed over Tarentum to the Romans. 6
5
275
130th Olympiad
11
c The Romans held Calabria and Messana. 7
6
274
25
e The Romans defeat the Carthaginians in a naval battle, and capture 100 cities of Libya. 2
20
260
12
8
7
273
26
3
21
259
127th Olympiad
27
4
22
258
13
d Aratus is well known.
9
8
272 1760
28
f Erasistratus the doctor is well known. 5
23
257
14
e The silver nummus minted at Rome for the first time. 10
9
271
131st Olympiad
29
g Antigonus restores liberty to the Athenians. 6
24
256
15
f Polemon the philosopher dies, after whom Arcesilas and Crates are considered important. 11
10
270
16
12
11
269
30
h After Eleazar, his uncle Manasses accepted the pontificate of the Jews. 7
25
255
31
8
26
254
32
9
27
253
128th Olympiad g Epicurus died.
132nd Olympiad
17
h The Romans planted colonies, 13
12
268s
33
i The Carthaginians capture 90 10
28
252
[214/215]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
34
Roman ships in Sicily, the consul Metellus having been put to flight. 11
29
251
6
6
3
241
35
12
30
250
135th Olympiad
36
13
31
249
7
a The poet Quintus Ennius is born at Tarentum, who having been translated by Cato the quaestor to Rome, lived on the Aventine hill, content with a very meagre income and the help of one servant woman. * 7
4
240
133rd Olympiad
37
a When the Parthians had rebelled against Macedonian rule, Arsaces was the first to reign; hence they were called Arsacids. 14
32
248
8
8
5
239
9
9
6
238
1770
38
15
33
247 1780
10
10
7
237
rd of Egypt, Ptolemy Euergetes, for 26 years
In Syria, Seleucus Callinicus, for 20 years.
136th Olympiad
11
b At Rome, a vestal virgin who had been corrupted by a slave, did away with herself by her own hand. 11
8
236
12
12
9
235
1
b Onias the high priest of the Jews, the son of Simon the Just, is considered important, who, failing to render the usual tribute to king Ptolemy, compelled him to anger. In fact, Josephus, a noble man among his own people, having been sent by the Jews as an ambassador to Ptolemy, when he had won the friendship of the king because of his many presents to him, is appointed governor of Judaea and the surrounding region. 1
34
246
13
13
10
234
Of Macedon, Antigonus, for 15 years.
14
14
1
233
137th Olympiad
15
c The high priest of the Jews Simon, son of Onias, is considered important, in whose time, Jesus the son of Sirach composing the book of wisdom, which they call the Panareton, also made mention of Simon in it.
15
2
232
2
2
35
245
16
16
3
231
134th Olympiad
17
17
4
230
3
3
36
244
18
18
5
229
138th Olympiad
Of the Macedonians, Demetrius, for 10 years.
19
19
6
228
1790
20
d Nearly 40,000 Gauls slaughtered by the Romans. 20
7
227
c At Rome a census having been conducted, there were found to be 260,000 men.
In Syria, Seleucus Ceraunos, for 3 years.
4
4
1
243
5
d Temple of Vesta burned down at Rome. 5
2
242
21
1
8
226
[216/217]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
22
2
9
225
142nd Olympiad when Marcellus is consul.
139th Olympiad
9
a The Romans subjugate Capua and Sicily. 12
7
212
23
3
10
224
Antiochus the Great, for 36 years
10
b Antiochus, King of Syria, having conquered Ptolemy Philopator, unites Judaea with himself.
13
8
211
11
14
9
210
24
a Caria and Rhodes were so struck by an earthquake, that the great colossus collapsed. 1
11
223
12
c Laevinus makes an alliance with Attalus, the king of Asia. * 15
10
209
25
2
12
222
143rd Olympiad
26
3
13
221
13
d The high priest of the Jews, Onias the son of Simon, is considered notable, to whom Arrius the king of the Lacedaemonians sends legates. 16
11
208
140th Olympiad
1810
14
17
12
207
Of Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator, for 17 years
15
18
13
206
16
19
14
205
144th Olympiad
1
b The events which were written in the third book of Maccabees take place in the time of this Ptolemy.
4
14
220
17
e Scipio recaptures many cities of Spain. 20
15
204
2
5
15
219
th of Egypt, Ptolemy Epiphanes, for 24 years
Of the Macedonians, Philip, for 42 years
3
6
1
218
1
f Ptolemy Epiphanes, having appointed Scopas general of his army, captures Judaea and many cities of Syria. 21
16
203
1800
4
7
2
217
141st Olympiad
2
22
17
202
5
c The Jews were defeated, and 60,000 of their soldiers were slaughtered. 8
3
216
3
g Naevius the writer of comedies dies at Utica, driven from Rome by a party of nobles, but especially of Metellus. * 23
18
201
d Vestal Virgins buried alive at Rome, on account of an accusation of unchastity.
6
9
4
215
7
10
5
214
145th Olympiad h Plautus, from Sarsina in Umbria, dies at Rome; who, because of trouble over his income, had hired himself
8
e Eratosthenes is well known. 11
6
213
4
24
19
200
f The Romans capture Syracuse
[218/219]
Alexandrians
Romans
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
out at a baker's handmill; there, as often as he had leisure from work, he was accustomed to write and sell plays. *
and conceded Syria, Phoenicia, Samaria, and Judaea under the name of a "dowry."
15
35
30
189
148th Olympiad
5
a Near Thera, an island appeared which is called Hiera. 25
20
199
a Eumenes, who founded Eumenia in Phrygia, brother of King Attalus, is considered important. *
6
26
21
198
1820
7
b Antiochus, after defeating Scopas, recovered the cities of Syria, and Judaea willingly surrenders to him. 27
22
197
16
b The second book of Maccabees contains things that happened among the Jews of this time. 36
31
188
In Syria and Asia, Seleucus, also called Philopator, for 12 years
146th Olympiad
8
c The Romans commanded the Greeks to be free and all Spain 1 carried out orders. 28
23
196
c Titus Livius, the tragedian, is considered important; who, as a reward for his ingenuity, was granted his freedom by Livius Salinator, whose children he used to teach. 2 *
1830
17
1
32
187
9
d Antiochus, knowing the goodwill of the Jews towards himself, presents them with great gifts, and through his letters honours them with constant praises. 29
24
195
10
30
25
194
d When Hannibal was demanded from Antiochus, with whom he had associated himself after he had been conquered by Scipio, by means of envoys, he fled to Prusias, the king of Bithyniae. But when through Flaminius the Senate again were demanding him (Hannibal) also from him (Prusias), and when he was going to have to be handed over, he drank poison, and was buried at Libyssa in Bithyniae. *
11
31
26
193
147th Olympiad
18
2
33
186
e Antiochus, after the battle at Thermopylae in which he was defeated, agreed this between himself and the Romans, that he would pay one thousand talents each year in the name of "compensation."
12
32
27
192
19
3
34
185
13
33
28
191
149th Olympiad
f The Romans planted many colonies.
20
e Simon, a dignitary of the temple at Jerusalem, fleeing to Apollonius the governor of Phoenicia; many gifts having been promised to him, he began to claim the priesthood for himself. 4
35
184
g Antiochus, having returned to friendship with Ptolemy, made peace with him; and (Ptolemy) gave him his daughter Cleopatra as wife,
14
34
29
190
(1) Hiberia: Only the Roman province of Hispania, as the remainder was still not under Roman control until 29 BC.
(2) cf. The Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature entry for "Livius Andronicus" who is here intended; the facts are disputed, see the Loeb Remains of Old Latin II p.viii ff. Titus is the name of Livius historicus not of the Lucius Livius Andronicus, writer of tragedy and epic here referred to.
[220/221]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians
BC
21
When Seleucus heard about this, he sent Heliodorus to carry out the job, who, when he arrived in Judaea, judging unfairly and carrying out many crimes, is frightened away by divine omens against himself, and returns to Seleucus. However, the priest Onias had taken care that Simon should be made a fugitive. 5
36
183
151st Olympiad
4
a Aristobolus, by nation a Jew, the peripatetic philosopher, is well known, who writes commentaries (consisting of) explanations on (the books of) Moses for Ptolemy Philometor.
12
1
176
In Syria and Asia, Antiochus Epiphanes, for 11 years.
22
6
37
182
5
1
2
175
6
2
3
174
23
a Hyrcanus, a son of Joseph the leader of Judaea, when he went abroad to visit Ptolemy, was received honorably by him. But his brothers, after a plot had been formed against him, were the cause of great tribulations for the nation of Judaea. 7
38
181
7
3
4
173
152nd Olympiad
8
b Antiochus Epiphanes, when he had returned by order of the senate from the land of the Ptolemies, which he had unexpectedly invaded, came into Judaea, and there Jesus, who also was called Jason, handed over the pontificate to his brother Onias; later, having been expelled, he appointed Onias named Menelaus his successor to it. And so, strife having been started between the princes over the dignity of the priesthood, the seeds of immense miseries sprouted. 4
5
172
9
5
6
171
150th Olympiad
24
8
39
180
10
6
7
170
th of Egypt, Ptolemy Philometor, for 35 years
11
7
8
169
1
b Statius Caecilius, the writer of comedies, is considered important. By nation he was an Insubrian Gaul and at first he was an comrade of Ennius. Some say that he came from Milan. He died in the year after the death of Ennius, and was buried next to the Janiculum. * 9
40
179
153rd Olympiad
2
10
41
178
c Antiochus attacks the law of the Jews: in fact firstly compelling their whole province to idolatry, those who were unwilling to comply he tortured to death.
1840
3
11
42
177
Of the Macedonians, Perseus, for 10 years.
[222/223]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Macedonians BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
Afterwards, actually going up into Jerusalem, he devastates the temple and vessels of God which had been consecrated for ministry: he puts an image of Jupiter of Olympus in the temple, he builds a shrine of Jupiter the Foreigner in Samaria on the summit of mount Garizin, the Samaritans themselves having entreated that he should do this. In fact in this time a certain Matthathias from the priesthood, son of Hasmonaeus, in the hamlet of Modeim, taking up arms against the generals of Antiochus, also supported by the help of his sons, vindicated the laws of his country, in the 153rd olympiad.
154th Olympiad
In Syria and Asia, Antiochus Eupator, for 2 years.
a Judas, also called Maccabeus, son of Mattathias, the general of the Jews, expelling the generals of Antiochus from Judaea, and purifying the Temple from the statues of the Idols, returned the laws of his country to his countrymen after three years in the 154th olympiad.
16
1
164
17
2
163
Demetrius Soter, for 12 years.
18
1
162
19
2
161
155th Olympiad
Of the Jews, general Judas, for 3 years
b After Menelaus the high priest of the Jews had been slain by the younger Antiochus, who had earlier abandoned Judaea to Antiochus Epiphanes, Alcimus, an outsider to the sacerdotal tribe, through ambition takes possession of the pontificate. On account of this Onias, son of the high priest Onias, moving into Egypt, founded a community with his name in the Heliopolitan district, after a temple in the likeness of the temple of his country had been constructed. Alcimus, indeed, while carrying on hostilities against Judas Maccabaeus, after no great time died, struck down by the wrath of God; and, so, with the approval of all the Jews, it is decided that the priesthood should go to Judas Macabaeus, who, having received that dignity, sends legates to Rome: and the Senate decreed that the Jews
12
a Ennius the poet dies, older than 70, of a joint disease, and was buried in Scipio's Monument on the Appian Way within the first milestone of the City. Some claim that his bones were transferred to Rudiae from the Janiculum. * 8
9
168
20
3
1
160
1850
13
9
10
167
14
10
11
166
15
b After Perseus had been killed, the Romans ordered the Macedonians, Illyrians and Galatians to be free. 11
12
165
21
4
2
159
The kingship of the Macedonians came to an end.
~~~~~~~~
[224/225]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
were to be considered friends and supporters of the Romans.
157th Olympiad
28
a The false Philip reigns in Macedonia for 1 year. 11
6
152
22
a Publius Terentius of Carthage, a writer of comedies, granted his freedom on account of his genius and his appearance, dies in Arcadia; before he delivered it to the aediles, he first reads the Andria to Caecilius, who was himself greatly admiring. * 5
3
158
29
b Alexander, son of the Antiochus who was named Epiphanes, ruling Syria and Asia, bestows on Jonathan a crown and many notable gifts. 12
7
151
Of the Jews, general Jonathan, for 19 years
In Syria and Asia, Alexander, for 9 years and 10 months
1860
23
b The battle against the generals of Demetrius having begun, Judas is killed, having carried on the pontificate for 3 years. 6
1
157
30
c The Romans, after the false Philip had been killed, make the Macedonians tributaries. 1
8
150
31
2
9
149
156th Olympiad
158th Olympiad
24
c Aristarchus the grammarian is well known. 7
2
156
32
d At Alexandria, with Ptolemy judging, the Samaritans and Jews contend about the honours that are to be offered by each party to their temple, and the Jews win. 3
10
148
25
d Jonathan, general of the Jews, the brother of Judas, after Bacchides the general of Demetrius had been expelled from Judaea, received the pontificate. * 8
3
155
e The poet Lucilius is born. *
26
e Pacuvius of Brundisium the tragedian, the nephew of the poet Ennius by his daughter, is considered important; and he lived in Rome as long as he busied himself with painting and offered fables for sale; then, having moved to Tarentum, he died almost a nongenarian.1 9
4
154 1870
33
f At Rome, a survey having been carried out, there were found to be 322,000 men. 4
11
147
34
g Oppius imprisons the Galli: and Carthago is brought by Scipio under the power of the Romans,668 years since her foundation; or, as 5
12
146
27
10
5
153
35
6
13
145
(1) The "Remains of Old Latin," vol. II (Loeb Library, 1982), says that Pacuvius was "[p. xvii] a son of the sister of the poet | [p. xviii] Ennius," with footnote e, attached to the word "sister," saying "So Pliny, XXXV, 19; son of Ennius's daughter, says Jerome wrongly" (p. xvii). Later, the text says: "His year of fame is stated by Jerome to have been 154 B.C." with footnote d, "Jerome, ad ann. 600 = 154" (p. xviii).
[226/227]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
others affirm,748.
him the estate next to Pisaurum is called Accianus: since he had been brought there from the City among the colonists. *
159th Olympiad
th of Egypt, Ptolemy Euergetes, for 29 years.
7
a After Antiochus the son of Alexander was at length murdered, Trypho tried to invade the kingdom of Syria but next dies himself. 3
1
138
After whom Antiochus Sidetes for 9 years.
1
a Jonathan, both general and high priest of the Jews, makes a friendship pact with the Romans and the Spartans. 7
14
144
1880
8
b After Demetrius, his brother Antiochus who was surnamed Sidetes reigned over all Syria. 1
2
137
2
b Ptolemy gave his daughter as wife to Alexander, the son of Balas, king of Syria. 8
15
143
3
c Scipio overthrows the Numantines. 9
16
142
161st Olympiad
d Brutus subjugates Spain as far as the Ocean.
9
c To Simon, both high priest and leader of the Jews, the Romans and the Spartans -- after his emissaries had been received amicably -- sent friendly greetings in return. 2
3
136
4
e Trypho kills Jonathan, high priest of the Jews, and Simon is received into the priesthood of his brother Jonathan. 10
17
141
In Syria and Asia, Demetrius, for 3 years.
10
3
4
135
160th Olympiad
d The Slave War started in Sicily.
5
f Trypho slays Antiochus son of Alexander. 1
18
140
11
e Simon the high priest of the Jews is slain, to whom succeeds his son John. 4
5
134
g Ptolemy marries off his daughter to Demetrius, along with the kingdom which he had taken away from Alexander.
12
f The first book of the Maccabees contains a history of this time. 5
6
133
162nd Olympiad g Antiochus Sidetes, king of Syria, taking up arms against Judaea and surrounding Jerusalem with a siege trench, when he had forced the high priest Simon to terms, withdraws, in the 162nd Olympiad.
6
h L. Accius, a tragedian, is considered important. (He was) born to freed parents in the consulship of Mancinus and Serranus, and already recited his own writings to Pacuvius of Tarentus when he [Pacuvius) was an old man: from 2
19
139
13
6
7
132
Of the Jews, Duke Simon, for 8 years.
14
7
8
131
Of the Jews, King Hyrcanus, also called John, for 26 years.
h Dying, Attalus made the Roman
[228/229]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
15
people the heirs of his kingdom. 8
1
130
27
siege. Later Herod, restoring it, wanted it to be called Sebaste in honor of Augustus. 7
13
118
16
a Ptolemy expelled from Egypt. 9
2
129
163rd Olympiad
After whom Demetrius again for 4 years
1900
28
8
14
117
b Arsaces the Parthian killed Antiochus.
166th Olympiad
29
a The philosopher and poet Marcus Terentius Varro is born. * 9
15
116
17
c The slaves, who were rebelling in Sicily, compelled by the necessity of the siege, were driven in turn to have to devour their comrades' corpses. 1
3
128
th of the Egyptians, Ptolemy Physcon also called Soter, for 17 years.
1890
18
2
4
127
d The most renowned city of the Arvernian Gauls, and King Vituitus captured. *
1
10
16
115
2
11
17
114
19
e Close by the islands of Aeolia, cast up in the fire from an eruption, appeared the island that is now called Hiera. 3
5
126
3
12
18
113
After whom Antiochus Cyzicenus for 18 years
20
4
6
125
167th Olympiad
164th Olympiad
In Syria and Asia, Antiochus Grypus, for 12 years
b Antiochus Cyzicenus, having cast out Grypus, seized Syria: and then Grypus, having defeated Cyzicenus, took it back again. Thus they were ruling in turn, fighting in turn against each other.
f While John, the general and priest of the Jews, was waging war against the Hyrcanians, he received the name of Hyrcanus and, when he asked the Romans for the privilege of friendship, he was by decree of the Senate recorded on the list of friends.
4
1
19
112
5
2
20
111
21
1
7
124
6
3
21
110
7
4
22
109
22
2
8
123
168th Olympiad
23
3
9
122
8
c Fighting against the Romans, Jugurtha is captured. 5
23
108
24
g Colonies planted at Narbonne. 4
10
121
165th Olympiad
1910
9
d Rhodes having been struck by an earthquake, the Colossus fell. 6
24
107
25
h The Jews' priest Hyrcanus razed Samaria, which in our day is called Sebaste, which had been captured by 5
11
120
e Among the Jews, Jonathas holds the principate in a glorious way.
26
6
12
119
[230/231]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Syria and Asia
Jews
BC
10
a Cicero is born at Arpinum, to a mother named Helvia and a father of knightly rank, from the royal stock of the Volsci. * 7
25
106
170th Olympiad celebrates a triumph with Catulus. (*)
16
a The Thracians conquered by the Romans. 13
4
100
b Once more a Slave War flares up in Sicily.
11
b Gn. Pompey the Great is born. * 8
26
105
17
14
5
99
169th Olympiad
Of the Jews, Aristobolus, for 1 year.
9th of the Egyptians Ptolemy, also called Alexander, for 10 years.
c Aristobolus, the son of Jonathan, both king and high priest, was the first amongst the Jews to wear the insignia of the diadem, 484 years after the Babylonian captivity.
After him reigned Jannaeus surnamed Alexander, who, also controlling the pontificate, presided over the people with great cruelty.
12
9
1
104
after whom Jannaeus, also called Alexander, for 27 years.
1
c Ptolemy Physcon was expelled from the kingdom by his mother Cleopatra, and withdraws to Cyprus.
15
6
98
1920
2
16
7
97
171st Olympiad
3
d Aquilius suppressed the Slave war in Sicily. 17
8
96
d Turpilius the writer of comedies, exceedingly old, dies at Sinuessa. *
e Dying, Ptolemy King of the Cyrenes made the Romans his heirs in his will.
13
e Gaius Lucilius the satirical writer dies at Naples, and is given a public funeral, in the forty sixth year of his life. * 10
1
103
4
f Seleucus is burned alive by Antiochus, the son of Cyzicenus 18
9
95
In Syria, Philip, for 2 years
f The poet Marcus Furius, surnamed Bibaculus, is born at Cremona. *
5
g The poet Titus Lucretius is born, who afterwards, driven mad by a love-potion, although during intervals of his insanity he had composed several books which Cicero later corrected, killed himself with his own hand in his forty-fourth year. * 1
10
94
14
g 200,000 Cimbrians slaughtered, and 80,000 captured along with their leader Teutomodus by Marius. * 11
2
102
6
2
11
93
The kingship of Syria and Asia ends.
~~~~~~~~
15
h Gaius Marius being Consul for the fifth time, defeats the Cimbri by the Eridanus, and afterward for this 12
3
101
[232/233]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Jews
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Jews
BC
172nd Olympiad
a Antiochus fleeing to the Parthians, he later surrendered himself to Pompey, after which Philip was captured by Gabinius.
3
a Sallustius Crispus, the historical writer, is born among the Sabines, at Amiternum. *
18
86
7
12
92
b Sulla devastates the Athenians.
4
c At Rome, a survey having been carried out, there were found to be 463,000 men. *
19
85
8
b Syria, having been possessed by kings until this point, fell under Roman control.
13
91
174th Olympiad
9
c The Picentes, Marsians and Pelignians started a war against the Romans. *
14
90
5
d The temple at Delphi burned down for the third time by the Thracians, and at Rome the Capitol.
20
84
10
15
89
d Lucius Pomponius of Bologna, writer of atellans, is considered important. *
6
e Jannaeus captures many towns.
21
83
f In the 26th year of his life, Cicero defends Quintius. *
173rd Olympiad
7
g P. Terentius Varro, from the hamlet of the Atax, is born in the province of (Gallia) Narbonensis; after living for 35 years, he learned Greek letters with great zeal. *
22
82
10th of Egypt, PTOLEMY, who was ejected by his mother, for 8 years
e Returned from exile, he (Ptolemy) obtained the kingdom because the citizens had expelled Alexander, who had been king before him, on account of the murder of his mother.
1
16
88
8
h Vultacilius Plotus, a Latin rhetor, a teacher and freedman of Gnaeus Pompey, opened a school in Rome. *
23
81
f Plotius Gallus first taught Latin rhetoric at Rome, about whom Cicero thus declares: "I retain the memory that, when we were boys, a certain Plotius first began to teach in Latin." *
175th Olympiad
11th of Egypt, Ptolemy Dionysus, for 30 years
1930 2
g Gaius Valerius Catullus, the lyric writer, is born at Verona.
17
87
1
i Sulla occupied Rome, and dies after two years.
24
80
[234/235]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Jews
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Jews
BC
2
a Having defended Roscius against Chrysogonus, Cicero withdraws to Athens, and returns from that place to Rome after three years. *
25
79
a Vergil Maro is born in the community that is called "Andes" not far from Mantua, when Pompey and Crassus were consuls. *
12
8
69
3
b Pompey celebrated a triumph most gloriously. 26
78
c Jannaeus devastates many communities.
b M. Porcius Cato the Stoic philosopher is well known. *
d Lepidus declared a public enemy.
1940 4
e T. Quintius Atta, a writer of national dramas, dies at Rome, and is buried at the second milestone of the Praenestine Way. *
27
77
178th Olympiad
Of the Jews, Alexandra reigned for 9 years.
13
c Antioch in Syria captured by the Romans.
9
68
d The Cretan war started, from which Metellus was called Creticus. The Jews made tributaries by Pompey, and Hyrcanus received the pontificate among them, for 34 years.
176th Olympiad
5
f Alexandra, also called Salina 2, the wife of Alexander, reigned at Jerusalem, in whose time the breakdown of government and various military disasters oppressed the Jews.
1
76
e The grove of Daphne near Antioch is consecrated to Apollo by Pompey. *
1950 14
f Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, sons of Alexandra, fighting against each other for power, exposed an opportunity to the Romans to take possession of Judaea. And so Pompey, coming to Jerusalem after the city had been captured and the Temple had been opened, approaches up to the holy of holies; he brings Aristobolus with him as a captive, and confirms the pontificate to Hyrcanus; then he makes Antipater, the son of Herod of Ascalon, procurator of Palestine.
1
67
6
2
75
7
g The Gladiators' War in Campania. 3 *
3
74
h L. Lucullus was the first to be hailed 'imperator', having defeated Armenia, Mesopotamia, and captured Nisbis with the brother of the king. (*)
15
2
66
8
4
73
177th Olympiad
9
i Pompey subjugated all Spain. 4 *
5
72
10
k M. Lucullus celebrated a triumph over the Bessi, having captured Cabilonnum, together with Tomis and the other nearby cities. *
6
71
16
g Libya left by the will of king Appion to the Romans. *
3
65
11
l Crassus celebrated a triumph. *
7
70
h The satiric and lyric 5
(1) 'togatae'.
(2) Salome.
(3) The Third Servile War (Gladiators' War), instigated in 73 B.C. by Spartacus, an escaped slave and gladiator; the war ended in 71 B.C.
(4) Not the peninsula as a whole, but the entire Roman province. This had been in revolt under Sertorius.
(5) Venusia was on the borders of Apulia and Lucania; the date was 8 December 65 B.C.
[236/237]
Alexandrians
Consuls
Jews
BC
Alexandrians
Consuls
Jews
BC
poet Horace Flaccus is born at Venusia to a freedman father. *
he died at Piacenza. *
25
a Caesar, crossing the Rhine, devastates the Germans.
12
56
179th Olympiad
17
a Apollodorus the Pergamene, a Greek orator, teacher of Callidius and Augustus, is considered important. *
4
64
b The consul Crassus captured with his son at Carrae. *
26
c Ventidius is the first of the Romans to defeat the Parthians. *
13
55
18
b Pompey, after Jerusalem had been captured, makes the Jews tributary.
5
63
d The active Populares orator Curio is considered notable in Rome; who afterwards in Africa, from the shame of losing his Army, chose to die rather than escape. *
19
c Those things which Sallust and Livy write about Catiline, Cethegus, and Lentulus, and the Consul Cicero, happened at this time. (*)
6
62
27
14
54
28
15
53
20
d Cicero spends a year in exile, being received with honour by Plancius. 1 *
7
61
e Virgil, having assumed the toga, goes to Milan, and after a short time goes on to Rome. *
e Pompey hailed 'imperator.'
180th Olympiad
21
f Caesar captures Lusitania and some islands in the ocean.
8
60
182nd Olympiad
29
f The statue of Jupiter Olympiacus struck by lightning.
16
52
22
g Messalla Corvinus the orator, and Titus Livius of Padua, the writer of history, are born. *
9
59
30
g Caesar captures Germans and Gauls.
17
51
12th of Egypt, Cleopatra for 22 years
h Virgil becomes learned by studies at Cremona. *
23
i Catullus dies at Rome in the 30th year of his life. *
10
58
1
h The beginning of the civil war of Caesar and Pompey.
18
50
1960 24
k M. Callidius the orator is considered important; later, having followed the Caesarean factions in the Civil War, when he was in charge of Gallia Togata,
11
57
2
i Diodorus Siculus, a writer of Greek history, is considered important. *?
19
49
181st Olympiad
183rd Olympiad
(1) 58BC, in Macedonia. Gnaeus Plancius was quaestor of Macedonia.
[238/239]
Romans 3
Alexandrians
Jews
BC
Romans
Alexandrians
Jews
BC
a Gaius Julius Caesar was the first among the Romans to attain sole power, from whom Romans holding first rank are called 'Caesars'.
184th Olympiad a Antony decreed that the month Quintilis should be called July: because Julius (Caesar) had been born in it.
5
b After Judaea had been captured, Cassius despoils the temple. 7
23
44
First of the Romans, C. JULIUS CAESAR, for 4 years and 7 months
c On the Ides of March, Gaius Julius Caesar is slain in the Curia, and at once Publius Dolabella took office. 1 *
b From this point the Antioch-enes calcul-ate their dates. 1
c Pompey, conquered in battle, and fleeing, is killed by the eunuchs of the king of the Alexandrians. 3
20
48
d The body of C. Caesar cremated on the Rostra, as an honour. *
d M. Caelius the praetor and T. Annius Milo the exile crushed while simultaneously promoting a revolt in the Thurian and Bruttian regions. *
e Servius Sulpicius, a lawyer, and Publius Servilius Isauricus given a state funeral. *
f At Rome, three simultaneously risen suns gradually coalesced into the same disk. *
1970 2
e Ptolemy's carcass found in the Nile wearing a golden breastplate. * 4
21
47
g Among other portents, that occurred all around the world, an ox in the region of Rome at its plowing spoke: "It is useless to goad me on. For soon there will be a shortage not of crops but of men." 2 *
f Caesar confirms the reign of Cleopatra in Egypt on account of the influence of her unchastity.
3
g Julian basilica dedicated at Rome. * 5
22
46
h A decree of the senate and the Athenians is sent to the Jews, who had proposed alliance through emissaries.
nd of the Romans, Octavianus Caesar Augustus reigned for 56 years and 6 months; from whom the kings of the Romans are called 'Augusti'
i Cleopatra entered the City with a royal escort. *
1
h Antonius launches a war against Caesar Augustus. *? 9
25
43
k Women who have neither husbands nor children prohibited from the use of litters or pearls, and remain minors for 44 years. *
i Laberius, writer of mimes, dies at Puteoli, in the 10th month after the murder of Caesar.
4
l Nigidius Figulus, a Pythagorean and a magician, dies in exile. *? 6
23
45
k Publius the mime playwright, a Syrian by birth, debuts on the Roman stage. *
(1) Literally "received the fasces."
(2) Cf. Livy 28.11.4 (for 206 BC, not this 41 BC) "et bos in agro Romano locutus." (3) Prior to this page in 'O' the heading always reads 'Consuls'. Thereafter it is 'Romans'.
[240/241]
Romans
Alexandrians
Jews
BC
Romans
Alexandrians
Jews
BC
a Cicero, in his 64th year, is slain by Herennius and Popilius in his villa at Formiae. *
to friendship with him.
a The poet Cornificius died, deserted by the soldiers whom on account of their often fleeing, he calls 'helmeted hares'. His sister was Cornificia, whose notable epigrams survive. *
c According to some, Cicero is killed in his villa at Caieta. b The head of Cicero, with his right hand, placed in front of the Rostra, and next to it the crowned likeness of the soldier Popilius who had slain him. *
b Cassius looted the temple of the Rhodians. *
c Second split of Augustus and Antonius.
d Ovid Naso is born in Abruzzi. 1 *
185th Olympiad
4
d Cornelius Nepos the historical writer is considered important. * 11
28
40
2
e Caius Falcidius, a Tribune of the People, brought in a law 2 against anyone making a legacy in his will so great that it did not leave to the heirs a fourth part of the estate. * 9
26
42
e Antigonus while fighting against the Jews is at length killed. From then on down to the present time the kingship of Jerusalem has been destroyed. Accordingly after him Herod, a foreign prince, and in no way relating to Judea, was installed by the Romans.
5
12
29
39
f Curtius Salassus was burned alive with four cohorts in the island of Arada, because he had exacted tributes quite oppressively. *
6
13
30
38
3
g His owner recognized Vibius Maximus that had been designated quaestor, and carried him off. * 10
27
41
f The Fornii, father and son, are considered important orators, of whom the consular son dies before the father. *
1980 7
14
31
37
h Oil erupts out from the earth from a taberna meritoria 3 on the other side of the Tiber, and flowed all the day without interruption, signifying the Grace of Christ from the nations. *
186th Olympiad
8
g Sallust died in the quadrennium before the Battle of Actium. * 15
32
36
9
h M. Bavius the poet, whom Vergil mentions in the Eclogues, dies in Cappadocia. 16
33
35
i Augustus defeats Antony, and by the senate intervening, returns
(1) Literally "among the Peligni."
(2) The Falcidian Law,(Justinian, Digest of Roman Law, 35.2) by its first Article, conferred the power of disposing of an estate up to and including three-fourths of the same. English translation. Some paraphrase has been necessary: literally "Caius Falcidius, a Tribune of the People, proposed a law against anyone making a legacy in his Will, greater than would [still] leave a quarter [of the whole estate] to the heirs." It is followed in some manuscripts by a long and confused gloss, which adds the words "... if four or less." And then goes on, "If however there were more than four, the proportion was in this way: that part that Falcidius ordered (unless the father forbade it) and the other profitable legacies, and similar less-desirable items, were divided up equally in the same way as the same father bequeathed his property either to the children or to more distant relatives."
(3) Cassius Dio 48.43.4, giving the date as 38 BC. Here one day, in 38 BC, oil suddenly started to gush out from the ground. This mysterious event was given the Latin name fons olei ("oil source", or "oil fountain"). This is the legend of S.Maria in Trastevere. A taberna meritoria was an upmarket tavern and lodging house.
[242/243]
†
Romans
Alexandrians
Jews
BC
Romans
Alexandrians
Jews
BC
10
a Herod, the son of Antipater from Ascalon and whose mother was Cypris from Arabia, received the principate of the Jews from the Romans: in whose time, around the time of Christ's birth, the kingship and the priesthood of Judaea, which previously had been held by a succession of lesser men, were destroyed, and the prophecy was fulfilled which speaks thus through Moses: 17
34
34
These 69 weeks 1 come to 483 years, in which the christs (=anointed ones), that is, the high priests reigned through the anointing of oil until Hyrcanus. The latter having been captured finally by the Parthians, Herod son of Antipater received Judaea, which did not belong to him, from Augustus and the Senate. And his sons after him reigned until the most recent captivity of Jerusalem, never having been appointed high priests from the succession of the sacerdotal line, serving God according to the Law of Moses for all their lives. Indeed, certain lay persons, and others at another time, and not a few, used to buy the priestly office from Roman Emperors, for a single year or a bit more. All these things Daniel the prophet also foretells, saying:
Herod the foreigner reigned over the Jews, the secular power of the pontificate having ended, for 37 years.
"There will not lack a prince from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until he shall come in whom it is entrusted. And he himself will be the hope of the nations." 2
And in this very place, Christ, whom the Scripture of Daniel prophesies, received his end. For until Herod, christs (=anointed ones), i.e. the high priests, were the kings of the Jews, who began to rule from the 65th Olympiad and the restoration of the Temple under Darius, until Hyrcanus and the 186th Olympiad, around 433 years having passed: which is what Daniel also signifies, saying:
"And after 7 and 62 weeks the anointing will perish, and there will be no sound judgement there and the people will defile the temple and the sanctuary with the leader who is coming: and they will be struck down in the flood of war." And in what follows: "And upon the Temple, he says, an abomination of desolation: and until the fulfillment of the time, a fulfillment will be given upon the desolation."
a Herod installed a certain Ananelus, invited from Babylon, as high priest of the Jews, and after a short while he appointed Aristobulus, the brother of his wife and nephew of Hyrcanus as
And may you know and understand that from the beginning of the word of returning to and rebuilding Jerusalem, until the leadership of CHRIST (=the anointed one), 7 weeks 1 and 62 weeks 1.
(1) 'Hebdomades' is properly a 'group of seven' years rather than a week. The word 'weeks' is intended to be quaint or mystical, as note where it is initially explained by Leviticus 25:8 'numerabis quoque tibi septem ebdomades annorum id est septem septies quae simul faciunt quadraginta novem' -- 'And you shall count seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the time of the seven weeks of years shall be to you forty-nine years.' Jerome's 'id est' is not in the Heb (or RSV) but the phrase SHBX SHBTT SHNYM 'seven sabbaths of years' is clearly meant to be pointed in some way, and not just a way of saying something numerical like 'group of seven'. Even the Gk word E(BDOMAS is somewhat obscure [cf. Chantraine s.v. e(pta at end]. Finally, it is already traditional language in Jerome s time and remains so: NJB, Lev. 25:8 'You will count seven weeks of years--seven...' [note their long dash = Jerome s id est] and then Dan 9:24 'Seventy weeks are decreed...'.
(2) The quotation marks represent a line of vertical squiggles against this paragraph in the left-hand margin in 'O'.
[244/245]
Romans
Alexandrians
Jews
BC
Romans
Alexandrians
Jews
BC
the successor to him; when he was murdered after a year, he reappointed Ananelus to the priesthood.
12
a Until Cleopatra, the Ptolemies, who were called Lagids, reigned in Egypt for 295 years. 19
2
32
a The movements of the moon, according to the Romans, discovered. *
b Artorius the doctor of Augustus perishes after the victory of Actium in a shipwreck. *
11
b Treaty of Antony and Augustus. 18
1
23
c The Romans planted colonies.
13
c Some compute the first year of the monarchy of Augustus from this point. 20
3
31
d Augustus celebrated a triumph for his land-battle triumph.
e Antony handed over Arabia to Cleopatra.
d Caesar called Augustus, from whom the month Sextilis received the name of Augustus.
f The beginning of the third disagreement of Augustus and Antony, because the sister of Caesar having been repudiated, he had married Cleopatra. (*)
14
e With a huge pomp of triumphs, Augustus entered Rome, and led before his chariot the children of Cleopatra, the Sun and the Moon. 1 21
4
30
g Nicetes, Hybreas, Theodorus and Plution are considered the most noble Greek teachers of the rhetorical art. *
15
f Nicopolis founded near Actium and the Actian games established. 22
5
29
The power of the Alexandrians ends.
~~~~~~
g Augustus enacts many laws for the Romans.
187th Olympiad
h Cleopatra and Antony kill themselves, and Egypt is made a Roman province, which Caius Cornelius Gallus first headed, about whom Virgil writes in the Eclogues. (*)
188th Olympiad
h A census of Rome having been taken, there were found to be 4,164,000 Roman citizens.
2
16
i Colonies planted.
23 2
6 3
28
k Anaxilaus Larisseus, a Pythagorean
(1) Dio Cassius 51.21.8. The reference is to Alexander Helios (the 'sun') and Cleopatra Selene (the 'moon').
(2) This number is missing in 'O'.
(3) This number is coloured red in 'O'.
[246/247]
Romans
Jews
BC
Romans
Jews
BC
and a magician, is expelled from the City and from Italy by Augustus. *
was offered to him, declined.
21
a Quintilius of Cremona, a friend of Vergil and Horace, dies. *
11
23
a M. Terentius Varro the philosopher dies when nearly a nonagenarian. *
b Augustus deprived the Cyzicenes of their liberty.
1990 17
b Thebes of Egypt razed to the ground.
7
27
22
c Pylades, the Cilician writer of pantomime, although the ancients themselves had sung and danced, was the first in Rome to make a chorus and pipe make music. *
12
22
c Cornelius Gallus the Frejusian poet, by whom Egypt was first governed, as we said above, killed himself with his own hand in the 43rd year of his life. *
23
d Sent by Augustus, Tiberius took possession of Armenia.
13
21
d Trallis destroyed in an earthquake.
18
e The Indians through a deputation requested friendship with Augustus. *
8
26
e Atratinus, who had prosecuted Caelius at the age of seventeen, is considered important among orators. In the end, due to the weight of his illnesses, having died voluntarily in the bath, he left Augustus his heir. *
f Messala Corvinus, when he was first made urban prefect, relinquished his magistracy on the sixth day, claiming that it was an unjust form of authority. *
190th Olympiad
19
g Augustus makes the Calabri and the Gauls subject to taxation.
9
25
24
f The Cantabri, initiating an insurrection, are crushed.
14
20
h Munatius Plancus, a student of Cicero, is considered notable as an orator; who, when he was in charge of Gallia Comata, founded Lyons. *
25
g Herod in Jerusalem constructed many and great buildings.
15
19
26
h Vergil dies in Brundisium, when Sentius Saturninus and Lucretius Cinna were consuls. His bones, having been taken to Naples, are buried within the second mile-marker of that city, with this very epitaph written above it, which he himself had dictated as he lay dying:
16
18
189th Olympiad
20
i Marcus Lollius makes Galatia a province.
k Augustus, when the monarchy
[248/249]
Romans
Jews
BC
Romans
Jews
BC
"Mantua gave birth to me;
Calabria carried me off;
Now Parthenope holds me.
I sang of pastures, the country and leaders." *
a Agrippa captures Bosphorus.
31
b Cestius the Smyrnean rhetor taught Latin in Rome. *
21
13
a Rebuilding Samaria from the ground up, which for a long time now had been sitting in ashes, Herod renamed it Augusta in honor of Augustus, that is, Sebaste, and constructed the town which is called Panion in Paneas.
192nd Olympiad
c Augustus is hailed as pontifex maximus by the Senate.
32
22
12
d Herod founded Caesarea in the name of Caesar, which previously used to be called Strato's Tower.
2000 27
b Augustus granted freedom to the Samians. 17
17
c In Cyprus, many parts of the cities were ruined in an earthquake.
e Herod founded Anthonis, and Antipatris: and he constructed Herodion in his own honour and that of his father Antipater: also he constructed most cleverly innumerable works in individual cities of Syria which he was ruling.
33
23
11
d Marcus Lollius defeats the Germans who had taken up arms.
e The poets Varius and Tucca, companions of Vergil and Horace, are considered illustrious, who later corrected the books of the Aeneid under this condition: that they added nothing. *
34
f Tiberius Caesar celebrates a triumph over the captured Pannonians.
24
10
191st Olympiad
35
g Horace dies at Rome in the fifty-seventh year of his life. *
25
9
28
f Augustus adopted Gaius Agrippa as his son.
18
16
36
h Passienus the Father, a notable speech-maker, died. *
26
8
g Aemilius Macer, a poet from Verona, dies in Asia. *
i C. Julius Hyginus, surnamed Polyhistor, the grammarian, is considered illustrous. *
29
h Tiberius makes the Vindelici and those who were bordering Thrace, Roman provinces.
19
15
193rd Olympiad
k After Germany had been devastated, Tiberius is hailed as imperator.
30
Colonies at Beirut and Patras planted.
20
14
[250/251]
Romans
Jews
BC
Romans
Jews
BC/AD
36
a Herod killed Hyrcanus, who previously had been high priest of the Jews, when he returned from his Parthian captivity, and killed his son, who had succeeded his father in the high priesthood: in addition, he most cruelly puts to death his (Hyrcanus's) sister, his very own wife, with his own two sons already in adolescence, and the mother of his murdered wife, his mother-in-law.
26
8
from the weariness of a double quartan fever.
41
a Herod added to these things, which he accomplished above cruelly, this also: he killed the husband of his sister Salome, and when he handed her over to another, he put him to death, too: morever he slew the scribes and translators of the divine law in a similar crime.
31
3
b Tertullian, in that book which he wrote against the Jews, affirms that Christ was born in the 41st year of Augustus, and suffered in the 15th of Tiberius. *
2010 37
27
7
42
32
2
38
b Tiberius celebrated a triumph over the Rhetians, Vindelicians, Armenians, and the Pannonians.
28
6
c Jesus Christ, the son of GOD, is born in Bethlehem of Judah
43
33
1 BC
c Albutius Silo of Novara, an important rhetor, is well known. *
d Quirinius, sent to Judaea by a resolution of the senate, makes a survey of men and property.
39
d Many things were ruined in an earthquake on the island of Cos.
29
5
e All the years taken together from Abraham until the birth of Christ come to 2015 years.
e Augustus condemns to exile his daughter Julia, caught in adultery.
195th Olympiad
194th Olympiad
f C. Caesar made a treaty with the Parthians.
f M. Tullius Tiro, Cicero's freedman, who is credited with being the first to use shorthand, lives to his 100th year on his estate in Puteoli. *
44
g Sextus the Pythagorean philosopher is well known.
34
1 AD
h Augustus adopts Tiberius and Agrippa as his sons.
40
30
4
g Augustus exhibited gladatorial games and a naval battle.
45
i Judas the Gallilean urges the Jews to rebel.
35
2
h Melissus of Spoleto, the grammarian, is well known. *
k Herod, when he had learned of the nativity of CHRIST from the information of the Magi, ordered all the infants in Bethlehem to be killed.
i M. Porcius Latro, the Latin declaimer, killed himself
[252/253]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews
AD
46
a Herod, suffering from the dropsy and with his whole body infested with worms, dies miserably and deservedly.
36
3
lost his memory and intellect that he could scarcely string a few words together, and at the end, when a sore had developed around his lower spine, he ended his life by fasting at 72 years of age. *
2020 47
b Asinius Pollio, orator and consul, who had celebrated a triumph over the Dalmatians, dies at his Tuscan villa in the 70th years of his life. *
37
4
Of the Jews, Duke Archelaus, for 9 years
198th Olympiad
a Augustus with his son Tiberius taking the census at Rome, he found 9,370,000 men.
196th Olympiad
c Into Herod's place Archelaus is substituted by Augustus, and his four brothers are made Tetrarchs: Herod, Antipater, Lysias, and Philip.
56
b Sotio the Alexandrian philosopher, the tutor of Seneca is considered important. (*)
9
13
48
1
5
c Archelaus, in the 9th year of his reign, is banished to the Gallic city of Vienne. Of the Jews, Herod the Tetrarch holds the principate for 24 years
d So great a famine happens at Rome, that five modii are sold for 27½ denarii.
d An eclipse of the sun happened, and Augustus dies in his 76th year, in Atella in Campania, and is buried at Rome in the Campus Martius. (*)
49
e Philisthion the mime playwright, a Magnesian by birth, is considered important at Rome. *
2
6
50
f Tiberius Caesar drives back the Dalmatians and Sarmatians into Roman authority.
3
7
rd of the Romans, Tiberius reigned for 23 years
2030 1
e The orator Gaius Asinius Gallus, son of Asinius Pollio, whom even Vergil mentions, is put to death with fearful tortures by Tiberius. *
1
14
51
g Athenodorus of Tarsus the Stoic philosopher, and M. Verrius Flaccus the grammatician, are considered notable. (*)
4
8
2
2
15
3
3
16
197th Olympiad
199th Olympiad
52
h The Athenians, revolting against the Romans, are crushed, the authors of the rebellion slain.
5
9
4
f T. Livius the historian dies in Patavi.
4
17
53
6
10
g Ovid the poet died in exile, and is interred near the town of Tomi. *
54
7
11
55
i Two years before Messala Corvinus the orator died, he had so
8
12
h Germanicus Caesar celebrates a triumph over the Parthians.
[254/255]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews
AD
5
a Thirteen cities were levelled in an earthquake: Ephesus, Magnesia, Sardis, Mosthene, Aegae, Hierocaesarea, Philadelphia, Tmolus, Temnus, Cymae, Myrhina, Apollonia Dia, and Hyrcania.
5
18
Paneas, in which he had constructed many buildings, Caesarea Philippi, and another city Julias.
13
a Pilate is sent as procurator of Judaea by Tiberius. *
13
26
6
b Fenestella, a writer of histories and songs, dies a septuagenarian, and is buried in Cumae. *
6
19
14
b Votienus Montanus of Narbonne the orator dies in the Balearic islands, having been banished there by Tiberius.
14
27
7
c Tiberius, by blandishments, having summoned to himself many kings, never returned them: among these was Archelaus of Cappadocia; after his kingdom had been turned into a province, he (Tiberius) ordered its most noble city Mazaca to be called Caesarea. *
7
20
15
c Herod founded Tiberias, and Livias.
15
28
d John the son of Zechariah, preaching in the desert by the Jordan River, bears witness that Christ, the son of God, is present in their midst. Also the Lord Jesus Christ himself announces the way of salvation to all people, proving by signs and wonders that the things that he said were true.
200th Olympiad
8
d The theatre of Pompey burned down.
8
21
9
e Tiberius makes Drusus his colleague in power.
9
22
f There are computed to the present year, that is the 15th of Tiberius Caesar, from the year following the restoration of the temple, which was completed under the second year of Darius, king of the Persians, 548 years
10
f Drusus Caesar perished by poison.
10
23
2040 11
g Quintus Haterius, the active Populares orator, lives until almost his 90th year with the highest honours. *
11
24
h Servius Plautus, guilty of corrupting his son, kills himself in punishment. *
from Solomon however, and the building of the first temple, 1060 years
201st Olympiad
from Moses, and the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, 1539 years
12
i Philip the Tetrarch called
12
25
[256/258]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews
AD
from Abraham and the reign of Ninus and Semiramis, 2044 years
"However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad, an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea." These things the aforementioned man (says).
The proof however of this matter, that in this year the Saviour suffered, the gospel of John presents, in which it is written that after the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, the Lord preached for three years. Also Josephus, a native writer of the Jews, attests that around that time on the day of Pentecost, the priests first perceived an earth tremor and certain (loud) sounds. Then, that an unexpected voice suddenly burst out from the innermost part of the Temple saying: "Let us flee from this abode." However the aforementioned man writes that in the same year Pilate the governor secretly in the night set up images of Caesar in the temple, and from this arose the first cause of the rebellion and turmoil of the Jews.
from the flood until Abraham, 942 years
from Adam until the flood, 2242 years
202nd Olympiad
a Start of the 81st jubilee according to the Hebrews 16
b Jesus Christ the son of God, preaching the way of salvation to all, performs the miracles which were written in the Gospels. 16
29
17
c Jesus Christ the son of God, imparting the divine sacraments to his own disciples, commands that they announce (the opportunity and need for) conversion to God, to all peoples. 17
30
18
d Jesus Christ, according to the prophecies, which had been spoken about him beforehand, came to the Passion in the 18th year of Tiberius, at which time also we find these things written verbatim in other commentaries of the gentiles: an eclipse of the sun happened 1, Bithynia shaken by earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings collapsed: all of which agree with what occurred in the Passion of the Saviour. Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about this, in his 13th book writing thus: 18
31
19
19
32
a The first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, James the brother of the Lord, is ordained by the Apostles.
(1) November 24, 29 AD. Note that paras b,c and d are merged in the Merton Ms.
[258/259]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews
AD
a From this point it must be considered, what a great number of calamities will have then oppressed the nation of the Jews.
other recognised religions. 4 Indeed, when by a decree of the fathers, it had pleased them that the Christians be evicted from the City, Tiberius by an edict threatened accusers of the Christians with death: thus writes Tertullian in his Apologeticum. 5
23
23
36
b Cassius Severus the outstanding orator, who had mocked the Quintian Proverb, dies of starvation in the 25th year of his exile, covered with hardly a rag over his privates. 1 *
a Many Roman Senators and Knights killed.
203rd Olympiad
c Pilate, after the aforementioned uprising which had been incited on account of Caesar's images, laid the seeds for a second uprising when he spent the sacred treasury, which the Jews call the korban, on an aqueduct for Jerusalem.
b Tiberius dies in Campania. 6 (*)
204th Olympiad
20
20
33
th of the Romans, Gaius Caligula reigned for 3 years and 10 months.
1
c Gaius Caesar, called Caligula, makes Agrippa, who had been freed from his bonds, king of Judaea.
24
37
Prince of the Jews, Agrippa, for 7 years
2050 21
d Sejanus, the prefect of Tiberius, who used to possess the greatest influence over him, urges most insistently that the Jewish nation be destroyed: Philo recalls this in the second book of his Embassy. 2
21
34
d Gaius declares himself to be among the gods.
e Flaccus Avilius, prefect of Egypt, oppresses the Jews with many injuries, with the people of Alexandria consenting and resounding with numerous cries against them: he also pollutes their synagogues with images, statues, and altars and sacrificial victims. Philo declares, in the book called Flaccus, that he was present at all
e The satirical poet Persius Flaccus is born at Volaterrae.
2
1
38
22
f Agrippa the son of Aristobulus, the son of King Herod, the accuser of Herod the Tetrach, having set out for Rome, is thrown in chains by Tiberius. 3
22
35
g Pilate referring the matter of Christian doctrine to Tiberius, Tiberius referred it on to the Senate, so that it would be accepted among the
(1) After this in the PL is the following entry, where the Merton ms. has a blank: Stephen is stoned: Saul is converted to Christ.
(2) Another blank in the manuscript is filled in the PL with these two entries: James the brother of John the apostle, by the order of King Herod, is beheaded. -- The apostle Peter thrown into prison by Herod, and having been bound with two chains, he is miraculously freed by an angel.
(3) In the PL, but not in the Ms. this entry continues: because he had publicly prayed to God, so that, right away upon the death of Tiberius, he would see Gaius the lord of all.
(4) 'Sacra' rendered as 'recognised religions'.
(5) In the PL, not in the Ms. there follows: Peter the Apostle founded the Church at Antioch, and there securing his (episcopal) throne, he sat (reigning as bishop) for 25 years.
(6) The PL adds: in the villa of Lucullus.
[260/261]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews
AD
these things, which is why he himself had even undertaken a delegation to Gaius.
th of the Romans, Claudius reigned 13 years, 8 months, 28 days.
205th Olympiad
a Passienus the son killed by the treachery of his own heir. 1 *
1
a This is Claudius the paternal uncle of Drusus, who has a monument at Moguntiacum: elsewhere I have read that he was the maternal uncle, because he was the brother of the mother of Gaius. *
4
41
3
b Gaius took the wife of Memmius Regulus, forcing him to write that he (Memmius) was the father of his wife.
2
39
2
b Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years.
5
42
c Pontius Pilate, falling into many calamities, killed himself by his own hand: so the historians of the Romans write.
3
c Mark the evangelist, Peter's interpreter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria.
6
43
d Gaius ordered Petronius, prefect of Syria, to place his statue in Jerusalem under the name of Jupiter Optimus Maximus: which the Jews refused to do with the utmost obstinacy.
2060 4
d Evodius is ordained the first bishop of Antioch.
7
44
e Agrippa, king of the Judeans, having ruled 7 years, dies. After him, his son Agrippa is placed in power by Claudius.
e In the whole Roman world, as Philo and Josephus write, statues and images and altars of Gaius Caesar consecrated in the synagogues of the Jews.
Of the Jews, Agrippa, for 26 years.
f The prophecy of Agabus, who had said in the Acts of the Apostles that there would be a famine in the whole world, came true under Claudius.
4
f Many of the nobles killed by Gaius.
3
40
g Gaius condemnedhis sisters, whom he had brought into unchastity, to exile on islands. (*)
g Claudius celebrated a triumph over the Britons and added the Orkney islands to the Roman empire. In celebration of this glory he named his son Britannicus. (*)
h Gaius ordered all the exiles to be killed.
i Gaius is slain by his bodyguards on the Palatine in the 29th year of his life.
h Domitius Afer of Nimes is considered a
(1) In the Merton manuscript there is a space following. In the Patrologia Latina, there follows this entry: Matthew in Judaea is the first to write a gospel.
[262/263]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews
AD
brilliant orator; afterward, when Nero was emperor, he dies from overeating at a meal. *
207th Olympiad
9
a A famine having occurred in Greece, a bushel of wheat was sold for six drachmas. 4
5
49
a Claudius Quirinalis, a rhetor from Arles, teaches most notably at Rome. *
10
b Great famine at Rome. 5
6
50
c Claudius sends Felix to Judea as procurator, before whom the apostle Paul, standing accused, delivers a speech in his own defense. 6
206th Olympiad
11
7
51
5
b Between Thera and Therasia an island rose up that was 30 stades across.
1
45
12
8
52
c At Rome, a survey having been carried out under Claudius, there were found to be 6,844,000 Roman citizens. 1
208th Olympiad
d When Felix was procurator of Judaea, there were many who were deceiving the people with their opinions. Among them also was a certain false prophet from Egypt who gathered many to himself but was crushed by the army of Felix in his very attempt to achieve great things. Josephus writes, agreeing with the Acts of the Apostles, in which the tribune says to Paul: 'Are you not the Egyptian who recently caused a stir and led the four thousand men into the desert?' 7
6
2
46
d Hitherto having been under kings, Thrace is reduced to a Roman province. 2
13
9
53
7
e When Cumanus was procurator of Judea, during the days of unleavened bread 3, the unrest in Jerusalem was so serious that 30,000 Jews perished as the people ran together attempting to exit through the gates.
3
47
8
f Palaemon Vicentinus is considered a notable grammarian at Rome, who once, when he was asked what was the difference between a drop and a spot, said, "A spot stays put and a drop falls." *
4
48
2070 14
e Claudius dies in the palace, in the 64th year of his life. (*)
10
54
g Marcus Antonius Liberalis the rhetor pursues a very bitter rivalry with Palaemon. *
th of the Romans, Nero reigned for 13 years, 7 months and 28 days.
1
f His uncle was Gaius Caligula. *
11
55
(1) The Patrologia Latina text has two extra entries at this point, which are not found in the 9th century Merton College manuscript No. 315, although there seems to be a space in the text at this point:
-- Around this time, Claudius drained the Fucine lake, which took 30,000 men working for 11 years without intermission.
-- Claudius constructed the port of Ostia, with two branches, as it were, projecting on the left and the right sides.
(2) Another entry from the PL, not in the Merton Ms. follows, where there is a space in the page: The virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, is taken up to her son in heaven, as some write had been revealed to her.
(3) The passover.
(4) Another entry from the PL, not in the Merton Ms. follows, where there is a space in the page: Three suns appeared at the same time and immediately united in the same circle.
(5) Another PL entry, but no space in the Ms.: Dionysius the Areopagite, once a distinguished philosopher, is famous.
(6) Another PL entry follows, again with no space in the Ms.: Philip, the apostle of Christ to the people in Hierapolis, a city of Asia, while preaching the Gospel, is nailed to a cross and stoned to death.
(7) The reference is to Acts 21:38, and the citation is slightly altered from: 'Are you not the Egyptian who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the assassins into the desert?'
[264/265]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews
AD
a While Felix was governing Judaea, a revolt broke out in Caesarea of Palestine which resulted in the deaths of a great multitude of Jews.
stoned to death by the Jews. Simeon, also called Simon, is the second to be placed in his throne.
2
b Festus succeeds Felix in the government (of the province), before whom, in the presence of Agrippa the king, Paul the apostle explains the rationale of his religion, and is sent to Rome in chains.
12
56
8
a Lightning struck in front of Nero's table. 18
62
b The first bishop of the church of Alexandria ordained after Mark the Evangelist was Annianus, who presided for twenty two years.
c Probus of Berytus, most erudite of grammarians, is well known at Rome. *
c Persius dies at the age of 29. 1 *
209th Olympiad
9
d Baths built by Nero, which he called the Neronian Baths.
19
63
d Statius Surculus Tholosanus celebratedly taught rhetoric in Gaul. *
e In Rome, Nero takes part in a competition of cithara-players, and defeats everyone.
3
e Earthquake at Rome and eclipse of the sun.
13
57
f Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, the Cordovan poet, caught in the Pisonian conspiracy, presented the veins of his arms to a physician for cutting. *
4
f Nero kills his mother Agrippina and the sister of his father.
14
58
5
g Nero was given to such excessive luxury that he used to bathe with both hot and cold ointments, and fish with golden nets which he set using purple for the rigging. *
15
59 2080 10
g Nero set the greatest part of Rome on fire, so that he might get a look at something like the burning of Troy. (*)
20
64
6
16
60
h In Asia, three cities were ruined in an earthquake; Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colossae.
210th Olympiad
h At Rome Nero competes with the cithara and wins.
i Cestius Florus succeeds Albinus as procurator of Judaea, in whose time the Jews rebelled against the Romans.
i Albinus succeeds Festus in the magistracy of Judaea.
7
k James, the brother of the Lord, whom everyone used to call the Just, is
17
61
k Junius Annaeus Gallio, the brother of Seneca the outstanding declaimer, killed himself with
(1) Late manuscripts insert after the word Persius "Volaterranus, the satirical poet,".
[266/267]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews
AD
his own hand. *
14
a The philosophers Musonius and Plutarch are considered distinguished.
24
68
a 211th Olympiad. It was not held, Nero deferring it until he could be present.
b L. Annaeus Mella, brother of Seneca and Gallio, was awarded by Nero the property of the poet Lucan, his son. *
11
b Only two provinces added under Nero, Pontus Polemoniacus, and the Cottian Alps after king Cottius had died. 1 *
21
65
c 1 st persecution, by Nero c Over all his other crimes, Nero also is the first to carry out a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul gloriously died at Rome.
c Many nobles killed by Nero at Rome.
d In the Olympics, Nero is crowned, defeating heralds, citharists, tragedians, and various charioteers in competition.
d Vespasian is made Master of Soldiers by Nero against the Jews, who were rebelling because they could not bear the avarice of Cestius Florus.
12
e L. Annaeus Seneca of Corduba, teacher of Nero, and uncle of the poet Lucan, perished by an incision of the veins and by a draught of poison. *
22
66
e Vespasian captures many cities of Judaea.
f Flavius Josephus the historical writer, a leader of the Jews in the war, when he was about to be killed by the Romans, he predicted the death of Nero to Vespasian, and his own (rise to) power; for which reason he received his life as a reward.
f Celebrating the Isthmian, Pythian and Actian games, Nero is again crowned among the heralds, tragedians and citharists.
13
g By decree of the Senate a hundred times one hundred thousand (sesterces) are furnished to Nero as an annual allowance for expenses.
23
67
g After Peter, Linus first held the church of Rome for 11 years.
h Nero killed his wife Octavia, along with other notable men, and he drove the philosopher Cornutus, teacher of Persius, into exile.
h Nero, when he was being sought out for punishment by the Senate, fleeing from the palace as far as the fourth milestone of the city, kills himself in the garden of his freedman between Salaria and
(1) Pontus Polemoniacus was added in 64 AD. M. Julius Cottius ruled the Cottian Alps as praefectus civitatium.
[268/269]
Romans
Jews
AD
Romans
Jews (Ends)
AD
Nomentana, in the 32nd year of his life, and in him the whole family of Augustus ended. (*)
2
a After Judaea had been captured and Jerusalem demolished, Titus had six hundred thousand men put to death. But Josephus writes that one million one hundred thousand perished through hunger or by the sword, and that another one hundred thousand of the captives were publicly offered for sale. Now it was because of the feast of unleavened bread that such a great number was to be found in Jerusalem. When the Jews flocked to the temple from every nation on account of this feast, they were shut up in the city as if in a prison. For it was fitting that they should be killed during the same days of Pascha on which they had crucified the Savior.
26
70
a After Nero, Galba seized power in Spain, Vitellius in Germany and Otho in Rome.
3
71
b Marcus Fabius Quinctilianus is brought to Rome by Galba. *
212th Olympiad
4
72
c In the seventh month of his reign, Galba is beheaded, in the middle of the forum of the city of the Romans.
d Vespasian drove the Jews, who had been defeated in two battles, to the city walls.
e In the third month of his reign, Otho lay dead at Bebriacum by his own hand. (*)
b The entire length of time to the nd year of Vespasian and the most recent destruction of Jerusalem, is reckoned to be:
f Ignatius is ordained as the second bishop of Antioch.
from the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar and from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, 42 years;
g Vitellius, slain in the eighth month of his reign by Vespasian's generals, is thrown into the Tiber. (*)
th of the Romans, Vespasian reigned for 9 years, 11 months, 22 days.
however from the captivity which was endured under Antiochus, 239 years;
1
h Vespasian, proclaimed emperor in Judaea by his army, and entrusting the war to his son Titus, sets out for Rome by means of Alexandria.
25
69
again from the nd year of Darius, in whose reign the temple was rebuilt, 590 years;
however from the first building of the temple under Solomon until its final destruction, which happened under Vespasian, 1102 years.
i The temple of Jupiter at Rome burned down.
[270/271]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
213th Olympiad
Sabines, aged 69. (*)
5
a Vespasian began to build the Capitol.
73
th of the Romans, Titus reigned 2 years and 2 months.
b In Alexandria a revolt occurred.
1
a Titus, the son of Vespasian, was an expert in both languages and of such goodness that once when he recalled at a meal that he had been of no service to anyone on that day, he said: 'Friends, today I have wasted a day.'
79
2090 6
c Achaia, Lycia, Rhodes, Byzantium, Samos, Thrace, Cilicia, and Comagnene, which were free before and were ruled by friendly kings, turned into Roman provinces. *
74
7
d A colossal statue erected, having a height of 107 feet.
75
b Mount Vesuvius having erupted, it blasted upwards from itself such a great amount of fire that the neighbouring regions and cities were consumed in the fire, together with the people in them.
e Q. Asconius Pedianus, the historical writer, is considered important, who having become known in the 73rd year of his life, comes to the end of his life 12 years later in the highest honour. *
c Titus recalls Musonius Rufus the philosopher from exile. *
8
76
d Titus builds the amphitheatre in Rome, and at its dedication he sacrifices 5000 wild beasts. *
f Gabinianus, a rhetorician of very celebrated name, taught in Gaul. *
2
e Cletus is appointed second bishop of the Roman church for 12 years.
80
214th Olympiad
9
g Three cities in Cyprus were destroyed all together in an earthquake.
77
f In Rome many buildings are burned to the ground in a fire.
h A massive plague happened at Rome, so that for many days about 10,000 men were listed in the daily register of the dead.
g Titus died from an illness at the same country-house where his father died, on the day before the Ides of September, at the age of 42. 1 (*)
215th Olympiad
10
i Vespasian planted colonies, and he died from an issue from his stomach in his own villa among the
78
9th of the Romans, Domitian reigned for 15 years and 5 months.
h Domitian was the younger brother of Titus. *
(1) Titus died on September 13, 81 AD at Aquae Cutiliae, where his father Vespasian had died two years earlier. The ides of September are the 12th.
[272/273]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
a The wife of Domitian is named as Augusta.
9
a Many building works carried out at Rome, among them the Capitol, the Forum transitorium, the Portico of the gods, the temple of Isis, the Serapeum, the Stadium, the pepper granaries, the temple of Vespasian, the temple of Minerva Chalcidica, the Odeum, Trajan's Forum, the Baths of Trajan and Titus, the Senate House, the Ludus Matutinus, the Mica Aurea, the Meta Sudans fountain and the Pantheon. 1 *
89
2
b By a decree of the senate Titus is enrolled among the gods. 82
c Domitian prohibited the making of eunuchs.
3
d 3 vestal virgins condemned for unchastity.
83
e Domitian sends many senators into exile.
10
90
2100 4
f Abilius is appointed the second bishop of the church of Alexandria, and he presided for thirteen years.
84
b Domitian celebrates a triumph over the Dacians and the Germans.
216th Olympiad
5
g Domitian constructs a temple without any admixture of wood.
85
11
c Domitian had so much arrogance that he commanded golden and silver statues of himself to be placed on the Capitol. He marked those and all the others with his title, without any respect for the original builder. *
91
6
h Domitian was the first to order himself to be called lord and god. *
86
d After the chief of Vestal Virgins, Cornelia, had been convicted of unchastity, she was buried alive in accordance with the law.
i The Nasamones and the Dacians who were fighting against Rome were conquered.
7
k Two months renamed, September Germanicus and October Domitian.
87
12
e Domitian prohibited vines to be cultivated in cities.
92
8
l Quinctilianus of Calaguris from Spain, who was the first at Rome to (open) a public school and receive a salary from the exchequer, became famous. *
88
f Clement presided as the rd bishop of the Church of Rome for nine years.
218th Olympiad
217th Olympiad
13
g In these days Flavius Josephus writes the twenty books of the Antiquities.
93
m Domitian sends very many of the nobility into exile and slays them.
n Domitian expels astrologers and philosophers from the city of Rome.
h Domitian put many of the nobles to death, but some he sent into exile.
(1) The Ludus Matutinus was a school for the training of bestiarii, "beast fighters." The Meta Sudans was a fountain built next to the Colosseum in the second half of the st century A.D. "The Mica Aurea was a little palace which the Emperor Domitian had built on Monte Caelio's west side across from his large emperial palace on the Palatin hill. It was located by the Via Triumphalis of ancient times, nowadays Via di San Gregorio, between the ancient roads, the Clivus Pulveratus (which does not exist today), and the Clivus Scauri, which today is called Clivio di Scauro. The latin name means "the little gold-beaming (house)", as "mica" means "a crumb, or a piece" or "a little room" and "aurea" means "golden" or "beaming like gold" and the little palace which was built as a private residence as opposed to the large official palace did have a golden roof."
[274/275]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
2110
14
a Second to do so after Nero, Domitian persecutes the Christians, and under him the apostle John having been exiled to the island of Patmos, saw the Apocalypse, which Irenaeus explains.
94
a Cerdo presided as the rd bishop of the Church of Alexandria, for eleven years.
b nd persecution, by Domitian
b The senate decreed that all the things which Domitian had set up should be made void. And so many, whom he had unjustly ejected, returned from exile: some recovered their own goods. It is said also that when the apostle John was released at this time from exile, he withdrew to Ephesus, in which city he found both hospitality and very dear friends.
15
c Domitian again by edict thrusts out the philosphers and astrologers from Rome.
95
16
d Apollonius of Tyana and Euphrates are considered notable as philosophers.
96
1
97
e Domitian orders those who were of the race of David to be killed, so that no-one might remain of the kingship of the Jews. Brutius writes that there were made very many Christian martyrs under Domitian, among whom were Flavia Domitilla, granddaughter of the sister of Flavius Clemens the consul; she was exiled to the island of Pontia, because she bore witness that she was a Christian.
c Justus from Tiberias, the writer of the Jews, is well known.
d Nerva died from an illness in the gardens of Sallust at the age of 72, after he had already adopted Trajan as his son. (*)
e Trajan, made emperor at Agrippina in Gaul, was born in Italica in Hispania. *
11th of the Romans, Trajan, reigned for 19 years and 6 months.
f Many signs and portents happened at Rome and in the whole world.
1
f By a decree of the senate Nerva enrolled among the gods. 98
2
g Evaristus received the th episcopate of the Roman church.
99
g Domitian murdered in the palace aged 45, and ignobly buried by the pauper-undertakers 1. (*)
3
h Bishop Irenaeus writes that JOHN THE APOSTLE survived all the way to the time of Trajan: after whom his notable disciples were Papias, Bishop of
100
219th Olympiad
10th of the Romans, Nerva, reigned for 1 year and 4 months.
(1) Vespillo, pl. vespillones.
[276/277]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
Hieropolis, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch.
appointed as the third bishop. (*)
a When Pliny the Younger was ruling a certain province and had put to death many Christians in his capacity as governor, he became frightened by their great numbers and sought from Trajan what he should do, reporting to him that, except for their stubborn refusal to sacrifice and their predawn gatherings to sing to a certain Christ as to a god, there was nothing (unusual) to be found among them. Furthermore, in order to be united in a common way of life, they forbid themselves to commit murder, theft, adultery, robbery, and the like. Disturbed by these things, Trajan wrote back: "This kind of people should not be sought out, but when they are brought before you, it is fitting for them to be punished." Tertullian refers to all this in his Apology.
220th Olympiad
4
a Trajan celebrates a triumph over the Dacians and Scythians. 101
5
b Trajan defeated King Decebalus and made Dacia a province: he made a treaty with the Iberians, Sauromatians, Orsoenians, Arabs, Bosphorans and Colchians: he occupied and held Seleucia, Ctesiphon and Babylon: he instituted a fleet in the Red Sea so that he could lay waste the outskirts of India. *
102
6
103
2120 7
c At Rome, the Domus Aurea burned down in a fire.
104
221st Olympiad
8
d Four cities of Asia overthrown in an earthquake: Elaea, Myrrhina, Pytanae, and Cymae: and two in Greece, Opuntis and Oritos.
105
9
e The fourth bishop of the church of Alexandria, by name Primus, is ordained, for twelve years.
106
222nd Olympiad
10
f A persecution being initiated by Trajan against Christians, Simon, the son of Cleophas, who was holding the episcopate of Jerusalem, is crucified. Justus succeeds him.
107
b Alexander holds the fifth episcopate of the city of Rome for ten years.
g rd persecution, by Trajan
12
c Pliny the Younger of New Como, of whom many works of ingenuity are extant, is considered a notable orator and historian. *
109
g Ignatius also, bishop of the church of Antioch, sent to Rome, is given to the beasts: after him Hero is
13
d Three cities of Galatia wiped out by an earthquake.
110
11
108
e The Pantheon in Rome burned down by lightning.
[278/279]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
14
a After Justus, Zachaeus received the th episcopate of the Church of Jerusalem. After him, th is Tobias, to whom succeeds th Benjamin, and then th John and th Matthias, into whose place Philip is appointed 9th.
111
a Trajan perishes in an illness at Selinus, or as I discover in someone else's text, he died at Isaurian Seleucia, the result of dysentery, in the sixty-third year, ninth month, and fourth day of his age. His bones were collected in a golden urn and placed in the Forum at the base of (his) column: and alone of all (the emperors) was he interred within the City 1. (*)
15
112
223rd Olympiad
16
b Trajan made Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia into provinces. *
113
224th Olympiad
12th of the Romans, Hadrian ruled for 21 years
c An earthquake at Antioch ruined almost the entire city.
1
b Hadrian, born at Italica in Spain, was the son of Trajan's female cousin. *
117
2130 17
d The Jews, who were in Libya, fight against their foreign-born neighbors. Likewise in Egypt, in Alexandria, and even Cyrene and the Thebaid, they struggle with great rebellion; but a portion of the gentiles defeat (them) in Alexandria.
114
c Hadrian restored Alexandria, which had been sacked by the Romans, from public funds.
d Hadrian, envious of Trajan's glory, recalled the army from those provinces created by him, namely, Assyria, Mesopotomia, and Armenia. *
18
e The Emperor Trajan ordered Quietus of Lysia to banish the rebellious Jews of Mesopotamia from the province: Quietus, drawing up an army against them, killed countless thousands of them, and for this he is appointed procurator of Judea by the emperor.
115
e Hadrian makes captives of the Jews, who were rebelling against Rome for a second time.
2
f The senate declares Trajan to be among the gods.
118
g Hadrian was most erudite in both languages, but he was inadequately restrained in his lust for boys. *
19
f After the gentiles there had been killed, the Jews overthrew Salamis, a city of Cyprus.
h Hadrian freed the rest of the cities from tribute, having burned the records in public: he also discharged many free-men from these same tributes.
(1) I.e. within the pomerium.
[280/281]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
3
a Plutarch of Chaeronea, Sextus 1, Agathabolus, and Oenomaus 2 are considered notable philosophers.
119
bishops that presided down to the destruction of Jerusalem, that was carried through by Hadrian, were from the circumcision.
b Xystus holds the th episcopate of the Roman church for 10 years.
226th Olympiad
9
a Hadrian was initiated into the Elusinian rites, and generously gave many gifts to the Athenians.
125
c Justus is appointed as th bishop of the church of Alexandria for 11 years.
b Quadratus the disciple of the apostles, and Aristides of Athens, our philospher, composed books on behalf of the Christian religion to give to Hadrian. And the legate Serenus Granius, a man most noble, sends letters to the emperor, saying that it is unjust to allow the blood of innocent men guilty of no crime (to be shed) at the clamour of the mob, and to be made guilty of a crime only because of a name and a sect. Having been so moved, Hadrian wrote to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, that the Christians should not be condemned without evidence of a crime. An exemplar of these letters has remained until our own time.
4
d War waged against the Sauromatians.
120
e After an earthquake had happened, Nicomedia lay in ruins, and many things were overturned in the city of Nicaea: for the reconstruction of which, Hadrian generously gave funds from the public treasury.
10
126
225th Olympiad
5
f Euphrates the Stoic philospher dies.
121
g Hadrian plants colonies in Libya, which had been devastated by the Jews.
11
127
6
h In response to the Athenians who had petitioned him for laws 3, Hadrian composed a legal code drawn from the books of Draco, Solon, and the rest 4.
122
7
i The river Cephisus flooded Eleusis, where Hadrian joined the two banks with a bridge and spent the winter in Athens.
123
12
c The emperor Hadrian is called Father of his Country and his wife Augusta.
128
k After Philip, Seneca is appointed as the 10th bishop of Jerusalem; after whom, Justius as the 11th, to whom succeeded Levi the 12th, after whom Ephres 13th, Joses 14th, Judas 15th. All these
d Telesphorus received the seventh episcopate of the Roman church for 11 years.
2140 8
124
e Cornelius is appointed as the fourth bishop of Antioch.
(1) Sextus Empiricus.
(2) Oenomaus of Gadara.
(3) I.e. for a constitution.
(4) The other legislators.
[282/283]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
227th Olympiad
228th Olympiad
a Nicopolis and Caesarea were ruined in an earthquake.
a Basilides the heresiarch lingers in Alexandria, from whom come the Gnostics.
13
b Antinous, a boy noted for his exceptional beauty, dies in Egypt. After Hadrian attentively carries out his funeral rites -- for the boy had been a favourite of his --, he declares him to be among the gods; a city was also named after him.
129
17
b Barcocheba, leader of a party of the Jews, because the Christians are not willing to help him against the Roman army, murders them with every sort of torture.
133
2150 18
c The Jewish War, which took place in Palestine, came to an end with the complete suppression of the Jews. From that time permission for them even to enter Jerusalem was revoked, first by the will of God, as the prophets had foretold, then by the prohibitions of the Romans.
134
14
c Eumenes presided as the sixth bishop of the church of Alexandria for 13 years.
130
15
d The temple of Rome and Venus built by Hadrian. *
131
19
135
e Salvius Julianus composed the Perpetual Edict. *
f While Hadrian is spending the winter at Athens, he visits Eleusis.
d Marcus is appointed as first gentile bishop at Jerusalem, after the ending of those, who were from the Jews.
16
g Hadrian, when he had constructed many notable buildings in Athens, held games and erected a library of wondrous construction.
132
20
e Aelia founded by Aelius Hadrian; on the front of that gate, by which we go out to Bethlehem, a sow was sculpted in marble, denoting that the Jews were subject to the Roman authority. Some think it was constructed by Titus Aelius, the son of Vespasian.
136
h The Jews turned to arms and laid waste Palestine, while Tynius Rufus was in control of the province. Hadrian sent an army to him for the purpose of putting down the rebels.
229th Olympiad
i Favorinus and Polemon are considered notable rhetoricians.
21
f Hadrian, more than sixty years old, dies at Baiae because of dropsy. (*)
137
[284/285]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
13th of the Romans, T. Antoninus, surnamed Pius, reigned with his children Aurelius and Lucius for 22 years, 3 months.
10
147
11
148
232nd Olympiad
1
a Hyginus receives the th episcopate of the Roman church for four years.
138
12
a The philosopher Arrianus of Nicomedia is well known, as is Maximus of Tyre.
149
2
b Antoninus is named Father of his Country.
139
13
b The philosophers Apollonius the Stoic Chalcidian and Basilides the Scythopolitan are considered illustrious: who were also the truest preceptors of the Caesar.
150
3
c When Hyginus was bishop of Rome, Valentinus the arch-heretic and Cerdo, Marcion's teacher, came to Rome.
140
14
151
15
152
230th Olympiad
233rd Olympiad
4
d Justin the philosopher gave the book he had written on behalf of our religion to Antoninus.
141
16
c Celadion presided as th bishop of Alexandria, for 14 years.
153
2170 17
d Crescens the Cynic is well known, who promoted a prosecution against our Justin the Philosopher, learned in the (Christian) teachings, because he (Justin) was arguing him (Crescens) to be gluttonous and a corrupter of philosophy. By result of which he (Justin) gloriously poured out his blood for Christ.
154
5
e Pius is ordained as the ninth bishop of the Roman church, for 15 years.
142
18
155
f Eros is appointed as th bishop of Antioch.
19
156
6
g Marcus receives the th episcopate of Alexandria, for 10 years.
143
234th Olympiad
h Valentinus the heretic is well known, and he remains down to Anicetus.
20
e Anicetus holds the 10th episcopate of the Roman church for 10 years, in whose time Polycarp coming to Rome corrected many from heretical error.
157
21
158
2160 7
i Mesomedes of Crete, the poet-musician of lyre-ode songs, is well known.
144
22
159
23
160
231st Olympiad
235th Olympiad
8
k Taurus Berytius, a distinguished philosopher of the Platonic sect, is considered important.
f After Marcus, Cassianus received the 17th episcopate of Jerusalem, after him the 18th was Publius,
9
[286/287]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
whom Maximus, the 19th, succeeded, the 20th was Julianus, the 21st Gaianus, the 22nd Symmachus, the 23rd Caius, the 24th Julianus, and the 25th was Captio.
a Lucius Caesar celebrated a triumph with his brother 1 over the Parthians.
6
b Agrippinus presided as the 9th bishop of Alexandria for 12 years.
166
a Antoninus Pius dies aged 77 at his villa at Lorium near the 12th milestone from the City. (*)
d th pers-ecut-ion
c A persecution began in Asia and Polycarp and Pionius suffered martyrdom, of whom also there are written accounts of their martyrdom.
167
7
14th of the Romans, Marcus Antonius, also called Verus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, reigned for 19 years and 1 month.
e Many people in Gaul died gloriously for the name of Christ; their contests have survived until the present day preserved in books.
1
b These men were the first to have run the empire jointly by law, since until this time, there had been individual Augusti. *
161
2
c It seems that fires were reported in the sky, from east to west, to Lucius Caesar who was sacrificing at Athens.
162
8
f The plague overtook numerous provinces, Rome having been troubled from there.
168
g The Romans fight against the Germans, Marcomannis, Quadis, Sarmatinis, and Dacians.
3
d Vologaesus, king of the Parthians, laid waste the Roman provinces near to him.
163
237th Olympiad
2180 4
e The orator Fronto, who instructed Marcus Antoninus Verus in Latin studies, is considered notable. *
164
h Soter received the 11th episcopate of the Roman church for 8 years.
9
i Theophilus is ordained as the th bishop of Antioch, of whom many works of ingenuity are still extant.
169
f Seleucia in Assyria captured together with 300,000 men by the Romans. *
236th Olympiad
k The emperor Lucius, while sitting with his brother in a carriage, died of apoplexy in the ninth, or, as some think, in the eleventh year of his reign between Concordia and Altinus. (*)
5
g At Pisa, the philosopher Peregrinus, after a funeral pyre that he had built from timber had been lit, threw himself on it.
165
(1) His 'brother' is Marcus Aurelius.
[288/289]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
10
a Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia, handed over an Apology for the Christians to the emperor Antoninus.
2190 14
of the Divinity once was sent for Pertinax and his army while he was fighting with the emperor in the land of the Quadi and was oppressed with thirst; while on the other hand, thunderbolts fell upon the Germans and Sarmatians, and slew most of them. There is extant a letter of Marcus Aurelius, a most serious emperor, in which it is witnessed that a drought of Germany was finished, perhaps by the prayers of the Christian soldiers, rain having been obtained.
174
b Apollinaris, bishop of Asian Hierapolis, is considered notable.
15
175
11
c Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, is considered important, and Pinytus of Crete, a most eloquent man.
d The false prophecy, which is called the Cataphrygian, had its beginning, from its founder Montanus, with Priscilla and Maximilla the insane seers.
16
176
a Atticus, a philosopher of the Platonist school, is well known.
12
e Tatian the heretic is well known, from whom come the Encratites.
239th Olympiad
17
b Eleutherius receives the 12th episcopate of the Roman Church for 15 years.
177
f Bardaisan, the leader of another heresy, becomes well-known.
c Maximinus is appointed as th bishop of Antioch.
g Oppianus Cilex the poet, who composed the Halieutica with wonderful splendour, is recognised.
d Antoninus makes his son Commodus his colleague in power.
h So great was the pestilence throughout the entire world, that that the Roman army was slaughtered almost to extinction. *
e Antoninus with his son celebrated a triumph over the enemy, whom he had devastated by having a permanent camp at Carnuntum for three years. (*)
238th Olympiad
13
i The emperor Antoninus sometimes personally participated in many of the wars that arose against him, sometimes he appointed very noble commanders. Among them, a rainstorm
18
f The emperors granted much to many, and when they had forgiven the provinces the money that was owed to the exchequer, they instructed that the titles of the debtors should
178
[290/291]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
be burned in the middle of the forum of Rome, and, lest anything of goodness should be lacking, they tempered some rather severe laws with new regulations.
of Jerusalem. After him, the 27th is Antoninus, the 28th Valens, the 29th Dulchianus, the 30th Narcissus, the 31st Dius, the 32nd Germanio, the 33rd Gordius, and the 34th is Narcissus again. So many bishops having been appointed at Jerusalem, we could not discern the dates of each. Because of this these dates were not recorded much from this point until the present day.
7
186
19
179
a Antoninus, after a victory, was so splendid in the presentation of the games that a hundred lions were exhibited at the same time.
8
187
b Commodus is named 'Augustus' by the Senate.
c Smyrna, a city of Asia, was destroyed by an earthquake; for the reconstruction of which, a ten-year moratorium on its tribute was granted.
9
a Lightning destroys the Capitol and a great fire having been caused, the library and also nearby buildings were consumed.
188
d Antoninus died in an illness in Pannonia.
e Julian is chosen by lot as the tenth bishop of the Alexandrian church for ten years.
242nd Olympiad
10
b Demetrius is appointed the 11th bishop of Alexandria for 43 years.
189
15th of the Romans, Commodus reigned for 13 years.
c The emperor Commodus removed the head of the Colossus, and added a head in his own image.
1
f Commodus celebrated a triumph over the Germans. 180
240th Olympiad
2
g The Temple of Serapis at Alexandria burned down. 181
11
d Serapion is ordained the eighth bishop of Antioch.
190
3
h Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, is considered notable.
182
e Commodus kills many of the nobles, and provides the Roman people with notable games.
4
i The baths of Commodus constructed in Rome. 183
2200 5
k Commodus named the month of September after himself. *
184
12
f After a fire had happened at Rome, the palace and temple of the Vestals, together with the larger part of the City, are levelled to the ground.
191
241st Olympiad
6
l Maximus is ordained the 26th bishop
185
[292/293]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
13
a Commodus is strangled in the Vectilian House.
192
a Clement, a presbyter in the Church at Alexandria, and Pantaenus, a Stoic philosopher, are considered our most learned in disputes about doctrine.
243rd Olympiad
16th of the Romans, Aelius Pertinax reigned for 6 months.
3
b Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem and Theophilus of Caesarea, with Polycrates and Bacchylus, bishops of the Asian Province are considered notable.
195
1
b Though he was more than seventy years old, Pertinax, while he was holding the prefecture of the City, was ordered by a decree of the senate to govern the empire.
193
c Victor receives the 13th episcopate of Rome for 10 years, whose modest volumes On Religion are extant.
4
c A question having arisen among the bishops of Asia whether, according to the Law of Moses, Easter ought to be observed on the 14th of the month, Victor, bishop of the City of Rome and Narcissus of Jerusalem, together with Polycrates and many pastors of the churches, issued a letter stating what seemed likely to them, of which a record survives down to our time.
196
d Pertinax refused the pleas of the Senate to call his wife 'Augusta' and his son Caesar, which suffices to show that he himself reigned unwillingly.
e Pertinax is slain in the palace, by the wickedness of Julian the jurist: whom Severus afterwards killed at the Milvian Bridge. (*)
244th Olympiad
5
d The Jewish and Samaritan war happened.
197
17th of the Romans, Severus reigned for 18 years.
6
e Severus defeated the Parthians and the Adiabeni, and slaughtered the Inner Arabs to such an extent that he could make their land into a Roman province. On that account, he was given the surnames Parthicus, Arabicus, and Adiabenicus. (*)
198
2210 2
f Severus was from the town of Leptis in the Province of Tripolitana, and remains to this day the only Emperor the Romans had from Africa. In honor of Pertinax, whom Julianus had slain, he commanded that he be surnamed Pertinax. *
194
g Severus reigned for 6 months of the preceding year.
7
199
8
200
[294/295]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
a While Severus was reigning, Severian Baths were built at Antioch and Rome, and the Septizonium constructed. *
247th Olympiad
17
a Severus dies at York in Britain.
209
18
210
245th Olympiad
18th of the Romans, Antoninus, surnamed Caracalla, son of Severus, reigned for 7 years.
9
b Zephyrinus received the 14th episcopate of the Roman Church, for 17 years.
201
1
b Asclepiades is appointed as the 9th Bishop of Antioch.
211
10 d th persecution c While persecution of the Christians was being carried on, Leonides the father of Origen passed on in the glorious death of martyrdom.
202
2
c While Narcissus is still living, Alexander is ordained 35th Bishop of Jerusalem and rules the Church with him on an equal basis.
212
11
203
2220 12
e Alexander is considered notable on account of his confession of the name of the Lord.
204
h In this year we find a jubilee observed by most, i.e. in the 12th year of Severus and 251st of the city of Antioch.
248th Olympiad
f Clement composes many and various works.
3
d Antoninus was surnamed 'Caracalla' because of a type of clothing, which he had distributed at Rome; and in turn caracallae were called antoninianae from his name. *
213
g Musanus the writer, of our philosophy, is well known.
2230 4
214
246th Olympiad
13
i After Clodius Albinus, who had made himself Caesar in Gaul, had been killed at Lyons, Severus carried the war over to the British provinces: where, so as to make the recovered provinces more secure from barbarian invasions, he drew an earthwork along a 132 mile stretch from sea to sea. (*)
205
5
e Antoninus built the bathhouses that bear his name at Rome. *
215
6
f Antoninus was so desperate with lust that he made his stepmother Julia his wife. *
216
14
206
249th Olympiad
7
g Antoninus is killed between Edessa and Carrae in the 43rd year of his life. (*)
217
15
207
16
k Tertullian the African, son of the proconsular centurion, is celebrated among all the churches for his eloquence. 1 *
208
19th of the Romans, Macrinus reigned for 1 year.
1
h Macrinus, while holding the Praetorian Prefecture, made emperor. *
218
l Origen becomes learned by studies at Alexandria.
(1) A scholion in 'O' reads: "Tertullian was under the rule of Severus the African, 180 years after the Lord." It is not in the same hand as the main text.
[296/297]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
a Philetus is appointed 10th bishop of Antioch.
21st of the Romans, Alexander, son of Mamaea, reigned for 13 years.
b The amphitheatre at Rome burned down during the Vulcanalian Games.
1
a Alexander most gloriously defeated Xerxes, king of the Persians, and he was such a strict reformer of military discipline that he dismissed certain entire legions that were disorderly. *
223
c Abgar 1, a holy man, reigned at Edessa, as Africanus maintains.
d Macrinus is slain in Khirbet-El-Arakah.
2240 2
224
20th of the Romans, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus reigned for 4 years.
251st Olympiad
3
b Urbanus is ordained as 16th bishop of the Roman church, for nine years.
225
1
e Marcus Aurelius, thought to be the son of Antoninus Caracalla, and priest of the temple of Heliogabalus, during his reign lived shamelessly to such a degree, that he overlooked no kind of obscenity. *
219
4
c Ulpian the jurist and counselor of Alexander, is considered most notable. *
226
5
d Alexandrian baths built at Rome. *
227
2
f Callistus received the 15th episcopate of the Roman church for five years.
220
6
e Geminus, priest of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Beryllus, bishop of Arabian Bostra, are considered important writers.
228
g The temple of Heliogabalus built at Rome. *
250th Olympiad
252nd Olympiad
3
h In Palestine Nicopolis, which previously used to be called Emmaus, was founded as a city, the labour of the embassy on its behalf being undertaken by Julius Africanus, the writer of the Chronicle.
221
7
f Zebennus is appointed 11th bishop of Antioch.
229
8
g Origen of Alexandria is considered important.
230
9
h Heraclas is ordained as the 12th bishop of the Alexandrian church for 16 years.
231
4
i Antoninus is slain at Rome, along with his mother Symiasera, in a military uprising. (*)
222
10
i Alexander was uniquely pious towards his mother, and because of this was pleasant to everyone. *
232
(1) Abgar VIII.
[298/299]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
253rd Olympiad
3
a Gordian, while very much a young man, having defeated the Parthian nation, when he was returning home a victor, he was killed by a stratagem of the praetorian prefect Philip not far from Roman soil. (*)
241
11
a Origen moves from Alexandria to Caesarea in Palestine.
233
4
242
2250 12
b Pontianus received the 17th episcopate of the Roman church for five years.
234
5
243
13
c Alexander is slain at Moguntiacum in a military uprising.
235 2260 6
b For Gordian the soldiers build a burial mound, which overlooks the Euphrates River, after his bones had been carried back to Rome. *
244
22nd of the Romans, Maximinus for 3 years.
24th of the Romans, Philip ruled for seven years.
1
d Maximinus was the first emperor chosen by the army from the military, without the authorization of the Senate. *
236
256th Olympiad
1
c Philip makes his son Philip his colleage in power; and he first of all the Roman emperors was a Christian. (*)
245
254th Olympiad
2 f th persecution. e Maximinus carries out a persecution against the priests of the churches.
237
2
d While the Philips were reigning, the millennium of the city of Rome was completed, because of which solemnity innumerable beasts were killed in the great circus and theatrical games celebrated in the Campus Martius, the people staying awake for three days and nights.
246
3
g Maximinus is slain at Aquileia by Pupienus. (*)
238
23rd of the Romans, Gordian 2 reigned for 6 years.
1
h Antherus is ordained as the 18th bishop of Rome, for one month, after whom the 19th, Fabianus for 13 years.
239
3
e The theatre of Pompey and the Hecatonstylon burned down.
247
2
i After Gordian had entered Rome, Pupienus and Albinus who had seized power were slain in the palace. *
240
f 'Athlamos' (600) ran in the contest for the birthday of the city of Rome, and this game has been held for a thousand years. 1
255th Olympiad
4
g Philip constructs the city in
248
(1) The manuscripts contain either 'athalmos' or '600'. The reason is clear: the Greek contained the numeral for 600, and Jerome initially misread it as a proper name, 'Athalmos'. Later he realised the mistake, and corrected it, but some manuscripts derive from uncorrected copies of the text.
(2) There were three Gordians, not one.
[300/301]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
Thrace that bears his name.
himself also crowned with martyrdom. Eight letters of Cyprian to him are extant. (*)
257th Olympiad
5
a Dionysius held the 23rd episcopacy of the church of Alexandria for 17 years.
249
258th Olympiad
6
250
1
a A pestilential sickness seized many provinces of the whole world, and especially at Alexandria and in Egypt, as Dionysius writes, and the book On Mortality by Cyprian is a witness. (*)
253
7
b The older Philip is slain at Verona, the younger at Rome. (*)
251
25th of the Romans, Decius reigned for 1 year, 3 months.
c Decius, from Pannonia Inferior, was born at Budalia. *
b Novatus a presbyter of Cyprian's, coming to Rome, unites Novatian and other confessors to himself, because Cornelius had received penitent apostates. (*)
1 d th persecution d After Decius had killed the Philips, father and son, from hatred of them he launches a persecution against the Christians.
252
c Demetrianus is appointed as the 13th bishop of Antioch.
e Anthony the monk is born in Egypt.
f At Rome the amphitheatre burned down.
2270 2
d Lucius holds the 21st episcopacy of the Roman Church for 8 months. After which Stephen is the 22nd for 3 years. There are extant some letters of Cyprian to both of them. (*)
254
g After Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, had been killed as a martyr at Caesarea of Palestine and Babylas at Antioch, Mazabanus and Fabius are appointed bishops.
e A jubilee, according to most of our people.
f Gallus and Volusianus, when they set out from the City against Aemilianus, who was causing a revolt in Moesia, were killed in Forum Flaminii or, as some believe, at Interamna. (*)
h Decius along with his son is murdered in Abritto.
26th of the Romans, Gallus and Volusianus son of Gallus reigned for two years, four months.
i Cornelius received the 20th episcopate of the Roman church, after the glorious death of Fabianus, for 2 years and was
g Aemilian died in the third month of his usurpation. *
[302/303]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
27th of the Romans, Valerian and Gallienus reigned for 15 years.
Pannonian provinces. *
2280 10
a After Spanish provinces had been seized by the Germans, Tarracon was attacked. The Parthians were holding Mesopotamia, and invaded Syria. *
264
1
a In Rhetia Valerianus was hailed as Augustus by the army. At Rome Gallienus was named Caesar by the Senate. *
255
2
256
261st Olympiad
259th Olympiad
11
b Maximus is ordained as the 14th bishop of the church of Alexandria, for 18 years.
265
b Xystus held the episcopate of the Roman church 23rd for 8 years.
12
c Dionysius is appointed as the 24th bishop of Rome for 12 years.
266
3
c Cyprian, first a rhetorician, then a priest, and finally bishop of Carthage, is crowned with martyrdom. (*)
257
d Odenathus, a decurion of Palmyra, having collected a band of peasants, so slaughtered the Persians that he set up camp at Ctesiphon. (*)
4
d Valerian, after stirring up a persecution against the Christians, is immediately captured by Sapor, the king of the Persians, and there he grows old in miserable slavery. (*)
258
e th persecution, of Valerian
13
e Hymenaeus holds the episcopate of Jerusalem.
267
5
f Paul of Samosata deserted the preaching of everyone, and resuscitated the heresy of Artemon; Domnus is ordained 16th bishop of the Antiochene church in his place.
f Sapor, king of the Persians, lays waste to Syria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia.
14
268
6
g After Valerian had been led captive into Persia, Gallienus restored peace to us.
259
g The Gallic provinces recovered by Postumus, Victorinus and Tetricus. *
260th Olympiad
7
h Paul of Samosata is appointed as the 15th bishop of Antioch.
260
262nd Olympiad
15
h Gallienus is murdered at Milan.
269
8
i While Gallienus was dissipated with every wantonness, the Germans came as far as Ravenna. *
261
28th of the Romans, Claudius reigned for 1 year, 9 months.
9
k After the Gallic provinces had been devastated, the Alamanni crossed into Italy. * l Greece, Macedonia, Pontus, and Asia laid waste by the Goths. The Quadi and the Sarmatae seized
262
i In Alexandria, Bruchium, which had been blockaded for many years, is at last destroyed.
k Claudius defeats the Goths ravaging
[304/305]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
Illyricum and Macedonia; because of them, in the Curia a gold medallion, and in the Capitol a gold statue, were set up for him.
was Corrector of Lucania, and Zenobia grew old in the city with great esteem, and from her today there is a family in Rome that is named 'of Zenobia'.
2
a Claudius dies at Sirmium.
271
4
a Aurelian builds a temple to the Sun and surrounds Rome with stronger walls.
275
b Quintilius the brother of Claudius named Augustus by the Senate; on the 17th day of his reign he is slain at Aquileia. *
b The first games of the sun established by Aurelian.
d 9th persecution c After Aurelian had initiated a persecution against us, a thunderbolt falls next to him and his companions; and not long after, he is slain at Caenophrurium on the old road between Constantinople and Heraclea. (*)
29th of the Romans, Aurelian reigned for 5 years, 6 months.
5
276
1
c Timaeus is ordained as the 17th bishop of the church of Antioch.
272
263rd Olympiad
264th Olympiad. 30th of the Romans, Tacitus reigned for 6 months.
d Tetricus abandoning his army among the Catalauni, Aurelian recovered the Gallic provinces. (*)
e After he had been slain at Pontus, Florian obtained power for 88 days. After he too had been killed at Tarsus,
2
273
1
277
e Zenobia is conquered at Immae, not far distant from Antioch. After her husband had been slain, she was holding the rule of the East. In this struggle, the general Pompeianus -- whose cognomen was 'the Frank' -- fought very vigorously against her. Even today his family persists at Antioch, and Evagrius, very dear to us, is descended from his line. (*)
31st of the Romans, Probus reigned for 6 years, 4 months.
1
f Felix received the 25th episcopate of the Roman church for 5 years.
278
g Probus with great energy restored the Gallic provinces occupied by the barbarians. *
h Start of the 86th jubilee according to the Hebrews
2 i Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea, learned in the teachings of the philosophers, is celebrated for his superlative eloquence.
279
2290 3
f Eusebius, bishop of Laodicaea, is considered notable.
274
k The second year of Probus was year 325 according to the people of Antioch; 402 according to the Tyrians; 324 according to the Laodiceans; 588 according to the Edessans; 380 according to the Ascalonians.
g Tetricus and Zenobia preceded the chariot of Aurelian in a triumph at Rome; after which Tetricus
3
l The insane heresy of the Manichaeans appeared, to the general harm of the human race. 1
280
(1) Latin: Insana Manichaeorum haeresis in commune humani generis malum exorta.
[306/307]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
a Probus permitted the Gauls and Pannonians to have vines, and he gave the Alma and Aureus hills, planted by the army, to be harvested by the provincials. 1 *
Tigris, died by a flash of lightning. (*)
2
a Numerian, as he was being carried along in a litter due to a pain in his eye, was slain by a plot of his father-in-law Aper. The wickedness was only discovered several days later due to the stench of the corpse. (*)
285
265th Olympiad
4
b Cyrillus is appointed 18th bishop of Antioch.
281
b Carinus, defeated in battle at the Margus, is slain. (*)
33rd of the Romans, Diocletian reigned for 20 years.
c Saturninus, the master of the army, began to refound a new city at Antioch: who afterwards is slain at Apamea attempting to take possession of the empire.
1
c Diocletian from Dalmatia, the son of a scribe, after being elected emperor immediately struck Aper in the assembly of the soldiers, swearing that Numerian had been killed without his being involved.
286
5
d Eutychianus received the 26th episcopate of the Church of Rome for 8 months, after which Gaius was 27th for 15 years.
282
2
d Diocletian adopted as co-ruler Maximianus Herculius who, after suppressing a multitude of peasants, to whose faction he gave the name of Bacaudae, restored peace to the Gallic provinces. (*)
287
6
e Probus is murdered in an uprising of the military in a tower, which is called Ferrata, near Sirmium. (*)
283
3
288
f Theonas presided as the 15th bishop of the Alexandrian church for 19 years.
267th Olympiad
4
e After assuming the purple, Carausius occupied Britain. Narsaeus made war in the East. *
289
32nd of the Romans, Carus with his sons Carinus and Numerian, for two years.
f The Quinquegentani 2 infested Africa. *
2300 1
284
g Achilleus seized Egypt. For these reasons Constantius and Galerius Maximianus were adopted into the royal power as Caesars. Constantius was the nephew of Claudius through his daughter, and Galerius was born in Dacia not far from Serdica. And so that Diocletian might be connected to them by marriage, Constantius
266th Olympiad
5
290
g Carus, from Narbonne, when he had taken Cochis and Ctesiphon, the most important cities of the enemy, after all the region of the Parthians had been devastated, while setting up camp besides the
6
291
(1) Eutropii Breviarium Liber Nonus 17: Vineas Gallos et Pannonios habere permisit, opere militari Almam montem apud Sirmium et Aureum apud Moesiam superiorem vineis conseruit et provincialibus colendos dedit.
(2) The Five Tribes.
[308/309]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
married Theodora the stepdaughter of Herculius, from whom afterwards he had six children, the brothers of Constantine; Galerius married Valeria the daughter of Diocletian, after both being obliged to divorce the wives they had. (*)
the church of Jerusalem.
7
292
a After ten years Britain recovered by Asclepiodotus, the praetorian prefect. *
270th Olympiad
268th Olympiad
b Near Langres, 60,000 Alamanni slaughtered by Constantius Caesar. *
8
a Busiris and Coptos rebelling against the Romans, they were razed down to the ground.
293
2310 9
294
16
c Galerius Maximian, defeated by Narses, ran before Diocletian's carriage wearing his purple robes. *
301
10
b The nations of the Carpi and Basternae were resettled on Roman soil. *
295
d Veturius, Master of the Soldiers, persecutes the Christian soldiers, the persecution against us beginning little by little from just that time.
11
c While all the emperors before him were hailed in the manner of a magistrate, and they had nothing more than a purple mantle in addition to a normal dress, Diocletian was the first to order that he should be hailed as a god, and gems to be sewn into his robes and shoes. *
296
e 10th persecution
17
f Galerius Maximian, after he had defeated Narses, and captured his wives, children and sisters, is received by Diocletian with great honour. *
302
g The Baths of Diocletian at Rome and the Baths of Maximian at Carthage made. *
269th Olympiad
12
d Marcellianus received the 28th episcopate of the Roman church.
297
18
h Hermon presided as the 38th bishop of the church of Jerusalem.
303
13
e Alexandria, with the rest of Egypt, cut itself off from Roman authority through the leadership of Achilleus; after a siege of eight months, it was retaken by Diocletian. Therefore, many throughout the whole of Egypt were troubled with heavy proscriptions and exile after those who had emerged as the cause of the revolt had been killed. 1 (*)
298
i Tyrannus is appointed as the 19th bishop of Antioch.
2320 19
k After Theonus, Peter is ordained the 21st bishop of the Church of Alexandria, who later in the ninth year of the persecution accomplished a glorious martyrdom.
304
l A jubilee according to most
14
299
m Diocletian and Maximian Augusti celebrated a triumph at Rome with notable pomp. Before their chariot went the
15
f Zabdas is ordained 37th bishop of
300
(1) This revolt is that of Domitius Domitianus. Several problems arise regarding this event. First, it is Achilleus who alone receives mention for the revolt; Contemporary papyrological evidence shows Achilleus with the title of corrector. Some scholars have suggested two revolts in Egypt. Domitianus, however, had coinage struck in his name, a logical first step in any rebellion; Achilleus has no coin struck in his name. Connected with this first problem, another suggestion has been made that Domitianus and Achilleus are one and the same. More likely is that Achilleus was a sub-commander for Domitianus, though any certain answer is still unclear. A similar problem involves the dating of of the revolt, though Jerome places it in 297 or after, a date supported by the papyrological and numismatic evidence. A third problem is the reason for the revolt. Renewed trouble between the eastern provinces and Sasanian Persia, may have put extra pressure on Egypt; quite possibly some of Diocletian's reforms did not sit well with the upper-class Egyptians.
[310/311]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
wife, sisters and children of Narses, and all the booty, which they had looted from the Parthians.
for 30 years, 10 months. Year of the persecution: 4 *
307
1 a Maxentius, the son of Maximianus Herculius, is named Augustus at Rome by the Praetorian Guard. (*)
2330
a In a horrible earthquake at Tyre and Sidon, many edifices were ruined and an immense number of people were crushed.
b Severus Caesar, sent against Maxentius by Galerius Maximianus, is killed at Ravenna in the second year of his reign.
b In the nineteenth year of Diocletian, during the month of March, in the days of Easter, the churches were destroyed. However in the th year of the persecution, Constantine began to reign.
2 c Licinius made emperor at Carnuntum by Galerius. 5
308
d Maximianus Herculius, detected by his daughter Fausta, because he was preparing a swindle against his son-in-law Constantine, in flight is slain at Marseilles.
c According to the Antiochenes, year 350. st year of the persecution
e Quirinus, bishop of Siscia, is gloriously killed for Christ: for the top of a household quern fastened to his neck, and thrown headlong into a river, he floated for a very long time and while he was being remarked upon by the spectators, lest by his example they should be frightened, hardly praying that he should sink, he obtained it.
271st Olympiad
2 20 d In the second year of the persecution, Diocletian at Nicomedia, and Maximianus at Milan, laid down the purple. (*)
305
e Eusebius is appointed as the 29th bishop at Rome for a period of seven months, after him Miltiades as the 30th bishop holds the church for four years.
272nd Olympiad
3 f Galerius Maximianus dies. 6
309
3
f Maximinus 1 and Severus made Caesars by Galerius Maximian.
306
4 g Silvester is ordained as the 31st bishop of the Church of Rome for 22 years. 7
310
g In the 16th year of his reign Constantius 2 died in Britain at York; after him his son Constantine, born from the concubine Helena, takes possession of the empire. (*)
5 h Maximinus, after a persecution had been carried out against the Christians, when now about to be punished by Licinius, dies at Tarsus. (*) 8
311
i Achillas is ordained as the 17th bishop of the Church of Alexandria.
6 k Maxentius, defeated by Constantine near the Milvian Bridge, dies. 9
312
34th of the Romans, Constantine reigned
(1) Maximinus Daia.
(2) Constantius I Chlorus.
[312/313]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
273rd Olympiad
homousion.
7
a The war against Licinius at Cibalae. 10
313
17
a Constantius, the son of Constantine, appointed Caesar. 323
2330 8
b Macarius is appointed as the 39th bishop of Jerusalem. c Peace restored to us by Constantine. 314
b Licinius, contrary to a solemn pledge, is slain as a private citizen at Thessalonica. *
9
315
10
d Diocletian dies in his villa at Split, not far from Salonae, and, alone of all (the emperors), is declared to be among the gods as a private citizen. (*) 316 2340 18
c Nazarius the rhetor is considered notable. *
324
276th Olympiad
19
d Crispus, the son of Constantine, and Licinius junior, the son of Constantia, the sister of Constantine, and of Licinius, are very cruelly killed.
325
274th Olympiad
11
e Crispus and Constantine, sons of Constantine, and Licinius, the adolescent son of Licinius Augustus, the offspring of Constantine's sister, are appointed Caesars; of these, Lactantius, the most eloquent man of his time, educated Crispus in Latin literature; but he (Lactantius) was in fact a pauper in this life, as he generally lacked even the necessities.
317
20
e The Vicennalia of Constantine held in Nicomedia, and proclaimed at Rome in the following year.
326
12
318
f Until this point Eusebius Pamphili, companion to the martyrs, writes this history, to which we ourselves have appended these things following. *
13
319
21
g In Africa, Arnobius the rhetor is considered important, who when he was in Sicca teaching the youths to declaim, and, being still a pagan, was compelled by dreams to believe, although he had not obtained from the bishop by asking the faith that he had always attacked, he composed the most splendid books against the former religion, and finally, as if with these as offerings, he requested and obtained the covenant of faith.
327
14
320
275th Olympiad
f Licinius expells the Christians from his palace.
g Basileus bishop of Amasia of Pontus is crowned with martyrdom under Licinius.
15
h Alexander is ordained the 18th bishop of the Alexandrian church: it was he who excommunicated Arius the priest from the Church. Arius unites many people to his impiety; a synod of 318 bishops having gathered in the city of Nicaea to refute their perfidy, put and end to all the machinations of the heretics in opposition to the
321
h Constantine, restoring the city of Drepana in Bithynia in honor of the martyr Lucian, who was buried there, named it Helenopolis, from the name of his mother.
16
322
i In Antioch the construction of the Dominicum which
[314/315]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
is called Aureum begun.
25
a Marcus held the 32nd episcopacy of the Church of Rome for 8 months, after whom, Julius was ordained 33rd, for 16 years, 4 months.
331
22
a Constantine kills his wife Fausta.
328
b Donatus is well known, from whom come the Donatists throughout Africa.
b By an edict of Constantine the temples of the gentiles were overthrown.
277th Olympiad
26
c The Romans defeated the Goths in the land of the Sarmatians.
332
c At Antioch following Tyrannum, Vitalis is ordained as the 20th bishop, after whom as 21st Philogonius, to whom succeeded as 22nd Paulinus, after whom as 23rd Eustathius, from whom, when he was forced into exile for the Faith, the Arians got the church (and hold it) until the present day, that is, Eulalius, Eusebius, Euphronius, Placillus, Stephanus, Leontius, Eudoxius, Meletius, Euzoius, Dorotheus, and Meletius again. But I have not sorted out their dates, insofar as I would judge them enemies of Christ rather than bishops.
278th Olympiad
27
d Constans, the son of Constantine, is promoted to the royal power.
333
e An innumerable multitude perish from pestilence and famine in Syria and Cilicia.
2350 28
f The Limigantes Sarmatians, having gathered a force, expelled their masters, who are now called the Argaragantes, onto Roman soil.
334
23
329
g Calocerus revolts in Cyprus and is suppressed.
29
h Constantine and his children sent an honorific letter to Antonius.
335
d Juvencus the presbyter, by nation Spanish, sets forth the Gospels in heroic verse.
i On the Tricennalia of Constantine, Dalmatius is named a Caesar.
e Porphyrius, having sent a notable book to Constantine is released from exile.
30
k The rhetor Pater teaches at Rome with great success.
336
24
f Athanasius is ordained as 19th bishop of Alexandria.
330
l The daughter of the rhetor Nazarius equals her father in eloquence.
m The praetorian prefect Tiberian, an eloquent man, rules the Gallic provinces.
g Constantinople is dedicated by denuding nearly every other city.
n The presbyter Eustathius of Constantinople is well known; by whose industry in Jerusalem, a church
h Metrodorus the philosopher is well known.
[316/317]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
dedicated to the martyrs was constructed.
support of the ruler, Constantius, with exiles and imprisonments and various types of affliction first persecuted Athanasius and then all bishops not of their party.
279th Olympiad
31
a Constantine, baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia at the very end of his life, falls into the dogma of Arius, and from that time until now seizures of churches and discord of the whole world have followed.
337
3
a Constantine, waging war against his brother near Aquileia, is slain at Alsa.
340
280th Olympiad
b While preparing for war against the Persians, Constantine dies at Ancyra in a public villa near Nicomedia at the age of 66; after him his three sons are hailed Augusti from being Ceasars.
4
b Constans fights against the Franks with mixed fortune.
341
c Many cities of the east collapsed in a horrible earthquake.
d Audeus is considered important in Coele-Syria, from whom comes the Audian heresy.
35th of the Romans, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans reigned for 24 years, 5 months, and 13 days.
5
e The Franks subdued by Constans and peace made with them.
342
1
c Ablabius the Praetorian Prefect and many of the nobles slaughtered.
338
f Hermogenes the master of soldiers lynched by the people of Constantinople on account of bishop Paul whom he was banishing by the power of the emperor and the faction of the Arians.
d Sapor, king of Persia, after Mesopotamia had been devastated, beseiged Nisibis for almost two months.
e Dalmatius Caesar, whom his uncle Constantine had left as a colleague in the power of his sons, is murdered by a plot of his cousin Constantius and in a military disturbance.
g The Dominicum Aureum is dedicated in Antioch.
h Macedonius 'the featherer' in place of Paul is substituted as bishop of the Arians; from whom now is the Macedonian heresy.
f James, bishop of Nisibis, is well known, by whose prayers his city was often saved from crisis.
i Because of the cruelty of the prefect Philip, for he was a supporter of Macedonius' party, and due to the plotting of the Arians, Paul is strangled.
2
g From this point the Arian impiety, propped up by the
339
[318/319]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
6
a Maximinus, bishop of the Treveris, is considered important; by whom Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was received honourably, when he 1 obtained punishment from Constantius.
343
instance, as I shall omit others, Nisibis was beseiged and Bizabde and Amida were captured.
a Maximus the 40th bishop of Jerusalem after Macarius dies, after whom the Arians take possession of the church, that is Cyril, Eutychius, Cyril again, Irenaeus, Cyril a third time, Hilarius, Cyril a fourth time. Of these, Cyril had been ordained presbyter by Maximus and thus after his death the episcopate was promised to him by Acacius bishop of Caesarea and other Arians if he would repudiate the ordination of Maximus. He ministered as a deacon in the church. On account of this impiety of priesthood he was compensated by a bribe. He degraded Heraclius, whom the dying Maximus had appointed in his place, from bishop to presbyter, harassing him by various deceits.
2360 7
344
b Sapor, king of the Persians, persecutes the Christians.
c Neocaesaria in Pontus destroyed, except for the church, the bishop and the other people that were found in that very place.
281th Olympiad
8
d Titian, an eloquent man, administers the praetorian prefecture, in the Gallic provinces.
345
9
e Athanasius is returned to Alexandria by a letter of Constans.
346
f Dyrrachium collapsed in an earthquake, and for three days and nights Rome tottered and many cities of Campania were shaken.
282nd Olympiad
g A sea-port constructed in Seleucia of Syria at great expense to the state.
12
b Liberius is ordained 34th bishop of the Roman church, to whom, when he had been driven into exile on account of the faith, all the clergy swore that they would receive no-one else. However when Felix was substituted by the Arians, most perjured themselves and after a year they were ejected with Felix because Liberius, having been conquered by the tedium of exile and subscribing to the heretical depravity, had entered Rome as if a conqueror.
349
h Sapor for three months again besieges Nisibis.
10
i The bishop Eusebius of Emesa, standard-bearer of the Arian faction, composes many and various works.
347
k An eclipse of the sun happened. 2
11
l Nocturnal Persian battle at Singara in which we lost a certain victory by the stupidity of the soldiers. Nor indeed was there any more serious battle out of nine most serious conflicts against the Persians, for
348
13
c After Magnentius had seized the emperorship at Augustodunum, Constans is killed in the thirtieth year of his life not far from
350
(1) Athanasius.
(2) 346AD, Jun. th
[320/321]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
Spain in a camp which is named Helena; on account of this, since the state was thrown into turmoil, Vetranio,at Mursa, and Nepotian, at Rome, became emperors.
whom he had sent to look after the Gallic provinces, ends his life among the Senones with a noose.
a Gennadius the forensic orator, is considered notable at Rome.
a At Rome, the people rebelling against the followers of Magnentius are betrayed by Heraclides the senator.
b The rhetor Minervius of Bordeaux teaches at Rome with great success.
b The head of Nepotian paraded through the city on a pike, and many proscriptions and slaughters of noblemen carried out.
2370 17
c Gallus Caesar, deceived by his cousin Constantius, under whose suspicion he had come because of his outstanding inborn ability, is executed at Histria.
354
14
c The insignia of imperial power taken away from Vetranio by Constantius at Naissus.
351
d Silvanus, having revolted in Gaul, died on the twenty-eighth day.
d Magnentius conquered at Mursa, in which battle the Roman forces were ruined.
e The rhetor Victorinus and my teacher Donatus the grammarian are considered notable at Rome, of whom Victorinus even merited a statue in the forum of Trajan.
e Gallus, cousin of Constantius, made Caesar.
15
f Gallus crushed the Jews, who after killing the soldiers by night had taken possession of arms in order to rebel, with the slaughter of many thousands of men, even up to those of innocent years, and turned over to fire their cities, Diocaesaria, Tiberias and Diospolis, and very many towns.
352
f Paulinus and Rodianus, bishops of the Gallic provinces, driven into exile on account of the faith.
18
g The rhetors Alcimus and Delphidius teach with great success in Aquitania.
355
h Donatus, from whom we have mentioned above that the Donatists took their name, is expelled from Carthage: certain followers of his they also call Montensians from those that first began to have a church at Rome on a hill.
g Some of the nobles of Antioch killed by Gallus.
283rd Olympiad
16 i Jubilee according to the Hebrews h Magnentius of Lugdunum kills himself in the palace by his own hand; and his brother Decentius,
353
i Eusebius bishop of Vercellae, and Lucifer and Dionysius, bishops of the churches of Cagliari and Milan, also
[322/323]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
Pancratius a Roman presbyter and Hilarius a deacon are condemned to exile with distance between them by the Arians and Constantius.
apostle Andrew and evangelist Luke were received from the people of Constantinople with marvellous goodwill.
21
a Nicomedia utterly destroyed by an earthquake; the neighbouring cities partially damaged.
358
a Julian, brother of Gallus, is named Caesar at Milan.
b Paulinus bishop of Treves dies in exile in Phrygia.
19
b Anthony the monk dies in his 150th year in the desert. He was accustomed to recount to many who came to him about a certain man Paul the Theban of wonderful blessings, whose death we have ourselves explained in a brief book.
356
c Evantius, most learned of grammarians, died at Constantinople, in whose place Chrestus is brought from Africa.
22
d Synods held at Ariminum and Seleucia in Isauria, in which the ancient faith of the fathers was condemned, first by the treachery of ten delegates, then by all.
359
10
c Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, by the plotting of Saturninus bishop of Arles and the rest who with him were Arians, having been expelled to Phyrgia for three years, composes books about our religion.
e Honoratus, from being Pretorian Prefect of the Gallic provinces, made the first Prefect of the city of Constantinople.
d The relics of the apostle Timothy brought to Constantinople.
f Gratian, who is now emperor, is born.
e Sarmata, Amatas and Macarius, disciples of Anthony, are considered notable.
g Hilarius, when he had offered a book in his own defence to Constantius at Constantinople, returns to the Gallic provinces.
f Liberius, the Roman bishop, is sent into exile. 1
g Large numbers of the forces of the Alamanni crushed by Julian Caesar at Argentoratum, a city of the Gallic provinces.
h Macedonius is banished from Constantinople.
i Almost every church in the whole world is polluted in the name of 'peace' and by the connivance of the ruler of the Arians.
284th Olympiad
23
k The greatest of churches is dedicated in Constantinople.
20
h Saracens, rushing into the monastery of Blessed Anthony, kill Sarmata.
357
l Meletius of Sebastia, bishop of the Armenians, is transferred to Antioch by Acacius and George the Arian bishops, and after no
i After Constantius had entered Rome, the bones of the
(1) Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus 15.7.6-10.
[324/325]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
great interval of time, when he received the presbyters which had been unfrocked by his predecessor Eudoxius, a most just cause of exile having been endured, he played false by changing faith.
conceded that he might teach despite being a Christian.
a Aemilianus is burned by the vicarius because he had overturned the altars at Dorostorum.
b The church of Antioch was shut and a most serious storm of imminent persecution was quieted by the will of God. For Julian had proceeded into Persia and vowed our blood after a victory to the gods. There he was led into the desert by a certain pretended deserter, when he had lost his apostate army by hunger and thirst and had unadvisedly strayed from the ranks of his own men, he was by chance stabbed in the groin with a lance by a hostile horseman of the enemy and perished in the 32nd year of his life. After which, the following day, Jovian the primicerius of the household troops was made emperor.
a Because of Hilary, Gaul condemns the treacherous trickeries of Ariminum.
285th Olympiad
23
b Constantius II dies at Mopsocrene, between Cilicia and Cappadocia, in the forty-fifth year of his life.
361
36th of the Romans, Julian reigned for 1 year and 8 months
1
c As Julian had been converted to the worship of idols, there was a mild persecution, more swaying than compelling people to have to sacrifice, in which many of our people fell by their own will.
362
d After George, who had been ordained bishop in place of Athanasius by the Arians, had been burned to death because of a revolt of the people, Athanasius is returned to Alexandria.
37th of the Romans, Jovian reigned for 8 months
2380 1
c Jovian, compelled by necessity, handed over Nisibis and a great part of Mesopotamia to Sapor, king of the Persians.
364
e Eusebius and Lucifer are returned from exile, from where Lucifer, having adopted two other confessors, makes Paulinus, the presbyter of bishop Eustathius and who had never polluted himself in the communion of the heretics, bishop in the Catholic part of Antioch.
d The synod of Antioch convened by Melitius and his group, at which, after the homoousian and anomoian theories were rejected, they proclaimed the Macedonian dogma of the homoiousion, midway between them.
2
f When the law had been given that Christians could not be teachers of the liberal arts, Proheresius the Athenian sophist spontaneously gave up his school, although Julian had specially 363
e From indigestion, or the smell of coals, of which he had ordered too many to be burned, Jovian dies at Dadastana 1
(1) On the border between Bithynia and Galatia.
[326/327]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
aged 33. After him Valentinian, tribune of the scutarii, from Pannonia Cibalensis 1, is hailed as Augustus at Nicaea, and takes his brother Valens as co-ruler at Constantinople.
coming together with some people from the supporters of Damasus, very cruel slaughters were committed by both sexes.
a Valens, baptised by Eudoxius, bishop of the Arians, persecutes us.
286th Olympiad
3
b Gratian, the son of Valentinian, made emperor at Amiens.
367
38th of the Romans, Valentinian and Valens reigned for 14 years and 5 months
c Such a great tempest arose at Constantinople that, hail of a wonderful size falling, it killed some men.
1
a Valentinian in another time would have been an exceptional emperor and was similar to Aurelian in his behaviour, except that his undue strictness and a certain frugality were interpreted as cruelty and greed.
365
d Among the Atrabates wool mixed with rain descended from the sky.
e Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, dies.
b Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, composes manifold writings of our religion.
4
f Nicea, which had often before been shaken, was utterly destroyed by an earthquake.
368
2
c An earthquake having occurred throughout the whole world, the shore is invaded by the sea, and falling debris in innumerable cities of Sicily and of many islands, crushed the people.
366
g The rhetor Libanius of Antioch is considered notable.
287th Olympiad
5
h The games restored at Constantinople by Valens.
369
d Procopius, who had usurped power at Constantinople, died nearby in Phrygia and most of the Procopian party was slaughtered and proscribed.
i Athanaric, king of the Goths, after a persecution had been stirred up against the Christians, kills or expels very many from their own homes in to Roman soil.
k Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, dies.
e Damasus is ordained 35th bishop of the Roman Church, and after a not very long interval Ursinus, is appointed bishop by some people, and with his partisans invaded (the church of) Sicininum, in which,
6
l The Church of the Holy Apostles is dedicated in Constantinople.
370
m Great famine in Phrygia.
(1) Cibale.
[328/329]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
a Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari dies, who like Gregory, bishop of the Spanish provinces, and Philo of Libya never involved himself with the Arian depravity.
a Almost eighty thousand Burgundians marched down to the Rhine, which had never occurred before.
b Clearchus, prefect of the city of Constantinople, is well known, by whom the necessary water which was daily awaited with vows is brought to the community.
7 b Maximinus the prefect of the Annona 1, having been ordered by the emperor to investigate wrongdoers, slew many of the nobles of Rome.
371
c Peter is ordained 20th bishop of Alexandria, who after the death of Valens was so easy receiving back the heretics that some people brought in the suspicion that he was accepting bribes.
c Valentinus crushed in Britain, of which he had before taken possession as a usurper.
d A presbyter of Sirmium is very unjustly beheaded because he refused to betray Octavianus that was hiding at his house from the proconsul.
2390 10 d Melania, noblest of Roman women, and daughter of the sometime consul Marcellinus, at that time having left behind her only son, the urban praetor, sailed to Jerusalem, where she was such a miracle of virtue and especially of humility, that she received the name of Thecla. 2
374
8 e Didymus the Alexandrian writes many commentaries about our dogma using secretaries. He had been deprived of his sight after the th year of his life and was actually ignorant of first principles of writing.
372
e After the tardy death of Auxentius, Ambrosius of Milan is appointed bishop, and everybody in Italy is converted to the right faith.
f Probus, Prefect of the Illyrians, destroyed the provinces that he was ruling by the most iniquitous extractions of tributes, even before they were devastated by the barbarians.
f The priests of Aquileia are considered almost as a chorus of the blessed.
11 g Because in the previous year the Sarmatians had devastated the Pannonian provinces, the same Consuls remained in office.
375
288th Olympiad
9 g Eunomius the disciple of Aetius of Constantinople is well known, from whom comes the Eunomian heresy.
373
h Valentinian dies suddenly at Brigitio from an eruption of blood which is called an 'apoplexy' in Greek. After him Gratian is taken up into power with his brother Valentinian and reigns with his uncle Valens.
h The Saxons slaughtered at Deuso in the land of the Franks.
(1) The grain supply.
(2) Rufinus accused Jerome of deleting this entry from his own copy of the Chronicle after falling out with Melania (the Elder).
[330/331]
Romans
AD
Romans
AD
a Many of the monks at Nitria slaughtered by the tribunes and the soldiers.
a After the Romans had been defeated in combat, the Goths are spread out in Thrace.
b Valens made a law that monks must do military service, and ordered that any who did not want to should be beaten to death with their staves.
14 b Valens, forced to leave Antioch, in tardy penitence recalls our people from exile.
378
12
c Theodosius, father of the Theodosius who was later Emperor, and many nobles slain.
376
15 c Lamentable war in Thrace, in which the Roman legions, lacking the protection of horse, were surrounded by the Goths and slaughtered to extinction: the emperor Valens himself, when wounded by an arrow, fled and because of the severe pain often almost fell from his horse, was carried off to a certain farm cottage, and after being pursued there by the barbarians and the house set on fire, he did not even obtain burial.
d From the founding of the City until the end of this work there are 1131 years, in this manner:
under kings,
240 years
under consuls,
464 years
under Augusti and Caesars,
427 years 379
d Photinus dies in Galatia, from whom comes the Judaizing teaching of the Photinians. 1
e Basil of Caesarea, Bishop of Cappadocia, is considered important, who ruined many good qualities of continence and ingenuity by the one failing of pride.
289th Olympiad
13
f About 30,000 Alamanni laid low by Gratian's army at Argentaria, a town of the Gauls.
377
g The monks Florentinus, Bonosus, and Rufinus are considered notable, of whom Florentinus was so merciful to the needy that he was called by the crowd "Father of the Poor".
h The nation of the Huns devastate the Goths, who, having been received by the Romans without surrender of arms, were driven by hunger to have to rebel because of the greed of general Maximus. 2
(1) Jerome, like many heresiologists, always associates Photinus with Sabellius, Paul of Samosata and Judaism. He wants to show, by this association, that they're all heretics, but does not particularise each of them. Jerome usually explains that the common heresy of Photinus and Judaism is to think that Jesus was just a man who had been adopted by God as his son. Jerome knows that Photinus is not exactly a Monarchianist, but an Adoptianist. Benoît Jeanjean shows how Jerome presents Photinus, Paulus of Samosate and Sabellius in his book: Benoît Jeanjean, "Saint Jérôme et l'hérésie”, Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes, 1999, p. 168-177.
(2) The original manuscript of 'O' ends at this point. A single leaf (f.145) with a brief summary of events follows, in the same hand as the Tertullian scholion noted earlier. After this, the manuscript contains the Chronicle of Marcellinus.
332
All the years are added up until the th consulate of the Emperor Valens and the second of the Emperor Valentinian the younger:
from the 15th year of Tiberius and the preaching of our Lord Jesus Christ:
351 years
from the second year of Darius, King of the Persians, in which period the temple at Jerusalem was restored
899 years
from the first Olympiad, in which time Isaiah was prophesying among the Hebrews
1,155 years
from Solomon and the first building of the Temple
1,411 years
from the capture of Troy, at which time Sampson was among the Hebrews
1,561 years
from Moses and Cecrops, first King of Attica
1,890 years
from Abraham and the reign of Ninus and Semiramis
2,395 years
The whole list from Abraham until the time written above
2,395 years
but from the flood until Abraham there are counted
942 years
and from Adam until the flood
2,242 years
There are altogether from Adam until the 14th year of Valens, that is, until his th consulate and the second of Valentinian
5,579 years
This text was translated and edited by Roger Pearse and friends, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_chronicle_04_latin_prefaces.htm
St. Jerome, Chronicle (2004-5). Preface of Jerome; Preface of Eusebius
Sancti Hieronymi Chronicon. Hieronymi Praefatio; Eusebii praefatio
Eusebius Hieronymus Vincentio et Gallieno suis salutem.
Vetus iste disertorum mos fuit, ut exercendi ingenii causa Graecos libros Latino sermone absolverent, et, quod plus in se difficultatis habet, poemata illustrium virorum, addita metri necessitate, transferrent. unde et noster Tullius Platonis integros libros ad verbum interpretatus est: et cum Aratum jam Romanum hexametris versibus edidisset, in Xenophontis Oeconomico lusit. in quo opere ita saepe aureum illud flumen eloquentiae scabris quibusdam et turbulentis obicibus retardatur, ut qui interpretata nesciunt, a Cicerone dicta non credant.
difficile est enim, alienas lineas insequentem non alicubi excidere; arduum, ut quae in alia lingua bene dicta sunt, eundem decorem in translatione conservent. Significatum est aliquid unius verbi proprietate: non habeo meum quod id efferam, et dum quaero implere sententiam, longo ambitu vix brevis viae spatia consumo. Accedunt hyperbatorum 1 anfractus,dissimilitudines casuum, varietates figurarum; ipsum postremo suum, et, ut ita dicam, vernaculum linguae genus. Si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonat; si ob necessitatem aliquid in ordine, [vel] in sermone mutavero, ab interpretis videbor officio recessisse.
Itaque, mi Vincenti charissime, et tu Galliene, pars animae meae, obsecro, ut quicquid hoc tumultuarii operis est, amicorum, non judicum animo relegatis: praesertim cum et notario, ut scitis, volocissime dictaverim, et difficultatem rei etiam divinorum voluminum instrumenta 2 testentur, quae a LXX Interpretibus edita, non eumdem saporem in Graeco sermone custodiunt. Quam ob rem Aquila et Symmachus et Theodotion incitati, diversum paene opus in eodem opere prodiderunt: alio nitente verbum de verbo exprimere, alio sensum potius sequi, tertio non multum a veteribus discrepante. Quinta autem et sexta et septima editio3, licet quibus censeantur auctoribus, ignoretur: tamen itaprobabilem sui diversitatem tenent, ut auctoritatem sine nominibus meruerint.
Inde adeo venit, ut sacrae litterae minus comptae, et dure sonantes videantur, quod diserti homines interpretatas eas de Hebraeo nescientes, dum superficiem, non medullam inspiciunt, ante quasi vestem orationis sordidam perhorrescant, quam pulchrum intrinsecus rerum corpus inveniant.
Denique quid Psalterio canorius, quod in morem nostri Flacci4, et Graeci Pindari, nunc iambo currit, nunc alcaico personat, nunc Sapphico tumet, nunc semipede ingreditur? Quid Deuteronomii et Isaiae Cantico pulchrius? quid Salomone gravius? quid perfectius Job? Quae omnia hexametris et pentametris versibus, ut Josephus et Origenes scribunt, apud suos composita decurrunt. Haec cum Graeca legimus, aliud quiddam sonant; cum Latine, penitus non [co]haerent.
Quod si cui non videtur linguae gratiam interpretatione mutari, Homerum ad verbum exponat Latinum, -- plus aliquid dicam -- eumdem in sua lingua prosae verbis interpretetur, videbit ordinem ridiculum et poetam eloquentissimum vix loquentem.
Quorsum ista? Videlicet ut non vobis mirum videatur, si alicubi offendimus, si tarda oratio aut consonantibus asperatur, aut vocalibus hiulca vel divisa sit, aut rerum ipsarum brevitate constringitur, cum eruditissimi homines in eodem opere sudaverint: et ad communem difficultatem, quam in omni interpretatione causati sumus, hoc nobis proprium accedat, quod historia multiplex est, habens barbara nomina, res incognitas Latinis, numeros inexplicabiles, virgulas rebus pariter ac numeris intertextas, ut paene difficilius sit legendi ordinem discere, quam ad lectionis notitiam pervenire.
[5 Ut autem manifesto cognoscatur indicio, ad quem numerum historia quaeque pertineat, has distinctiones positas lector advertat, ut, si ad primum numerum regni primitus enotati historia referenda est, primam litteram in explanatione historiae contempletur: et, si quidem eam ex minio viderit, illi tempori applicandam, vel anno sciat, quem suggesserit numerus similiter id est minio figuratus: si vero numerum non puro minio, sed mixto nigro notatum esse perviderit, secundae lineae numero debetur historia: si autem tertio numerorum ordini applicandum est, quod fuerit ascriptum, medium puro minio numerum, et partem reliquam ex solo nigro expressam conspicabitur. quarta numeri linea nihil habebit ex minio, sed indicio erit, quod ipsi historia debeatur, cum minio facta littera in principio enodatione historiae, quae etiam superioribus signis subdenda est, nihilominus apparebit, nullo superius memoratorum signorum in numeris respondere:. sin vero non minio, sed mixtim nigro rubroque littera fuerit expressa, refulgens ex rubro numerus in quintam numerorum lineam poterit adverti; et ita sexta linea numeri et secunda, septima ut tertia designabitur, octava quoque ut quarta apparenti littera bicolori: cum vero nec in numeris, nec in explanatione historiae ullum illorum, quae praediximus, signorum fuerit, nona linea quod annotatum fuerit, vindicavit: non tamen omnes hi modi requirendi sunt necessaria, cum minor est numerus linearum]
Unde praemonendum puto ut, prout quaeque scripta sunt, etiam colorum diversitates serventur, ne quis irrationabili aestimet voluptate oculis tantum rem esse quaesitam et, dum scribendi taedium fugit, labyrinthum erroris intexat. Id enim elucubratum est, ut regnorum tramites, qui per vicinitatem nimiam paene mixti erant, distinctione minii separarentur, et eumdem coloris locum quem prior membrana signaverat, etiam posterior servaret.
Nec ignoro multos fore, qui solita libidine omnibus detrahendi, huic volumini genuinum infigant, quod vitare non potest, nisi qui omnino nil scribit: calumniabuntur tempora,convertent ordinem, res arguent, syllabas eventilabunt, et, quod accidere plerumque solet, negligentiam librariorum ad auctores referent.
Quos cum possem meo jure repercutere, ut si displicet, non legant, malo breviter placatos dimittere, ut et Graecorum fidem, suo auctori assignent, et quae nova inseruimus, de aliis probatissimis viris libata cognoscant. Sciendum etenim est, me et interpretis et scriptoris ex parte officio usum, quia et Graeca fidelissime expressi, et nonnulla quae mihi intermissa videbantur, adjeci in Romana maxime historia, quam Eusebius, huius conditor libri, non tam ignorasse, ut erudit[issim]us, sed ut Graece scribens, parum suis necessariam perstrinxisse, mihi videtur.
Itaque a Nino et ab Abraham usque ad Troiae captivitatem pura Graeca translatio est: a Troia usque ad vicesimum Constantini annum nunc addita, nunc mixta sunt plurima, quae de Tranquillo6, et caeteris illustribus historicis curiosissime excerpsi[mus]: a Constantini autem supra dicto anno usque ad consulatum Augustorum Valentis VI et Valentiniani iterum, totum meum est.
Quo fine contentus, reliquum tempus Gratiani et Theodosii latioris historiae stylo reservavi;non quo de viventibus timuerim libera et vere scribere -- timor enim Dei hominum timorem expellit -- sed quoniam, debacchantibus adhuc in terra nostra Barbaris, incerta sunt omnia.
Eusebii interpretata praefatio.7
Mosen gentis Hebraeae, qui primus omnium prophetarum ante adventum Domini Salvatoris divinas leges sacris litteris explicavit, Inachi fuisse temporibus, eruditissimi viri tradiderunt: ex nostris, Clemens, et Africanus, et Tatianus; ex Judaeis, Josephus, et Justus, veteris historiae monumenta replicantes. Porro Inachus quingentis annis Troianum bellum antecedit: ex ethnicis vero, impius ille Porphyrius in quarto operis sui libro, quod adversum nos casso labore contexuit, post Mosen Semiramim fuisse affirmat, quae apud Assyrios CL ante Inachum regnavit annos. Itaque juxta eum DCCC paene et L annis Troiano bello Moses senior reperitur.
Cum haec ita se habeant, necessarium duxi veritatem diligentius persequi, et ob id in priori libello8 quasi quandam materiam futuro operi omnium mihi regum tempora praenotavi, Chaldaeorum, Assyriorum, Medorum, Persarum, Lydorum, Hebraeorum, Aegyptiorum, Atheniensium, Argivorum, Sicyoniorum, Lacedaemoniorum, Corinthiorum, Thessalorum, Macedonum, Latinorum, qui postea Romani nuncupati sunt.
In praesenti autem, stylo eadem tempora contra se invicem ponens, et singularum gentium annos dinumerans, ut quid cuique coaetaneum fuit, ita curioso ordine coaptavi. Neque me fugit, in Hebraeis codicibus dissonantes aetatum annos inveniri, plusque vel minus, prout interpretibus visum est, lectitari: sequendumque illud potius, quod exemplariorum multitudo in fidem traxit.
Verum utcumque quis volet, computet: reperiet Inachi temporibus, quem primum Argis regnasse aiunt, patriarcham Hebraeorum fuisse Israelem, a quo duodecim Judaeorum tribus Israelis vocabulum sortitae sunt. Semiramin autem et Abraham contemporales fuisse, manifestum est: nam Moses, licet junior supra dictis sit, omnibus tamen, quos Graeci antiquissimos putant, senior deprehenditur, Homero scilicet et Hesiodo, Troianoque bello, ac multo superius, Hercule, Musaeo, Lino, Chirone, Orpheo, Castore, Polluce, Aesculapio, Libero, Mercurio, Apolline, et caeteris diis gentium, sacrisque, vel vatibus, ipsius quoque Jovis gestis, quem Graecia in arce divinitatis collocavit. Hos, inquam, omnes quos enumeravimus, etiam post Cecropem Diphyem primum Atticae regem fuisse convincimus.
Cecropem autem praesens historia Mosi coaetaneum ostendit, et antecedere Troianum bellum annis CCC [/CCCLXXV]. Quod, ne cui dubium videatur, sequens ratio sic probabit:.
quadragesimo secundo anno imperii Augusti CHRISTUS natus [est]; quintodecimo Tiberii anno praedicare orsus est. Si quis igitur, retrorsum annorum supputans numerum, alterum Darii regis Persarum quaerat annum, sub quo templum Jerosolymorum, quod a Babyloniis destructum fuerat, instauratum est, reperiet a Tiberio usque ad Darium annos DXLVIII.
Darii quippe secundus annus LXV olympiadis anno primo fuit, et Tiberii XV in CCI olympiadem incurrit. Fiunt ergo inter Darium et Tiberium olympiades CXXXVII, anni DXLVIII, quadriennio in una olympiade supputato.
Deinde secundo Darii anno LXX desolationis templi annus expletur, a quo usque ad primam olympiadem retrorsum numerantur olympiades LXIV, anni CCLVI; qui similiter supputantur a supradicto desolationis templi anno usque ad L annum Oziae regis Judaeorum, sub quo Isaias et Osee fuerunt.
Itaque prima olympias in Isaiae, et reliquorum incurrit aetatem, qui cum eo prophetaverunt.
Rursum, si a prima olympiade ad superiora tempora et usque ad captivitatem Troiae proveharis, invenies annos CDVI quos et nos in priore opusculo digessimus, et curiosissima Graecorum historia conscribit. Item apud Hebraeos a supra dicto Oziae anno et temporibus Esaiae prophetae, usque ad Samson et tertium annum Labdon Judicis, supputabis annos CDVI. Samson autem est, quem in corporis robore Herculi similem ferunt posteri Judaeorum, et mihi videntur non multum inter se distare tempore, si quidem ambo circa Troiae captivitatem fuerunt.
Post haec iterum ad priora convertere, et, cum CCC tibi et XXIX annos pes retro actus impleverit, Graecorum Cecropem Diphyem et Mosem invenies Hebraeorum. Nam a XLV Cecropis anno usque ad captivitatem Troiae, et ab LXXX aetatis Mosi anno, in quo populum Israhel de Aegypto eduxit, usque ad Labdon, et Samson Judices, computantur anni CCCXXIX.
Itaque sine ulla ambiguitate Moses et Cecrops, qui primus Atheniensium rex fuit, iisdem fuere temporibus.
Porro iste est Cecrops Diphyes indigena, sub quo primum in arce Oliva orta est, et Atheniensium urbs ex Minervae appellatione sortita nomen. Hic primus omnium, Jovem appellavit, simulacra reperit, aram statuit, victimas immolavit, nequaquam istius modi rebus in Graecia umquam visis.
Caetera quoque, quae apud Graecos mira jactantur, posteriora Cecropis annis deprehenduntur; si autem Cecropis, consequenter et Mosi, qui cum Cecrope fuit.
Post hunc enim scribitur diluvium sub Deucalione, incendium sub Phaetonte, Erichthonius Vulcani et terrae filius, Dardanus qui Dardaniam condidit: de quo Homerus:
Quem primum genuit caelesti Jupiter arce; 9
Liberae quoque raptus et Europae, sacra Cereris atque Isidis, delubrum in Eleusina, frumenta Triptolemi, regnum Trois;
Cuius dii natum Ganymedem, ad sidera raptum,
Vina Jovis magni voluerunt fundere mensis. 10
Quo tempore quoque Tantalus et Tityus fuerunt, et Apollo natus est. Nam Latona, Jovis conjux, per Titya fugit, Latonae autem et Jovis Apollo filius, post quos Cadmus Thebas venit,
Qui Semelem genuit, de qua pulcherrima proles,
Liber condignam partu tulit edita frugem. 11
Porro Liber et reliqui quos mox inferemus, post CC annum Cecropis fuerunt; Linus scilicet, et Zetus, et Amphion, Musaeus, Orpheus, Minos, Perseus, Aesculapius, gemini Castores, Hercules, cum quo Apollo servivit Admeto, post quos facta est Troianae urbis eversio: quam Homerus longo sequitur intervallol; Homerus autem Solone et Thalete Milesio, caeterisque, qui cum iis septem Sapientes appellati sunt, multo prior reperitur.
Deinde Pythagoras exstitit, qui se non sapientem, ut priores, sed philosophum, id est, amatorem sapientiae, dici voluit; quem secutus Socrates, Platonem erudivit: a quo famosa in partes philosophia divisa est. horum singulos juxta ordinem sequentis historiae suis locis inseremus.
Igitur Moses cunctos quos supra memoravimus, antecedit: quia aetate Cecropis fuisse monstratus est.
Ab LXXX autem anno Mosi, et egressu Israhelis ex Aegypto, rursum ad superiora conversus, usque ad primum annum Abrahae, reperies annos DV, quos similiter a XLV anno Cecropis usque ad Ninum et Semiramin Assyriorum principes supputabis. Primus quippe omni Asiae, exceptis Indis, Ninus Beli filius regnavit. Itaque manifestum est, Abraham Nini aetate generatum, juxta eum tamen numerum, quem contractiorem editione Vulgata sermo praebet Hebraeus.
Verum incuriositate ne cesses: et cum divinam Scripturam diligenter evolveris, a nativitate Abrahae usque ad totius orbis diluvium, invenies retrorsum annos CMXLII, item a diluvio usque ad Adam, MMCCXLII, in quibus nulla penitus Graeca, nec Barbara, et, ut loquar in commune, gentilis invenitur historia.
Quam ob rem praesens opusculum ab Abraham et Nino usque ad nostram aetatem inferiora tempora persequetur; et statim in principio sui Hebraeorum Abraham, Assyriorum Ninum et Semiramim proponet, quia neque Athenarum adhuc urbs, neque Argivorum regnum nomen acceperat, solis Sicyoniis in Graecia florentibus: apud quos temporibus Abrahae et Nini Europem secundum regnasse ferunt. quod cur etiam nos putemus, ex sequentibus demonstrabitur.
Si enim diligenter enumeres ab ultima aetate Nini, usque ad Troiae captivitatem, invenies annos DCCCXXXIV: item in Sicyone a XXII anno regis Europis, usque ad supradictum tempus, eosdem annos invenies DCCCXXXIV: item apud Aegyptios ab aetate Nini et Semiramidis, quo tempore sextadecima iam dynastia Thebaei Aegyptis imperabant, usque ad vicesimam dynastiam, et regem Aegypti Thuorin, qui ab Homero Polybus vocatur, sub quo etiam Troia capta est, colliguntur etiam supra dicti anni DCCCXXXIV: igitur consequenter uno eodemque tempore in libelli fronte ponimus Abraham, Ninum, Semiramin, Europem, Aegyptiorum Thebaeos: et haec quidem ita se habere, ut praefati sumus, posterior textus ostendet.
Nunc illud in cura est, ut etiam Hebraeorum annos in quatuor tempora dividamus;
ab Abraham usque ad Mosen;
a Mose usque ad primam aedificationem templi;
a prima aedificatione templi usque ad secundam instaurationem eius;
ab instauratione eius usque ad adventum Christi Domini.
A nativitate quippe Abrahae usque ad Mosen et egressum Israhelis ex Aegypto, computantur anni DV: a Mose usque ad Solomonem et primam aedificationem templi, anni CDLXXIX, secundum minorem tamen numerum quem tertius Regnorum liber continet, -- fnam juxta volumen Judicum, supputantur anni DC -- a Solomone vero usque ad instaurationem templi, quae sub Dario Persarum rege facta est, colliguntur anni DXII: porro a Dario usque ad praedicationem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et usque ad quintum decimum annum Tiberii principis Romanorum, explentur anni DXLVIII.
Itaque simul fiunt ab Abraham usque ad XV Tiberii annum, anni MMXLIV:
similiter a Nino et Semiramide usque ad Mosen et Cecropem, anni DV;
a Cecrope usque ad captivitatem Troiae, anni CCCXXIX;
a captivitate Troiae usque ad primam olympiadem, anni CDVI;
a prima olympiade usque ad secundum Darii annum, et instaurationem templi, anni CCLVI;
fa secundo Darii anno et instauratione templi usque ad XV annum Tiberii Caesaris, anni DXLVIII.
Fiunt simul a Nino a Semiramide usque ad XV Tiberii annum, anni MMXLIV, quos et ab Abraham usque ad Tiberium ostendimus supputatos: a Tiberii autem XV anno usque ad decimum quartum annum Valentis12, quo interiit, numerantur anni CCCLI, itaque fiunt omnes anni istius historiae MMCCCXCV.
Et, ne forte longus ordo numerorum aliquid turbationis afferet, omnem annorum congeriem in decadas caecidimus, quas ex singularium gentium historiis congregantes sibi in vicem,fecimus esse contrarias, ut facilis praebeatur inventio, cuius Graeci aetate vel barbari, prophetae, et reges, et sacerdotes fuerint Hebraeorum, item qui diversarum gentium falso crediti dii, qui heroes, quae quando urbs condita, qui de illustribus viris philosophi, poetae, principes, scriptoresque variorum operum exstiterint, et si qua alia digna memoria putavit antiquitas. Quae universa in suis locis summa cum brevitate ponemus.
Footnotes
1. Word-order reversal, for emphasis.
2. instrumenta. Lewis & Short: "II.Trop. A. Of writings... B.Ornament, embellishment: felices ornent haec instrumenta libellos. Ov. Tr. 1,1,9."
3. Jerome is here referring to the parallel translations from Hebrew into Greek in the columns of Origen's Hexapla. The separate columns circulated separately.
4. Horace.
5. This paragraph is a later interpolation. One family of the manuscripts was reformatted by a later scribe, who wrote this paragraph as an explanation of the new format. His system placed all the columns of numbers on the left, and all the text at the right. Which column of numbers the text related to is controlled by colour coding. This paragraph describes the system, albeit obscurely. Manuscript L is of this family, and this translation is provisional, pending a visit to the British Library.
1. number=bright red; first letter of text=bright red
2. number=? (Probably black); first letter of text=mixed red/black
3. number=? (probably bright red); first letter of text=middle bright red, rest black
4. number=black; first letter of text=bright red
5. number=red; first letter of text=mixed red/black
6. Like #2
7. Like #3
8. Like #4, two colour
9. number=black; first letter of text=black
The 'probablies' I get by alternating the colour of the numbers.
6. Suetonius.
7. Translated by St. Jerome from Greek into Latin. The headings in this page are Jerome's.
8. Eusebius' Chronicle is found in Armenian translation in two books. Book 1 is the Chronography and consists of lists of kings and how long they reigned, for various kingdoms. Book 2 is the Chronological Canons, which is the table of dates and events. Jerome only translated book 2, and the two books seem to have circulated separately. Even in the manuscripts of the Armenian version there is evidence of this, since the end of book 1 and the start and end of book 2 are missing. This shows that the 2-book combination is copied from two books which circulated by themselves, since the end of book 1 and start of book 2 should be very well protected in the middle of a volume, if they are together. This preface by Eusebius to book 2 is otherwise lost, being in the missing portion in the Armenian.
9. Homer, Iliad 20.215
10. Homer, Iliad 20.231-235.
11. Homer, Odyssey 11.576-582.
12. Clearly Jerome has altered something here, since Eusebius ended his text in the reign of Constantine. Probably this sentence originally referred to the 20th year of Constantine, and Jerome updated it to the end of his own version, the death of Valens.
All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Transcribed by JMB from the text of Fotheringham (1905). See introduction for details.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_chronicle_05_latin_part .htm
Hieronymi Chronicon pp.16-187
Hieronymi Chronicon pp.16-187
[16/17]
Regnum Assyriorum
Hebraeorum gentis exordium
Regnum Sicyoniorum
Regnum Aegyptiorum
BC
Primus omni Asiae, exceptis Indis, Ninus Beli filius regnavit annis LII. Hujus Nini XLIII anno imperii sui natus est Abraham.
In hujus imperio apud Hebraeos nascitur Abraham, qui cum C esset annorum genuit Isaac Abraham.
In Graecia vero secundus Sicyoniis imperavit Europs annis XLV. Cujus regni XXII anno natus est Abraham.
Porro apud Aegyptios XVI potestas erat quam vocant dynastiam quo tempore regnabant Thebaei annis CXC.
43
a Ninus condidit civitatem Ninum in regione Assyriorum, quam Hebraei vocant Niniven.
b Regnante Nino apud Assyrios, novissimo ejus tempore nascitur Abraham.
1
22
e Nino regnante apud Assyrios, primus Sicyoniis imperavit Aegialeus annis LII a quo Aegialea nuncupata est, quae nunc Peloponnesus vocatur. Post quem secundus, EUROPS, qui et praelatus est titulo.
f Nino regnante apud Assyrios, THEBAEI Aegyptiis imperant.
1
2016
44
2
23
2
45
3
24
3
46
4
25
4
47
5
26
5
2012
48
6
27
6
49
c Zoroastres magus, rex Bactrianorum clarus habetur, adversus quem Ninus dimicavit.
d Abraham natione Chaldaeus, primam aetatem apud Chaldaeos terit.
7
28
7
50
8
29
8
51
9
30
9
10 52
10
31
10
2007
Assyriorum II,
SEMIRAMIS, regnavit annis 42
1
11
32
g Assyriis imperavit uxor Nini Semiramis, de qua innumerabilia narrantur, quae et Asiam tenuit, et propter inundationem aggeres construxit, plurima Babyloniae urbis instaurans.
11
2
12
33
12
3
13
34
13
4
14
35
14
5
15
36
15
2002
6
16
37
16
7
17
38
17
8
18
39
18
1999
[18/19]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
9
19
45
19
1998
20
10
20
46
20
1997
11
21
47
21
12
22
48
22
13
23
49
23
14
24
50
24
Sicyoniorum III, TELCHIN, annis XX.
15
25
1
25
1992
16
26
2
26
17
27
3
27
18
28
4
28
19
29
5
29
30
20
30
6
30
1997
21
31
7
31
22
32
8
32
23
33
9
33
24
34
10
34
25
35
11
35
1982
26
36
12
36
27
37
13
37
28
38
14
38
29
39
15
39
40
30
40
16
40
1977
31
41
17
41
32
42
18
42
1975
[20/21]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
33
43
19
43
1974
34
44
20
44
Sicyoniorum IV,
APIS, annis XXV
a Principium XLI Jubilaei secundum Hebraeos. Jobel autem apud eos quinquagenarius annus vocatur. Itaque juxta supputationem eorum ab Adam ad annum praesentem fiunt anni MM.
b A quo Apia, quae nunc Peloponnesus, prius Aegialea nuncupata.
35
45
1
45
1972
36
46
2
46
37
47
3
47
38
48
4
48
39
49
5
49
50 40
50
6
50
1967
41
51
7
51
42
52
8
52
Assyriorum III,
ZAMEIS, qui et
Ninyas, filius Nini et Semiramidis,
annis XXXVIII.
1
53
9
c Apud Cretam regnavit Cres primus indigena.
53
2
54
10
54
3
55
11
55
1962
4
56
12
d Creta dicta a Crete indigena, quem aiunt unum Curetarum fuisse, a quibus Jupiter absconditus est et nutritus. Hi Gnoson civitatem in Creta condiderunt, et Cybeli matri templum.
56
5
57
13
57
6
58
14
58
7
59
15
59
60 8
60
16
60
1957
9
61
17
61
10
62
18
62
1955
[22/23]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
11
63
19
63
1954
12
64
20
64
13
65
21
65
1952
14
66
22
66
15
67
23
67
16
68
24
68
17
69
25
69
Sicyoniorum V, THELXION, annis. LII.
70 18
70
1
70
1947
19
71
2
71
20
72
3
72
21
73
4
73
22
74
5
74
23
a Abraham cum LXXV esset annorum divino dignus habetur alloquio, et ea repromissione quae ad eum facta est.
b Primus annus Repromissionis Dei ad Abraham.
75
6
d A LXXV anno Abraham usque ad Mosen, et egressum ex Aegypto gentis Hebraeae supputantur anni CDXXX, quorum meminit Paulus ita dicens: "Testamentum confirmatum a Deo, quae post CD et XXX annos facta est lex, non infirmat ad destruendam repromissionem." 1 Ipse quoque in Exodo Moses his congruens loquitur: "Habitatio autem filiorum Israel, qua habitaverunt in Aegypto, et in terra Chanaam ipsi et patres eorum, anni CDXXX." 2
75
1942
24
76
7
76
25
77
8
77
26
78
9
78
27
79
10
79
80 28
80
11
80
1937
29
81
12
81
30
82
13
82
31
83
14
83
32
84
15
84
33
c X annus Repromissionis
85
16
85
1932
34
86
17
86
1931
(1) Galatians 3:17, where Jerome's Vulgate has non irritam facit ad evacuandam promissionem for non infirmat ad destruendam repromissionem.
(2) Exodus 12:40. The stay in Canaan is included in the 430 years in the Septuagint, but not in the Masoretic text (or, apparently, in Jerome s bible).
[24/25]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
35
a Abraham ex ancilla Agar generat Ismael, a quo Ismaelitarum genus, qui postea Agareni, et ad postremum Saraceni dicti.
87
18
87
1930
36
88
19
88
37
89
20
89
90 38
90
21
90
1927
Assyriorum IV,
ARIUS, XXX annis
1
91
22
91
2
92
23
92
3
93
24
93
4
94
25
94
5
b XX annus Repromissionis.
95
26
95
1922
6
96
27
96
7
97
28
97
8
98
29
98
9
99
30
99
100 10
c Cum centenarius esset, Abraham genuit ex libera filium ISAAC, cui supervixit alios annos LXXV.
100
31
100
1917
Hebraeorum Isaac filius Abraham: LX aetatis suae anno generate Jacob.
11
d Primo omnium prophetarum Abrahae verbum Dei, cum in figura apparuisset humana, vocationem gentium pollicetur, quam in nostro tempore sermo Christi deduxit ad finem per Evangelicam in omnes gentes praedicationem.
1
32
101
12
2
33
102
13
3
34
103
14
4
35
104
15
e XXX annus Repromissionis. 5
36
105
1912
16
6
37
106
1911
[26/27]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
17
7
38
107
1910
18
8
39
108
19
9
40
109
110 20
a CX annus Abrahae.
10
41
110
1907
21
11
42
111
22
12
43
112
23
13
44
113
24
14
45
114
25
b XL annus Repromissionis.
15
46
115
1902
26
16
47
116
27
17
48
117
28
18
49
118
29
19
50
119
120 30
c CXX annus Abrahae.
20
51
120
1897
Assyriorum V,
ARALIUS, annis XL
1
21
52
121
Sicyoniorum VI,
AEGYDRUS, annis XXXIV
2
22
1
122
3
23
2
123
4
24
3
124
5
d L annus Repromissionis.
25
4
125
1892
6
26
5
126
7
27
6
127
8
28
7
128
1889
[28/29]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
9
29
8
129
1888
130 10
a CXXX annus Abrahae
30
9
f In Creta regnavit primus Cres indigena, ut quidam volunt. Alii vero supra scriptum tempus vindicant.
130
1887
11
31
10
131
12
32
11
132
13
33
12
133
14
34
13
134
15
b LX annus Repromissionis
35
14
135
1882
16
36
15
136
17
37
16
137
18
38
17
138
19
39
18
139
140 20
c CXL annus Abrahae
40
19
140
1877
21
41
20
141
22
42
21
142
23
43
22
143
24
44
23
144
25
d LXX annus Repromissionis
45
24
145
1872
26
46
25
146
27
47
26
147
28
48
27
148
29
49
28
149
150 30
e CL annus Abrahae
50
29
150
1867
31
51
30
151
32
52
31
152
33
53
32
153
34
54
33
154
1863
[30/31]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Regni Argivorum principium
Aegyptiorum
BC
35
a LXXX annus Repromissionis
55
34
155
1862
Sicyoniorum VII,
THURIMACHUS, annis XLV
36
56
1
156
37
57
2
157
38
58
3
158
39
59
4
159
160 40
b Sexagenario Isaac nascuntur filii gemini: primus Esau, qui et Edom, a quo gens Idumaeorum. Secundus Jacob, qui postea Israel, a quo Israelitae, qui nunc Judaei.
c CLX annus Abrahae
60
5
160
1857
Assyriorum VI, XERXES, qui et Balaneus, annis XXX.
Hebraeorum JACOB filius Isaac usque ad principatum filii Joseph annis CXXI.
His temporibus I apud Argos regnavit INACHUS, annis L.
1
1
6
1
f Inachi filia Io, quam Aegyptii, mutato nomine, Isidem vocant et colunt. A patre Inacho Inachus fluvius apud Argos, a filia Jone Bosphorus nuncupatur.
161
2
2
7
2
162
3
3
8
3
163
4
4
9
4
164
5
d XC annus Repromissionis
5
10
5
165
1852
6
6
11
6
g CASTOR Chronographus de Argivorum regno ita loquitur: "consequenter persequemur reges Argivorum ab Inacho usque in Sthenelantum filium Crotopi, quorum invenitur omne tempus anni CCCLXXXIV."
166
7
7
12
7
167
8
8
13
8
168
9
9
14
9
169
10
e CLXX annus Abraham, Isaac vero LXX.
10
15
10
170
1847
11
11
16
11
171
12
12
17
12
172
13
13
18
13
173
1844
[32/33]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
14
14
19
14
174
1843
15
a C annus Repromissionis, in quo moritur Abraham omnes vivens annos CLXXV.
15
20
15
175
1842
16
16
21
16
176
17
17
22
17
177
18
18
23
18
178
19
19
24
19
179
180 20
b LXXX annus Isaac
20
25
20
f APIS in Aegypto primus Deus putatus est: quem quidam Serapim vocaverunt.
180
1837
21
21
26
21
181
22
22
27
22
182
23
23
28
23
183
24
24
29
24
184
25
c CX annus Repromissionis
25
30
25
185
1832
26
26
31
26
186
27
27
32
27
187
28
28
33
28
188
29
29
34
29
189
190 30
d CX annus Isaac
30
35
30
190
1827
Assyriorum VII,
ARMAMITRES annis. XXXVIII.
Aegyptiorum XVII DYNASTIA, quo tempore regnabant Pastores annis CIII
1
31
36
31
g Reges Aegyptiorum Pastores conjicimus nuncupatos propter Joseph et fratres ejus, qui in principio Pastores descendisse in Aegyptum comprobantur.
1
2
32
37
32
2
3
33
38
33
3
4
34
39
34
4
5
e CXX annus Repromissionis
35
40
35
5
1822
6
36
41
36
6
1821
[34/35]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
7
37
42
37
7
1820
8
38
43
38
8
9
39
44
39
9
200 10
a C annus Isaac
40
45
40
10
1817
Sicyoniorum VIII,
LEUCIPPUS annis LIII
11
41
1
41
11
12
42
2
42
12
13
43
3
43
13
14
44
4
44
14
15
b CXXX annus Repromissionis
45
5
45
15
1812
16
46
6
46
16
17
47
7
47
17
18
48
8
48
18
19
49
9
49
19
210 20
c CX annus Isaac
50
10
50
20
1807
Argis II,
PHORONEUS, annis LX.
21
51
11
1 e Phoroneus Inachi filius et Niobes, primus leges judiciaque constituit. Quidam hujus filiam Nioben arbitrantur. f Horum temporum quasi valde antiquorum Plato in Timaeo meminit, ita dicens: "Et aliquando volens eos provocare in sermones de temporibus antiquis, 1 quae cuique civitati apud veteres, accidissent, de Phoroneo, qui primus hoc nomine appellatus est, et Niobe, et his qui post diluvium fuerunt." 21
22
52
12
2 22
23
53
13
3 23
24
54
14
4 24
25
d CXL annus Repromissionis
55
15
5 25
1802
26
56
16
6 26
27
57
17
7 27
28
58
18
8 28
1799
(1) Plato, Timaeus 22a. Jerome's translation omits anything here corresponding to Plato's le/gein e)pixeirei=n -- "he attempted to say".
[36/37]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
29
59
19
9
29
1798
220 30
a CXX annus Isaac
60
20
10
30
1797
31
61
21
11
31
32
62
22
12
32
33
63
23
13
g Thessalus Graeci filius regnat in Thessalia.
33
34
64
24
14
34
35
b CL annus Repromissionis
65
25
15
35
1792
36
66
26
16
h Niobae primae omnium mulierum mixtus est Jupiter, ut Graeci perhibent, de qua nascitur Apis, quem Serapin cognominant.
36
37
67
27
17
37
38
68
28
18
38
Assyriorum VIII,
BELOCUS annis XXXV.
1
69
29
19
39
230 2
c CXXX annus Isaac
70
30
20
i Thelcisiis et Cariatiis adversus Phoroneum et Parrhasios institit bellum. 1
40
1787
3
71
31
21
41
4
72
32
22
42
5
73
33
23
43
6
74
34
24
44
7
d CLX annus Repromissionis
75
35
25
45
1782
8
76
36
26
46
9
77
37
27
k Ogygus in Attica Eleusinam condidit, quae antiquitus vocabatur Acte, et alias civitates plurimas. Cujus temporibus apud lacum Tritonidem virgo apparuit, quam Graeci Minervam nuncupaverunt.
47
10
e Jacob descendit in Mesopotamiam et servivit apud Laban annis VII. 2
78
38
28
48
11
79
39
29
49
240 12
f CXL annus Isaac
80
40
30
50
1777
13
81
41
31
51
14
82
42
32
52
1775
(1) Parrhasia, -ae. A district in the south of Arcadia, in the Peloponnese. T(h)elcisiis is the Latin for the people under "Telchis" the rd king of Sicyon. Cariatiis is probably the people under Car the son of Phoroneus as already mentioned (Pausanius 1.39.6).
(2) Genesis 29:13-20.
[38/39]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
15
83
43
33
53
1774
16
84
44
34
54
17
a Jacob generat Ruben,
Jacob genuit Simeon,
Jacob genuit Levi,
Jacob genuit Judam, a quo Judaei appellati.
b CLXX annus Repromissionis. 85
45
35
55
1772
18
86
46
36
56
19
87
47
37
57
20
88
48
38
58
21
89
49
39
59
250 22
c CL annus Isaac 90
50
40
60
1767
23
91
51
41
61
24
d Primo anno Joseph; XCII annorum erat Jacob.
92
52
42
62
25
93
53
43
63
Sicyoniorum IX,
MESSAPUS, annis XLVII.
26
94
1
44
64
27
e CLXXX annus Repromissionis. 95
2
45
65
1762
28
96
3
46
66
29
97
4
47
67
30
98
5
48
68
31
99
6
49
69
260 32
f CLX annus Isaac, Jacob vero C. 100
7
50 g Diluvium quod factum est sub Ogyge.
h Messana, quae, et Mamertina conditur.
70
1757
33
101
8
51 71
34
102
9
52
72
35
103
10
53
73
Assyriorum IX,
BALEUS annis LII.
1
104
11
54
74
1753
[40/41]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
2
a CXC annus Repromissionis
105
12
55
75
1752
3
106
13
56
76
4
107
14
57
77
5
b Joseph venundatus a fratribus annum agens XVII.
108
15
58
78
6
109
16
59
79
270 7
c CLXX Isaac annus, Jacob vero CX.
110
17
60
80
1747
Argivorum III,
APIS, annis XXXV
8
111
18
1
g Aiunt hunc Apin esse Serapim: siquidem cum fratrem Aegialeum regem praefecisset Achaiae, ipse cum populo ad Aegyptum navigavit.
81
9
112
19
2
82
10
113
20
3
83
11
114
21
4
84
12
d CC annus Repromissionis
115
22
5
85
1742
13
116
23
6
86
14
117
24
7
87
15
118
25
8
88
16
119
26
9
h Telchines victi Rhodum condiderunt, quae prius Ophiusa vocabatur.
89
280 17
e CLXXX annis Isaac moritur, relinquit filium Jacob habentem annos CXX.
120
27
10
90
1737
18
121
28
11
91
Hebraeorum JOSEPH dux Aegypti, annis LXXX
19
1
29
12
i Memphis in Aegypto ab Ape condita.
92
20
2
30
13
93
21
3
31
14
94
22
f CCX annus Repromissionis
4
32
15
95
1732
23
5
33
16
96
1731
[42/43]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
24
6
34
17
97
1730
25
7
35
18
98
26
8
36
19
99
290 27
a Secundo anno famis ingressus Aegyptum cum filiis suis Jacob, cum a Pharaone interrogaretur, quotum annum ageret, respondit se esse annorum CXXX.
9
37
20
100 1727
28
10
38
21
101
29
11
39
22
102
30
12
40
23
103
Aegyptiorum XVII DYNASTIA Diospolitanorum, annis CCCXLVIII, quorum primus AMASIS annis XXV.
31
13
41
24
1
32
b CCXX annus Repromissionis
14
42
25
2
1722
33
15
43
26
3
34
16
44
27
4
35
17
45
28
5
36
18
46
29
6
300 37
c CXL annus Jacob
19
47
30
7
1717
Sicyoniorum X,
ERATUS, annis XLVI. f Sparta condita est a Sparto filio Phoronei.
38
d L annus Joseph
20
1
31
8
39
21
2
32
9
40
22
3
33
10
41
23
4
34
11
42
e CCXXX annus Repromissionis
24
5
35
12
1712
Argis IV,
ARGUS, annis LXX.
[44/45]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
43
25
6
1
13
1711
44
a Jacob CXLVII aetatis suae anno diem obiit, prophetizans de Christo, et de vocatione gentium.
26
7
2
14
45
27
8
3
15
46
28
9
4
16
310
47
29
10
5
17
1707
48
b LX annus Joseph
30
11
6
18
49
31
12
7
19
50
32
13
8
20
51
33
14
9
21
52
c CCXL annus Repromissionis
34
15
10
22
1702
Assyriorum X,
ALTADAS, annis XXXII.
1
35
16
11
23
2
36
17
12
24
3
37
18
13
25
(Aegypti) CHEBRON, (annis) XIII.
4
38
19
14
1
320 5
39
20
15
2
1697
6
d LXX annus Joseph
40
21
16
3
7
41
22
17
4
8
42
23
18
5
9
43
24
19
6
10
e CCL annus Repromissionis
44
25
20
7
1692
11
45
26
21
8
12
46
27
22
9
13
47
28
23
10
1689
[46/47]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
14
48
29
24
11
1688
330 15
49
30
25
12
1687
16
a LXXX annus Joseph
50
31
26
13
Aegypti, AMENOPHIS, annis XXI
17
51
32
27
e Secundum quorumdam opinionem his temporibus fuit Prometheus, a quo homines factos esse commemorant. Et re vera: cum enim sapiens esset, feritatem eorum et nimiam imperitiam ad humanitatem et scientiam transfigurabat.
1
18
52
33
28
2
19
53
34
29
3
20
b CCLX annus Repromissionis
54
35
30
4
1682
21
55
36
31
5
22
56
37
32
6
23
57
38
33
7
24
58
39
34
8
340 25
59
40
35
9
1677
26
c XC annus Joseph
60
41
36
10
27
61
42
37
11
28
62
43
38
12
29
63
44
39
13
30
d CCLXX annus Repromissionis
64
45
40
14
1672
31
65
46
41
15
( 1)
Sicyoniorum XI,
PLEMNAEUS, annis XXXXVIII
32
66
1
42
16
Assyriorum XI,
MAMYTHUS, annis XXX
1
67
2
43
17
1669
(1) At this point some late manuscripts, including T have this extra entry: "Aegyptiorum reges omnes tunc Pharaones dicebantur, non hoc proprium habentes nomen, sed pro dignitate reges tunc utebantur hoc nomine, sicut et apud nos Imperatores Augusti appellantur. Habebat ergo unusquisque Pharao proprium nomen. Hoc nos ex libris Manethonis sacerdotis Aegyptiorum lectum posuimus."
[48/49]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
2
68
3
44
18
1668
350 3
69
4
45
19
1667
4
a C annus Joseph
70
5
46
20
5
71
6
47
21
Aegypti, MEPHRES, annis XII
6
72
7
48
1
7
73
8
49
2
8
b CCLXXX annus Repromissionis
74
9
50
3
1662
9
75
10
51
4
10
76
11
52
5
11
77
12
53
6
12
78
13
54
7
360 13
79
14
55
8
1657
14
c CX anno Joseph moritur, post cujus interitum Hebraei Aegyptiis servierunt annis CXLIV. Fiunt autem omnes anni, quos Hebraei in Aegypto fecerunt CCXV, qui ab eodem tempore computantur, quo Jacob cum filiis suis descendit in Aegyptum.
80
15
56
9
Hebraeorum servitutis in Aegypto, annis 144.
15
1
16
57
10
16
2
17
58
11
17
3
18
59
12
Aegypti, MISPHARMUTHOSIS, annis XXVI
18
d CCXC annus Repromissionis
4
19
60
4
1652
19
5
20
61
5
20
6
21
62
6
1650
[50/51]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
21
7
22
63
4
1649
22
8
23
64
5
370 23
9
24
65
6
1647
24
10
25
66
7
25
11
26
67
8
26
12
27
68
9
27
13
28
69
10
28
a CCC annus Repromissionis
14
29
70
11
1642
Argis V, CRIASSUS, annis LIV
29
8
30
1
c In Argis primus sacerdotio functus est Callithias Pirantis filius.
12
30
9
31
2
13
Assyriorum XII, MACHALEUS, annis 30
1
10
32
3
14
2
11
33
4
15
380 3
12
34
5
d Atlas frater Promethei praecipuus "Astrologus" dictus est, qui ob eruditionem istius disciplinae etiam coelum sustinere affirmatus est. Euripides autem montem esse altissimum dicit, qui Atlas vocetur.
16
1637
4
13
35
6
17
5
14
36
7
18
6
15
37
8
19
7
16
38
9
20
8
b CCCX annus Repromissionis
17
39
10
21
1632
9
18
40
11
22
10
19
41
12
23
11
20
42
13
24
12
21
43
14
25
1628
[52/53]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
390
13
29
44
15
26
1627
Aegypti, TUTHMOSIS, annis IX.
14
30
45
16
1
15
31
46
17
2
16
32
47
18
3
17
33
48
19
4
Sicyoniorum XII,
ORTHOPOLIS annis LXIII
18
a CCCXX annus Repromissionis
34
1
20
5
1622
19
35
2
21
6
20
36
3
22
7
21
37
4
23
8
22
38
5
24
9
Aegypti, AMENOPHIS, annis XXXI
400 23
39
6
25
c His regnantibus Syrus fuisse perhibetur indigena, ex cujus vocabulo nomen Syria accepit.
1
d Hic est Ammenophis, quem quidam Memnonem putant, lapidem loquentem. 1
1617
24
40
7
26
2
25
41
8
27
3
26
42
9
28
4
27
43
10
29
e Aethiopes ab Indo flumine consurgentes juxta Aegyptum consederunt.
5
28
b CCCXXX annus Repromissionis
44
11
30
6 1612
29
45
12
31
7
30
46
13
32
8
1610
Assyriorum XIII,
SPHAERUS, annis XX
(1) Later manuscripts including T continue: "quippe cujus statua usque ad adventum Christi, sole oriente, vocem dare dicebatur."
[54/55]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
1
47
14
33
9
1609
2
48
15
34
10
410 3
49
16
35
11
1607
4
50
17
36
12
5
51
18
37
13
6
52
19
38
14
7
53
20
39
15
8
a CCCXL annus Repromissionis
54
21
40
16
1602
9
55
22
41
17
10
56
23
42
18
11
57
24
43
19
12
58
25
44
20
420 13
59
26
45
21
1597
14
60
27
46
22
15
61
28
47
23
16
62
29
48
24
17
63
30
49
25
18
b CCCL annus Repromissionis
c Amram genuit Mosen, cum esset annorum LXX.
64
31
50
26
1592
19
65
32
51
27
20
66
33
52
28
Assyriorum XIV,
MAMYLUS annis XXX.
1
67
34
53
29
2
68
35
54
d Epidaurus civitas condita est.
30
1588
Argis VI, PHORBAS, annis XXXV.
[56/57]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum Argivorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
430
3
69
36
1
21
1587
Of Egypt, Orus, for 38 years
4
70
37
2
e Quidam, scribunt Prometheum, et Epimetheum, et Atlantem fratrem Promethei, et Argum cuncta cernentem, et Io filiam Promethei his fuisse temporibus: alii vero aetate Cecropis: nonnulli autem ante Cecropem annis LX, sive XC.
1
1586
5
71
38
3
2
6
72
39
4
3
1584
7
73
40
5
4
8
a CCCLX annus Repromissionis
b X annus Mosis 74
41
6
5
1582
9
75
42
7
6
10
76
43
8
7
1580
11
77
44
9
8
12
78
45
10
f Primus regnavit in Thessalia Aemon.
9
1578
440 13
79
46
11
10
14
80
47
12
g Phorbas Rhodum obtinuit.
11
1576
15
81
48
13
12
16
82
49
14
h Hercules primus fertur Antaeum luctae vicisse certamine.
13
1574
17
83
50
15
14
18
c CCCLXX annus Repromissionis
d XX annus Mosis 84
51
16
15
1572
19
85
52
17
16
20
86
53
18
17
1570
21
87
54
19
i Primus quadrigam junxisse fertur Trochilus.
18
22
88
55
20
19
1568
450 23
89
56
21
20
24
90
57
22
k Xanthus Triopa Lesbon condidit.
21
1566
25
91
58
23
22
26
92
59
24
l In Creta regnavit Cydon.
23
1564
[58/59]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
27
93
60
25
24
1563
28
94
a CCCLXXX annus Repromissionis
b XXX annus Mosis
61
26
25
29
95
62
27
26
1561
30
96
63
28
27
Assyriorum XV SPARETUS annis XL
Sicyoniorum XIII MARATHIUS annis XXX
His temporibus in Acta, quae nunc Attica nuncupatur, primus regnavit CECROPS, qui et DIPHYES, an. L.
1
97
1
29
28
1559
2
98
2
30
29
460 3
99
c XXXV anno Mosis Cecrops regnabat in Attica, a quo usque ad captivitatem Trojae fiunt anni CCCLXXV.
3
31
30
1557
4
100
4
32
1
g A Cecrope usque ad primam olympiadem numerantur reges XVII; principes vero quos mors tantum finiebat, XII, sub quibus apud Graecos multa miranda narrantur.
31
5
101
5
33
2
32
1555
6
102
6
34
3
33
7
103
7
35
4
34
1553
Argis VII,
TRIOPAS annis XLVI
8
104
d CCCXC annus Repromissionis
e XL annus Mosis
8
1
5
35
1552
9
105
9
2
6
h Cecrope regnante, primum in arce oliva orta est, et ex Minervae nomine, quae Graece Athena dicitur, Athenae nuncupatae. Dicebatur autem Cecrops, Diphyes, id est, duabus naturis, sive ob longitudinem corporis, sive idcirco quod cum esset Aegyptius, utramque linguam sciebat, Graecam et Aegyptiacam.
36
10
106
10
3
7
37
1550
11
107
f Moses Aegyptum derelinquens in eremo philosophatur.
11
4
8
38
Aegypti, ACHENCHERES, annis XII
12
108
12
5
9
1
1548
470 13
109
13
6
10
2
14
110
14
7
11
i Primus Cecrops bovem immolans, Jovem appellavit: et Cecropia regio ab eo nuncupata est.
3
1546
15
111
15
8
12
4
16
112
16
9
13
5
1544
[60/61]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
17
113
17
10
14
g Curetes, et Corybantes Cnosson condiderunt: qui modulatam et inter se concinentem in armis saltationem reperere.
6
1543
18
114
a CD annus Repromissionis
b L annus Mosis
18
11
15
7
19
115
19
12
16
8
1541
20
116
20
13
17
9
21
117
21
14
18
h Chaldaei contra Phoenices dimicant.
10
1539
22
118
22
15
19
11
480 23
119
23
16
20
i Musicus Euctaei et Nymphae filius agnoscitur.
12
1537
Athoris, for 9 years
24
120
24
17
21
k Deucalion apud eos regnare orsus, qui circa Parnassum morabantur.
1
25
121
25
18
22
2
1535
26
122
26
19
23
l Deorum judicium Neptuni et Minervae de contentione regionis apud Cecropem actum fuisse confingitur.
3
27
123
27
20
24
4
1533
28
124
c CDX annus Repromissionis
d LX annus Mosis
28
21
25
5
29
125
29
22
26
6
1531
30
126
30
23
27
m JIo Iasi filiae mixtus est Jupiter, qua in bovem, ut dicitur, versa, Bosporus appellatur.
7
Sicyoniorum XIV. MARATHUS, annis XX
31
127
1
24
28
n Cecrops in Euboea Athenas condidit, quas et Diadas nominant: hanc urbem Euboici Orchomenon appellaverunt.
8
1529
32
128
2
25
29
9
Aegypti, CHENCRES, annis XVI 1
490 33
129
3
26
30
1
1527
34
130
4
27
31
o Diluvium quod sub Deucalione in Thessalia, et incendium quod sub Phaetonte factum est.
2
35
131
5
28
32
3
1525
36
132
6
29
33
4
37
133
7
30
34
p In Aethiopia multae pestilentiae locales, ut Plato memorat, fuere.
5
1523
38
134
e CDXX annus Repromissionis f LXX annus Mosis 8
31
35
6
(1) Some manuscripts add: "Iste est Pharao Chencres, qui contradixit per Mosen Deo, atque mari Rubro obrutus est. Post quem regnavit Aegyptiis Acherres Pharao nam Pharao cognomen est dignitatis."
[62/63]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
39
135
9
32
36
7
1521
40
136
10
33
37
8
Assyriorum XVI,
ASCATADES, annis XL
1
137
11
34
38
f A Deucalione Hellene et Pyrrha hi qui prius Graeci, Hellenes nuncupati sunt: et Acte, sub eo Attica vocata.
9
1519
2
138
12
35
39
10
500 3
139
13
36
40
11
1517
4
140
14
37
41
12
5
141
a Moses in Sina monte divino fruitur aspectu
15
38
42
13
1515
6
142
16
39
43
g Corinthus condita, quae prius Ephyra vocabatur.
14
7
143
17
40
44
15
1513
8
144
b CDXXX annus Repromissionis c LXXX annus Mosis 18
41
45
h Secundum nonnullos Io in Aegyptum profecta, et ibi Isis nuncupata, quae nupta postea Telegono, Epaphum genuit.
16
Hebraeorum, Moses LXXX annum agens dux itineris ex Aegypto Hebraeorum gentis efficitur, legem eis in eremo tradens per annos XL.
Aegypti, ACHERRES, annis VIII.
9
1
d Ab hoc loco usque ad Salomonem et aedificationem templi numerantur anni CDLXXX.
19
42
46
i Apollinis Deli templum ab Erysichthone aedificatum.
1
1511
10
2
20
43
47
2
Sicyoniorum XV, ECHYREUS, annis LV
k Hercules cognomento Desinaus in Phoenice clarus habetur: unde ad nostram usque memoriam Cappadocibus et Heliensibus Desinaus adhuc dicitur.
l Ariospagus nomen judicii constitutum.
11
3
1
44
48
3
1509
12
4
2
45
49
4
510 13
5
e Primus apud Hebraeos Pontifex constitutus est Aaron frater Mosis.
3
46
50
m Vitis inventa a Dionyso, sed non Semeles filio.
5
1507
Argis VIII, CROTOPUS, annis XXI. Atheniensium II, CRANAUS, annis IX.
n In Aegypto regnavit Telegonus.
[64/65]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
14
6
4
1 Oris Pastoris filius, septimus ab Inacho. 1
b Cranaus indigena, ex cujus filiae Attidis nomine Attica vocata.
6
1506
15
7
5
2 2
7
16
8
6
3 3
8
1504
Aegypti, CHERRES, annis XV.
17
9
7
4
4
c In Creta regnavit Apteras, qui et urbem condidit.
1
1503
18
10
8
5
5
2
19
11
9
6
6
3
1501
20
12
10
7
7
4
21
13
11
8
8
5
1499
22
14
12
9
9
6
Atheniensium III, AMPHICTYON, annis X
520 23
15
a Moses was in charge of the Jewish nation in the desert.
13
10
1
d Deucalionis filius, Dionysus, verum non ille Semelae filius, cum in Atticam pervenisset, hospitio receptus a Semacho, filiae ejus capreae pellem largitus est.
7
1497
24
16
14
11
2
8
25
17
15
12
3
9
1495
26
18
16
13
4
10
27
19
17
14
5
11
1493
28
20
18
15
6
12
29
21
19
16
7
13
1491
30
22
20
17
8
14
31
23
21
18
9
e Templum Delii constructum ab Erysichthone filio Cecropis.
15
1489
Aegypti, ARMAIS, qui et Danaus, annis V.
f Epaphus filius Io secundae et Jovis, Memphim condidit cum in secunda Aegypto regnaret.
32
24
22
19
10
1
1488
[66/67]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
Atheniensium IV, ERICHTHONIUS, annis L.
580 33
25
a Argivorum Sthenelus. Castoris de Argivorum principibus:
23
20
1
c Lacedaemon condita a Lacedaemone Semelae filio.
2
1487
34
26
24
21
2
3
Argis IX, STENELUS, annis XI.
35
27
25
1
3
d Erichthonius Vulcani et Minervae filius, qui ab Homero Erechtheus vocatur, his regnantibus fuit.
4
1485
36
28
26
2
4
5
Post quem, Ramesses, qui et Aegyptus, annis LXVIII.
37
29
"Cum Stenelum DANAUS expulisset; Argos tenuit, minoresque ejus perseveraverunt usque ad Eurystheum filium Steneli, nepotem Persei, post quem PELOPIDAE imp. susceperunt, primo regnante Atreo."
27
3
5
e Arcas filius Jovis et Callistonis, Pelasgis in dicionem redactis, regionem ipsorum Arcadiam nuncupavit.
1
1483
38
30
28
4
6
2
39
31
29
5
7
3
1481
40
32
30
6
8
4
Assyriorum XVII, AMYNTAS, annis XLV.
f Aegyptus, quae prius Aeria dicebatur, ab Aegypto tunc ibi regnante nomen accepit.
1
33
31
7
9
5
1479
2
34
32
8
10
6
590 3
35
33
9
11
g Dardanus condidit Dardaniam.
7
1477
4
36
34
10
12
8
5
37
35
11
13
h Post Stenelum Argis regnavit Gelanor, quem cum Argivi de imperio pepulissent, regnum Danao tradiderunt.
9
1475
Argis X, DANAUS, annis L.
6
38
36
1
14
i Argos sibi Danaus vindicavit expulsus Aegypto, et eamdem aquis abundare fecit.
10
1474
7
39
37
2
15
11
8
40
b Mors Moysi.
38
3
16
12
1472
[68/69]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
Hebraeorum, post Mosen dux constituitur JESUS, annis XXVII a Huc usque V libri Mosis continent annos MMMDCCXXX secundum LXX Seniorum interpretationem.
b Principium LI Jubilaei secundum Hebraeos.
9
1
c Apud Hebraeos Pontificatum suscepit Eleazar.
39
4
17
e Erichthonius primus quadrigam junxit in Graecia: erat quippe apud alias nationes.
13
1471
10
2
40
5
18
14
11
3
41
6
19
15
1469
12
4
42
7
20
16
550
13
5
43
8
21
f Danaus per L filias L filios Aegypti fratris interfecit, evadente solo Lynceo, qui post eum regnavit. Neque vero multitudo filiorum incredibilis videri debet in Barbaris, cum tam innumerabiles habeant concubinas.
17
1467
14
6
44
9
22
18
15
7
45
10
23
19
1465
16
8
46
11
24
20
17
9
47
12
25
21
1463
18
10
d Jesus successor Moysi terram Palaestinorum Judaeae genti sorte distribuit.
48
13
26
22
19
11
49
14
1
27
g In Creta regnavit Lapis.
23
1461
20
12
50
15
28
24
21
13
51
16
29
25
1459
22
14
52
17
30
h Busiris Neptuni et Lybiae Epaphi filiae filius apud vicina Nili loca tyrannidem exercet, transeuntes hospites crudeli scelere interficiens.
26
560
23
15
53
18
31
27
1457
24
16
54
19
32
28
25
17
55
20
33
29
1455
Sicyoniorum XVI, CORAX, annis XXX.
26
18
1
21
34
i Phoenix et Cadmus de Thaebis Aegyptiorum in Syriam profecti, apud Tyrum et Sidonem regnaverunt.
30
1454
27
19
2
22
35
31
28
20
3
23
36
32
1452
29
21
4
24
37
33
1. The first th century page in the Bodleian manuscript 'O' starts on this line, on f.33r. Folio 32v is part of the 15th century replacement pages, and being in the long lines format does not match very well.
[70/71]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
30
22
5
25
38
e Templum Delphis a Phlegyo incensum.
34
1450
31
23
6
26
39
35
32
24
7
27
40
36
1448
570 33
25
8
28
41
f In Creta regnavit Asterius.
37
34
26
9
29
42
38
1446
35
27
10
30
43
39
Judaeorum I iudex, GOTHONIE, annis XL.
g Europae filiae Phoenicis mixtus est Jupiter, quam postea Asterius Cretensium rex uxorem accipiens, Minoem ex ea et Rhadamanthum et Sarpedonem procreavit.
36
1
a Post mortem Jesu subjectos tenuerunt Hebraeos alienigenae annis 8, qui junguntur Gothonielis temporibus, secundum Judaeorum traditiones.
11
31
44
40
1444
37
2
12
32
45
41
38
3
13
33
46
42
1442
39
4
14
34
47
43
40
5
15
35
48
44
1440
41
6
16
36
49
45
42
7
b Gothoniel judex ex tribu Juda.
17
37
50
46
1438
1
Atheniensium V, PANDION, annis XL.
580 43
8
c Apud Judaeos 2 pontificatum suscepit Phinees.
18
38
1
h Pandion filius Erichthonii, cujus filiae Progne et Philomela.
47
1437
44
9
19
39
2
48
45
10
20
40
3
49
1435
Assyriorum XVIII, BELOCHUS, annis XXV.
i Apud Argos sacerdotio functa est Hypermnestra Danai filia.
1 d Hujus filia Actosa, quae et Semiramis, regnat cum patre annis VII. 11
21
41
4
k Rhadamanthus et Sarpedon reges Lyciorum.
50
1434
2 12
22
42
5
l Raptus Europae.
51
3 13
23
43
6
52
1432
1. This line is the first line of f.33v/f34r in Ms. O, and so marks the start of the full th century portion of the manuscript.
2. In 'O' this reads 'Among the Hebrews', and is in red.
[72/73]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
4
14
24
44
7
53
1431
5
15
25
45
8
a Cadmus regnavit Thebis, ex cujus filia Semele natus est Dionysus, id est, Liber pater, sub quo et Linus Thebaeus musicus fuit.
54
6
16
26
46
9
55
1429
7
17
27
47
10
56
590
8
18
28
48
11
57
1427
9
19
29
49
12
58
10
20
30
50
13
b Melus, et Paphus, et Thasus, et Callista urbes conditae.
59
1425
Sicyoniorum XVII, EPOPEUS, annis XXXV.
Argis XI, LYNCEUS, annis XLI.
c Bithynia condita a Phoenice, quae prius Mariandina vocabatur.
11
21
1
1
14
60
1424
12
22
2
2
15
61
13
23
3
3
16
62
1422
14
24
4
4
17
d Linus e Thebis, et Zethus, et Amphion in musica arte clarescunt.
63
15
25
5
5
18
64
1420
16
26
6
6
19
65
17
27
7
7
20
e Idaei Dactyli his temporibus erant, qui et ferrum repererunt.
66
1418
600 18
28
8
8
21
67
19
29
9
9
22
68
1416
f Amphion et Zethus Thebis regnabant.
Aegypti, MENOPHIS, annis XL.
20
30
10
10
23
g In Dardania regnavit Erichthonius filius Dardani.
1
1415
21
31
11
11
24
h Ea quae de Demetra, quam aiunt esse Isidem deam Aegyptiorum, et Danae, ex qua Perseus nascitur, dicuntur, his sunt gesta temporibus..
2
22
32
12
12
25
3
1413
23
33
13
13
26
4
24
34
14
14
27
5
1411
25
35
15
15
28
6
[74/75]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
Assyriorum XIX, BELLEPARES, annis XXX.
1
36
16
16
29
c Ephyra quae nunc Corinthus vocatur, a Sisypho condita.
7
1409
2
37
17
17
30
d Armonia rapta a Cadmo.
8
610
3
38
18
18
31
9
1407
4
39
19
19
32
e Minos, filius Europae, regnat in Creta. 10
5
40
20
20
33
11
1405
Hebraeorum, AOD, annis LXXX. a Post Gothonielem, Hebraeos habuerunt alienigenae subjectos annis XVIII, qui copulantur temporibus Aod secundum Judaeorum traditiones.
f Cadmea condita est, et Side in Cilicia.
6
1
b Aod judex ex tribu Efrem.
21
21
34
g Eleusinae Celeus regnavit, coaevus Triptolemo, quem Philochorus ait longa navi ad urbes accedentem distribuisse frumenta, et ob id dedisse suspicionem, quod navis ejus serpens pinnatus fuerit: et est figura quae possit recipi.
12
1404
7
2
22
22
35
13
8
3
23
23
36
14
1402
9
4
24
24
37
15
10
5
25
25
38
16
1400
11
6
26
26
39
17
12
7
27
27
40
18
1398
h Pelops apud Argos regnavit annis LIX, a quo Peloponnesus vocata; Atheniensium VI, ERICHTHEUS, annis L.
i Achaia ab Achaeo condita.
620 13
8
28
28 k Pandionis filius, sub quo coepere mysteria. 1
l Fabula Proserpinae, quam rapuit Aedoneus, id est, Orcus, rex Molossorum, cujus canis, ingentis magnitudinis, Cerberus nomine, Pirithoum devoravit, qui ad raptum uxoris cum Theseo venerat, quem et ipsum jam in mortis periculo constitutum adveniens Hercules liberavit, et ob id quasi ab inferis receptus dicitur, ut scribit Philochorus in Attidis libro secundo.
19
1397
14
9
29
29 2
20
15
10
30
30 3
21
1395
16
11
31
31 4
22
17
12
32
32
5
23
1393
18
13
33
33
6
24
19
14
34
34
7
25
1391
20
15
35
35
8
26
[76/77]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
Sicyoniorum XVIII, LAOMEDON, (annis) XL.
21
16
1
36
9
27
1389
22
17
2
37
10
a Dionysus, qui Latine Liber pater, nascitur ex Semele.
28
630
23
18
3
38
11
b Erichthei filiam Orithyiam Boreas Astraei filius Thrax rapuit, quem fabulae ventum confingunt. Sub hoc et mysteria coeperunt.
29
1387
24
19
4
39
12
30
25
20
5
40
13
31
1385
26
21
6
41
14
c Ea quae de Perseo dicuntur, tunc gesta sunt.
32
Argivorum XII, ABAS, annis XXIII.
27
22
7
1
15
33
1383
28
23
8
2
16
d Secundum quorumdam opinionem, hac aetate Phrixus cum Helle sorore sua fugiens insidias novercales visus est per mare vehi ab Ariete velleris aurei. Fuit autem navis ei parata fugienti, cujus insigne Aries erat. Porro Palaephatus affirmat, arietem vocatum Nutritorem, per quem liberatus est.
34
29
24
9
3
17
35
1381
30
25
10
4
18
36
Assyriorum XX, LAMPRIDES, annis XXXII.
1
26
11
5
19
37
1379
2
27
12
6
20
38
640 3
28
13
7
21
39
1377
4
29
14
8
22
40
Aegypti XIX DYNASTIA, quorum primus ZETHUS, annis LV.
e Thebis expulso Cadmo, Amphion et Zethus regnaverunt.
5
30
15
9
23
1
6
31
16
10
24
f Ea quae de Progne et Philomela dicuntur, acciderunt.
2
7
32
17
11
25
3
[78/79]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
8
33
18
12
26
4
1372
9
34
19
13
27
5
10
35
20
14
28
b Bellum, quod sub Eumolpo fuit.
6
1370
11
36
21
15
29
7
12
37
22
16
30
8
1368
650 13
38
23
17
31
c Melampus divinus agnoscitur.
9
14
39
24
18
32
10
1366
15
40
25
19
33
d In Dardania regnavit Tros, a quo Trojani nuncupati sunt.
11
16
41
26
20
34
12
1364
17
42
27
21
35
13
18
43
28
22
36
e Apud Pythium vates prima Phemonoe hexametris versibus futura cecinisse narratur.
14
1362
19
44
29
23
37
15
Argis XIII, PROETUS, annis XVII.
20
45
30
1
38
f Phrygas rexit Tantalus, qui prius Maeones vocabantur.
16
1360
21
46
31
2
39
17
22
47
32
3
40
g Ob raptum Ganymedis, Troi patri Ganymedis, et Tantalo bellum exortum est, ut scribit Phanocles poeta. Frustra igitur Jovis fabula, et raptrix Aquila confingitur.
18
1358
660 23
48
33
4
41
19
24
49
34
5
42
20
1356
25
50
35
6
43
21
26
51
36
7
44
22
1354
27
52
37
8
45
23
28
53
38
9
46
h Tityus convixit Tantalo. Tityonis tempore fuit Latona mater Apollinis, qui cum Hercule servivit Admeto.
i Ea quae de Phrixo et Melicerta dicuntur, sub quo celebrata sunt Isthmia.
24
1352
29
54
39
10
47
25
30
55
40
11
48
26
1350
a a quo Sicyonii nuncupati sunt qui primo Aegialaei vocabantur. Sicyoniorum XIX, SICYON, annis XLV.
Note: In the editions of Fotheringham and Helm, pp.78-9 have 27 lines rather than the 26 of all the other pages. Unfortunately 'O' is a 30-line manuscript and I have no access to any 26-line manuscripts, so cannot tell whether this is intentional or merely an unfortunate error in Fotheringham. I myself did not notice this until most of the pages had been laid out, since I started with the endmost portion, which forced me to repeat this feature. It is perhaps possible that Helm had the same experience and was obliged to follow the pattern for the same reason. No-one who has not laid out 200+ pages of the Chronicle will fully appreciate the impossibility of rectifying such an error at a late stage.
[80/81]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
31
56
1
12
49
27
1349
32
57
2
13
50
a Pelops Hippodamiam duxit uxorem.
28
Assyriorum XXI, SOSARES, annis XX.
Atheniensium VII, CECROPS secundus, annis XL.
670
1
58
3
14
1
b Erichthei frater.
29
1347
2
59
4
15
2
c Perseus adversus Persas dimicavit, Gorgonis meretricis capite desecto, quae propter eximiam pulchritudinem ita spectatores suae mentis impotes reddebat, ut vertere eos putaretur in lapides: Didymus scribit in peregrina historia, et praebet scriptorem ejus.
30
3
60
5
16
3
31
1345
4
61
6
17
4
32
Post quem XIV, ACRISIUS, annis XXXI.
5
62
7
1
5
33
1343
6
63
8
2
6
d Pegasus equus velocissimus cujusdam mulieris, sive ut Palaephatus scribit, Bellerophontis navis fuit.
34
7
64
9
3
7
35
1341
8
65
10
4
8
36
9
66
11
5
9
37
1339
10
67
12
6
10
38
680 11
68
13
7
11
39
1337
12
69
14
8
12
e Cyrene civitas condita est in Libya.
40
13
70
15
9
13
41
1335
14
71
16
10
14
42
15
72
17
11
15
f Ion vir fortis ex suo vocabulo Athenienses Iones vocavit.
43
1333
16
73
18
12
16
44
17
74
19
13
17
g Gesta Persei.
45
1331
18
75
20
14
18
h Dionysus, qui et Liber pater, adversus Indos dimicans, Nysam urbem juxta Indum flumen condidit.
46
19
76
21
15
19
47
1329
20
77
22
16
20
48
[82/83]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Argivorum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
Assyriorum XXII, LAMPARES, annis XXX
690 1
78
23
17
21
c Amphion Thebis regnavit, quem ferunt cantu citharae saxa movisse. Fuerunt autem duro corde, et ut ita dicam, saxei quidam auditores.
49
1327
2
79
24
18
22
50
3
80
25
19
23
51
1325
Hebraeorum, Debbora cum Barach, annis XL.
a Post Aod inditionem Hebraeos redigunt alienigenae annis XX, qui conjunguntur temporibus Debborae et Barach secundum Judaeorum traditiones.
4
1
26
20
24
52
1324
5
2
27
21
25
53
6
3
28
22
26
54
1322
7
4
b Debbora tribus Efrem Barac tribus Nephthalim.
29
23
27
d Secundum quosdam Thebis regnavit Cadmus.
55
Aegypti, RAMSES, annis LXVI.
8
5
30
24
28
1
1320
9
6
31
25
29
e Europa a Cretensibus rapta est navi, cujus fuit insigne Taurus.
2
10
7
32
26
30
3
1318
700 11
8
33
27
31
f Pelops Peloponnesi regnans, Olympiis quoque praefuit, qui postea adversum Ilium arma corripiens, superatur a Dardano.
4
12
9
34
28
32
g Ea quae de Spartis memorantur, quos Palaephatus scripsit, cum proximarum essent regionum, adversum Cadmum subito constitisse, et propter repentinos quasi de terra contractus, et ex omni parte confluentes Spartos vocatos.
5
1316
13
10
35
29
33
6
14
11
36
30
34
7
1314
15
12
37
31
35
8
16
13
38
Argivorum reges defecerunt, qui imperaverunt annis DXLIV usque ad Pelopem, qui regnavit annis LIX, 36
h Post Acrisium, in Mycenas Argivorum imperio reges fuerunt: Perseus, Sthenelus, Eurystheus, Atreus, Thyestes, Agamemnon, Aegistus, Orestes et Tisamenus et Penthilus et Cometes usque ad Heraclidar. descensum.
9
1312
17
14
39
37
10
18
15
40
38
i Midas regnavit in Phrygia.
11
1310
19
16
41
39
12
[84/85]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Mycenarum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
20
17
42
In Mycenas ab arcis imperio translato post Acrisium regnavit Eurystheus filius Stheneli, annis XLV.
40
a Ilium ab Ilo condita.
13
1308
Atheniensium VIII, PANDION, annis XXV.
710 21
18
43
1
b Perseus Acrisio non sponte interfecto migravit ab Argis atque regnavit.
14
1307
22
19
44
2
15
23
20
45
3
16
1305
Sicyoniorum XX, POLYBUS, annis XL.
1
2
24
21
1
3
4
c Laius Chrysippum rapuit.
17
1304
25
22
2
4
5
18
26
23
3
5
6
d Templum in Eleusina aedificatum.
19
1302
27
24
4
6
7
20
28
25
5
7
8
21
1300
29
26
6
8
9
22
30
27
7
9
10
e Quidam his temporibus vindicant gesta Liberi patris, et ea quae de Indis, Lycurgo, Actaeone. et Pentheo memorantur, quomodo adversus Perseum consistens, occiditur in praelio, ait Dinarchus poeta, non rhetor. Qui autem voluerit potest inspicere ipsius Liberi patris apud Delphos sepulcrum juxta Appollinem Aureum. Pingitur autem Liber muliebri et delicato corpore propter mulieres in suo exercitu dimicantes: Nam pariter ad arma viros ac feminas alligabat, ut Philochorus loquitur in secundo Atthidis libro.
23
1298
Assyriorum XXIII, PANNYAS, annis XLV.
720 1
28
8
10
11
24
1297
2
29
9
11
12
25
3
30
10
12
13
26
1295
4
31
11
13
14
27
5
32
12
14
15
28
1293
6
33
13
15
16
29
7
34
14
16
17
30
1291
8
35
15
17
18
31
9
36
16
18
19
32
1289
[86/87]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Mycenarum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
10
37
17
19
20
33
1288
730 11
38
18
20
21
34
12
39
19
21
22
d Miletus condita.
35
1286
13
40
20
22
23
e Europa Agenoris filia, ut in quibusdam legimus, rapitur, quod his congruit, quae de Minoe dicuntur.
36
Hebraeorum, GEDEON, annis XL. a Post Deborram Hebraeos in ditionem redigunt Alienigenae annis 7, qui conjuncti sunt temporibus Gedeonis secundum Judaeorum traditiones.
14
1
21
23
24
37
1284
15
2
22
24
25
38
Atheniensium IX, AEGEUS, Pandionis filius, annis XLVIII.
f Philammon Delphius nobilis habetur, qui primus apud Pythium chorum statuit.
b Gedeon Judex ex tribu Manasse.
g Pandion fugit a Metionidibus passus insidias.
16
3
23
25
1
h Ea quae de Daedalo fabulae ferunt, qui visus est simulacra fecisse moventia: primus enim omnium pedes statuarum a se invicem separavit, aliis conjunctim eos fabricantibus, ut Palaephatus memorat. Nec non quomodo cum filio Icaro Minoem navi fugerit, et propter investigabilem fugam avolasse pennis existimatus sit.
39
1282
17
4
24
26
2
40
18
5
25
27
3
41
1280
19
6
26
28
4
42
20
7
27
29
5
43
1278
740 21
8
28
30
6
44
22
9
29
31
7
45
1276
23
10
30
32
8
46
24
11
31
33
9
47
1274
25
12
c Tyrus condita ante Templum Jerosolymorum an. 240, ut scribit Josephus in III.
32
34
10
48
26
13
33
35
11
49
1272
27
14
34
36
12
i Cyzicus condita.
50
28
15
35
37
13
k Argonautarum historia.
51
1270
29
16
36
38
14
l Atreus et Thyestes post Pelopem Peloponnense imperium diviserunt.
52
30
17
37
39
15
53
1268
[88/89]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Mycenarum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
750
31
18
38
40
16
54
1267
32
19
39
41
17
a Argonautarum navigatio.
55
33
20
40
42
18
b Orpheus Thrax clarus habetur, cujus discipulus fuit Musaeus, filius Eumolpi.
56
1265
Sicyoniorum XXI, INACHUS, annis XLII.
34
21
1
43
19
c Linus magister Herculis omnibus notus efficitur.
57
1264
35
22
2
44
20
58
36
23
3
45
21
d Ea quae de Hypsipyle memorantur in Lemno.
59
1262
Mycenarum, ATREUS et Thyestes, annis LXV.
e Mycenis regnavit EURISTHEUS, annis XL.
37
24
4
1
22
f Ea quae de Sphinge et Oedipode et Argonautis dicuntur, in quibus fuerunt Hercules, Asclepius, Castor et Pollux. Si autem inter Argonautas fuerunt Castor et Pollux, quomodo potest eorum soror Helena credi, quae post multos annos virgo rapitur a Theseo? Sphingam vero, scribit Palaephatus, uxorem Cadmi, propter zelum Harmoniae a viro recedentem contra Cadmios iniisse bellum.
60
1261
38
25
5
2
23
61
39
26
6
3
24
62
1259
40
27
7
4
25
63
760 41
28
8
5
26
64
1257
42
29
9
6
27
65
43
30
10
7
28
66
1255
Aegyptiorum, AMENOPHIS, annis XL.
44
31
11
8
29
1
1254
45
32
12
9
30
2
Assyriorum XXIV, SOSARMUS, annis XIX.
1
33
13
10
31
3
1252
2
34
14
11
32
4
[90/91]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Mycenarum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
3
35
15
12
33
a Minos mare obtinuit et Cretensibus leges dedit, ut Paradius memorat, quod Plato falsum esse convincit.
5
1250
4
36
16
13
34
6
5
37
17
14
35
7
1248
770 6
38
18
15
36
b Thamyris Ammonis filius insignis habetur.
8
7
39
19
16
37
9
1246
8
40
20
17
38
c Hercules consummat certamina, Antaeum interficit, Ilium vastat. Dicitur autem Antaeus terrae filius, quia solorum palaestricae artis certaminum, quae in terra exercentur, scientissimus erat, et ob id videbatur a Terra matre adjuvari. Hydram autem callidissimam fuisse Sophistriam asserit Plato..
10
Hebraeorum, ABIMELECH, annis III, filius Gedeonis
9
1
21
18
39
11
1244
10
2
22
19
40
12
11
3
23
20
41
13
1242
Post quem THOLA, annis XXII
12
1
24
21
42
d Bellum Lapitharum et Centaurorum, quos scribit Palaephatus libro de Incredibilibus primo, nobiles fuisse equites Thessalorum.
14
1241
13
2
25
22
43
15
14
3
26
23
44
16
1239
15
4
27
24
45
17
780 16
5
28
25
46
18
1237
17
6
29
26
47
e Priamus regnavit post Laomedontem.
19
18
7
30
27
48
20
1235
Atheniensium X, THESEUS, annis XXX
f Medaea Colchensis ab Aegeo discedit.
19
8
31
28
1
g Septem qui adversus Thebas pugnaverunt.
21
1234
Assyriorum XXV, MITHRAEUS, annis XXVII.
h Androgeus Athenis dolo interficitur.
1
9
32
29
2
22
1233
[92/93]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Mycenarum Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
2
10
33
30
3
a Ea quae de Minotauro dicuntur, quem Philochorus in secundo Attidis libro scribit, magistrum Minois fuisse Taurum nomine, inhumanum atque crudelem: et quia Minos super mortem Androgei agonem statuerat, praemii nomine pueros Atticos largiens, et ille in agone fortissimus universos in contentione superabat. Tandem factum est, ut a Theseo in palaestra vinceretur, ob quod Athenienses pueri tributaria poena liberati sunt, sicut ipsos quoque Gnosios referre testatur.
23
1232
3
11
34
31
4
24
4
12
35
32
5
25
1230
5
13
36
33
6
26
6
14
37
34
7
27
1228
790 7
15
38
35
8
28
8
16
39
36
9
29
1226
9
17
40
37
10
30
10
18
41
38
11
31
1224
11
19
42
39
12
32
Sicyoniorum XXII, PHAESTUS, annis VIII
12
20
1
40
13
b Theseus Helenam rapuit, quam rursus fratres receperunt, capta matre Thesei, eo peregre profecto.
33
1222
13
21
2
41
14
34
14
22
3
42
15
35
1220
Post quem JAIR, annis XXII, ex tribu Manasse.
c Theseus cum Athenienses prius per regionem dispersos in unam civitatem congregasset, ignominiose ejectus est per signa testarum, eamdem legem primus ipse constituens.
15
1
4
43
16
36
1219
16
2
5
44
17
37
800 17
3
6
45
18
38
1217
18
4
7
46
19
39
19
5
8
47
20
d Minos leges ac jura constituit.
40
1215
Post quem XXIII, ADRASTUS, annis IV
Aegyptiorum, AMMENEMES, annis XXVI
e Philistus scribit, a Zoro et Carthagine, Tyriis, hoc tempore Carthaginem conditam.
20
6
1
48
21
1
21
7
2
49
22
2
[94/95]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Mycenatium Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
22
8
3
50
23
c Hercules Agonem Olympiacum constituit, a quo usque ad primam Olympiadem supputantur anni CDXXX.
3
1212
23
9
4
51
24
4
Sicyoniorum XXIV, POLYPHIDES, annis XXXI.
24
10
1
52
25
d Theseus Athenas profugus derelinquit.
5
1210
25
11
2
53
26
6
26
12
3
54
27
e Bellum Amazonum contra Thebas.
7
1208
810 27
13
4
55
28
8
Assyriorum XXVI, TAUTANES, annis XXXII.
f Apri Calydonii et Meleagri fabula.
1
14
a Sub Tautane rege Assyriorum Troia capta est.
5
56
29
9
1206
2
15
6
57
30
10
Atheniensium XI, MENESTHEUS, [qui et] Peteo, annis XXIII.
3
16
7
58
1
g Minos in Sicilia adversus Daedalum arma corripiens, a filiabus Cocali occiditur.
11
1204
4
17
8
59
2
12
5
18
9
60
3
13
1202
6
19
10
61
4
h Atreus Argis regnat.
14
7
20
11
62
5
i Phaedra Hippolytum amat.
15
1200
8
21
12
63
6
k Hercules in Libya occidit Antaeum.
16
9
22
13
64
7
17
1198
Hebraeorum, JEPHTAE, annis VI. b Post Jair Hebraeos in ditionem redigunt suam Ammanitae, annis XVIII, qui cum temporibus posteriorum Judicum copulantur secundum Judaeorum traditiones.
l Menelaus regnat in Lacedaemone.
820 10
1
14
65
8
m Mycenis imperat Agamemnon annis XXXV, cujus regni XVIII anno Troia capitur.
18
1197
Mycenarum, AGAMEMNON, annis XXXV.
n Interfectorum posteri, qui vocabantur Epigoni, adversus Thebas bellum movent.
[96/97]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Mycenatium Atheniensium
Aegyptiorum
BC
11
2
15
1
9
d Hercules cum in morbum incidisset pestilentem, ob remedium dolorum se jecit in flammas, et sic morte finitus est anno aetatis LII. Quidam autem anno XXX periisse scribunt.
19
1196
12
3
a Jephte in libro Judicum 1 ab aetate Mosis usque ad semetipsum ait supputari annos CCC.
16
2
10
20
13
4
17
3
11
21
1194
14
5
18
4
12
22
15
6
19
5
13
23
1192
Post quem HESEBON annis VII.
16
1
20
6
14
e Alexander Helenam rapuit. Trojanum bellum decennale surrexit: causa mali, quod trium mulierum de pulchritudine certantium praemium fuit, una earum Helenam pastori judici pollicente.
24
1191
17
2
21
7
15
25
18
3
22
8
16
26
1189
Aegypti, THUORIS, annis VII.
19
4
23
9
17
1
830 20
5
24
10
18
2
1187
21
6
25
11
19
3
22
7
26
12
20
f Memnon et Amazones Priamo tulere subsidium.
4
1185
Hebraeorum, LABDON, annis VIII. b Post Hesebon in libro Hebraeorum fertur judex Aelon rexisse populum annis X, qui non habetur apud LXX Interpretes.
23
1
27
13
21
g Mopsus regnavit in Cilicia, a quo Mopsicrene et Mopsistiae.
5
1184
24
2
28
14
22
6
1183
25
3
29
15
23
7
1182
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
16
~~~~
~~~~~
TROIA CAPTA
17
c A captivitate Trojae usque ad primam olympiadem fiunt anni CDVI.
18
TROIA CAPTA
~~~
h Menestheus moritur in Melo regrediens a capta Troja, post quem Athenis regnavit Demophoon.
(1) Judges 11:26.
[98/99]
TROIA
CAPTA
TROIA
CAPTA
a Colligitur omne tempus usque in praesentem diem:
bA primo anno Cecropis, qui primus apud Atticam regnavit, usque ad captivitatem Trojae, et usque ad XXIII annum Menesthei, cujus Homerus meminit, computantur anni CCCLXXV. Similiter a XXXV aetatis Mosis anno, fiunt anni CCCLXXV.
c Thuoris rex Aegypti ab Homero Polybus vocatur, maritus Alcandrae, cujus meminit in Odyssea, dicens, post Trojae captivitatem Menelaum et Helenam ad eum divertisse.
secundum Assyrios
a XLIII regni Nini
anni DCCCXXXV
secundum Hebraeos
a primo anno nativitatis Abraham
anni DCCCXXXV
secundum Sicyonios
a XX et secundo Europis
similiter anni DCCCXXXV
a nativitate vero Mosis
anni CDX
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[100/101]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Atheniensium Primus rex Latinorum post captam Troiam
Aegyptiorum
BC
Assyriorum: reliqui anni Tautanis.
Hebraeorum: reliqui anni Labdon.
Atheniensium XII, DEMOPHOON filius Thesei, annis XXXIII. LATINIS, qui postea Romani nuncupati sunt, post tertium annum captivitatis Troiae, sive, ut quidam volunt, post VIII regnavit AENEAS, annis III.
De tertio tomo Manethonis: Aegypti XX, dynastia Diospolitanorum, annis CLXXVIII.
1
26
4
30
1
2
1181
27
5
31
2
3
Sicyoniorum XXV, PELASGUS, annis XX.
28
6
1
3
4
1179
29
7
2
4
1
c Ante Aeneam, Janus, Saturnus, Picus, Faunus, Latinus in Italia regnaverunt annis circiter CL. *
5
840 30
8
a Post Labdon Hebraeos in ditionem redigunt Alienigenae annis XL, qui copulantur temporibus Judicum posteriorum secundum Judaeorum traditiones.
3
5
2
6
1177
Post quem SAMSON, annis XX.
31
1
4
6
3
d Mycenis regnat Aegisthus.
7
1176
Post quem, II ASCANIUS, annis XXXVIII.
32
2
b Samson fortissimus omnium fuit, ita ut a quibusdam facta ejus gestis Herculis comparentur.
5
7
1
e Lydi mare obtinuerunt. 1
8
1175
Assyriorum XXVII, TAUTEUS, annis XL.
f Mycenis post necem Aegisthi Orestes regnavit annis XV.
1
3
6
8
2
g Ascanius, Aeneae filius Albam urbem.
9
1174
2
4
7
9
3
10
3
5
8
10
4
h Ea quae de Ulysse fabulae ferunt, quomodo trierem Tyrrhenorum Scyllam fugerit, spoliare hospites solitam, scribit Palaephatus in Incredibilium libro I, Sirenas quoque fuisse meretrices, quae deciperent navigantes.
11
1172
4
6
9
11
5
12
5
7
10
12
6
13
1170
6
8
11
13
7
14
7
9
12
14
8
15
1168
850
8
10
13
15
9
16
1. This entry is in black in manuscript 'O'; however all the other entries on rulers of the sea are in red.
2. The asterisk '*' indicates an entry not found in the Armenian translation of Eusebius' original text of the Chronicle, so most likely an addition by Jerome.
[102/103]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Atheniensium Latins
Aegyptiorum
BC
9
11
13
16
10
c Ascanius, derelicto novercae suae regno Lavinii, Albam Longam condidit, et Sylvium Postumum fratrem suum, Aeneae ex Lavinia filium, summa pietate educavit. *
17
1166
10
12
14
17
11
18
11
13
15
18
12
19
1164
12
14
16
19
13
20
13
15
17
20
14
21
1162
14
16
18
21
15
22
15
17
19
22
16
d Pyrrhus Delphis in templo Apollinis ab Oreste occiditur proditione sacerdotis Machaerei: quo tempore quidam Homerum fuisse dicunt.
23
1160
a Quidam ad hujus memoriam servandam balneas Byzantiorum multo post tempore appellatas putant.
Post quem, XXVI, ZEUSIPPUS, annis XXXI.
16
18
1
23
17
24
1159
17
19
2
24
18
25
860 18
20
3
25
19
26
1157
Post quem, HELI Sacerdos annis XL.
b In Hebraeorum libro XL anni inveniuntur; in septuaginta autem interpretatione, XX.
e Mycenis regnavit Tisamenus filius Orestis.
19
1
4
26
20
27
1156
20
2
5
27
21
28
21
3
6
28
22
f Hectoris filii Ilium receperunt, expulsis Antenoris posteris, Heleno eis subsidium ferente.
29
1154
22
4
7
29
23
30
23
5
8
30
24
31
1152
24
6
9
31
25
32
25
7
10
32
26
33
1150
26
8
11
33
27
34
Atheniensium XIII, OXYNTES, annis XII.
g Secundum quosdam Heraclidarum descensus.
27
9
12
1
28
35
1148
870
28
10
13
2
29
36
[104/105]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Atheniensium Latinorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
29
11
14
3
30
b Amazones Ephesi templum incenderunt.
37
1146
30
12
15
4
31
38
31
13
16
5
32
39
1144
32
14
17
6
33
40
33
15
18
7
34
c Agon Lyciorum primus actus.
d Ascanius Julium procreavit a quo familia Juliorum orta, et propter aetatem parvuli, quia necdum regendis civibus idoneus erat, Sylvium Posthumum fratrem suum regni reliquit haeredem. *
41
1142
34
16
19
8
35
42
35
17
20
9
36
43
1140
36
18
21
10
37
44
37
19
22
11
38
e Sylvius Posthumus, quia post mortem patris editus, ruri fuerat educatus, et Sylvii et Posthumi nomen accepit, a quo omnes Albanorum reges Sylvii vocati sunt. *
45
1138
Latinorum III, SYLVIUS Aeneae filius, annis XXIX.
980 38
20
a Castoris chronographi de Sicyoniorum regno: "Exponemus Sicyoniorum reges ab Aegialeo usque ad Zeuxippum, qui omnes regnaverunt annis CMLXII, et sacerdotes Carni sex, qui praefuerunt annis XXXIII, post quos sacerdos constitutus est Charidemus, qui impensas non sustinens fugit."
23
12
1
46
1137
Post quem XIV, APHIDAS, anno I.
f Castoris de regno Atheniensium: "Exponemus autem et Atheniensium reges cognomento Erechtheidas, a Cecrope Diphye usque ad Thymoeten, quorum omne tempus invenitur annos CDXXIX. Post quos suscepit regnum Melanthus Pyliensis Andropompi filius et hujus filius Codrus, qui imperaverunt simul annis LVIII. "
39
21
24
1
2
47
1136
Post quem XV, THYMOETES, annis VIII.
40
22
25
1
3
48
1135
Assyriorum XXVIII, THINAEUS, annis XXX.
1
23
26
2
4
49
1134
2
24
27
3
5
50
3
25
28
4
6
51
1132
4
26
29
5
7
52
5
27
30
6
8
53
1130
[106/107]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Sicyoniorum
Atheniensium Latinorum
Aegyptiorum
BC
6
28
31
7
9
d Erechtheidarum imperio destructo, Atticorum principum regnum ad aliud genus translatum est: cum Thimoeten provocasset ad pugnam Xanthus Boeotius, et Thimoete recusante, Melanthus Pyliensis Andropompi filius suscepisset singulare certamen, ac deinde regnasset. Hinc et Apaturion, id est, fallaciarum solemnitas celebratur: quia victoria fraude processerat.
54
1129
7
29
Reges Sicyoniorum defecerunt, qui regnaverunt ann. 962, post quos Sacerdotes Carni 1 constituti sunt.
8
10
55
Post quem XVI, MELANTHUS, annis XXXVII.
890
8
30
1
11
56
1127
9
31
2
12
57
10
32
3
13
58
1125
11
33
4
14
59
12
34
5
15
60
1123
13
35
6
16
61
14
36
7
17
62
1121
15
37
8
18
63
16
38
9
19
64
1119
17
39
10
20
65
900 18
40
11
21
66
1117
Hebraeorum, SAMUEL et SAUL, annis XL.
a Mortuo Heli sacerdote, Arca testamenti ab alienigenis possidetur: ac deinde in domo Aminadab fuit annos XX.
19
1
b Primus Saul rex Hebraeorum ex tribu Benjamin.
12
22
67
1116
20
2
13
23
68
21
3
14
24
69
1114
22
4
15
25
70
23
5
16
26
71
1112
24
6
17
27
72
25
7
c Prophetabat Samuel.
18
28
73
1110
26
8
19
29
74
(1) Apollo Carneus.
[108/109]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum primus rex
Chorinthiorum primus rex Aegyptiorum
BC
Latinorum IV, AENEAS SYLVIUS, annis XXXI.
b In alia historia reperimus quartum Latinum Sylvium regnasse Laviniae et Melampodis filium, uterinum fratrem Posthumi, et quintum, qui nunc hic quartus ponitur, Sylvium Aeneam Posthumi filium.*
27
9
20
1
75
1108
910 28
10
21
2
76
29
11
22
3
77
1106
30
12
23
4
78
Assyriorum XXIX, DERCYLUS, annis XL.
1
13
a Homerus secundum quorumdam opinionem his fuisse temporibus judicatur. Quanta autem de eo apud veteres dissonantia fuerit, manifestum esse poterit ex sequentibus. Quidam eum, ex quibus Crates, ante descensum Heraclidarum ponunt LXXX annos post bellum Trojanum. Eratosthenes post C annos Trojanae captivitatis. Aristarchus Ionica emigratione, sive post annos C. Philochorus post emigrationem Ionicam sub Archippo Atheniensium magistratu, et post captam Trojam annos CLXXX. Apollodorus Atheniensis CCXL anno eversionis Ilii. Exstiterunt alii, qui modico tempore antequam olympiades inciperent, CD retro annis Trojanae captivitatis eum fuisse putent, licet Archilochus XXIII olympiadem, et quingentesimum Trojanae eversionis annum supputet.
24
5
In Lacedaemone regnavit primus EURYSTHEUS, annis XLII.
Corinthi regnavit primus ALETHIS, annis XXXV. 79
1104
2
14
25
6
80
3
15
26
7
81
1102
4
16
27
8
1
1
82
5
17
28
9
2
2
83
1100
6
18
29
10
3
3
84
7
19
30
11
4
c Heraclidarum descensus in Peloponnesum.
4
85
1098
920 8
20
31
12
5
5
86
9
21
32
13
6
6
87
1096
10
22
33
14
7
7
88
11
23
34
15
8
d Eurystheus et Procles Spartam obtinuerunt.
8
89
1094
12
24
35
16
9
9
90
13
25
36
17
10
10
91
1092
14
26
37
18
11
11
92
Atheniensium XVII, CODRUS Melanthi filius, annis XXI.
15
27
1
19
12
12
93
1090
[110/111]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Chorinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
16
28
2
20
13
13
94
1089
17
29
3
21
14
14
95
930 18
30
4
22
15
15
96
1087
19
31
5
23
16
16
97
20
32
6
24
17
c Iones profugi Athenas se contelerunt.
17
98
1085
21
33
7
25
18
18
99
22
34
8
26
19
19
100
1083
23
35
9
27
20
20
101
24
36
10
28
21
21
102
1081
25
37
11
29
22
d Peloponenses contra Athenas dimicant.
22
103
26
38
12
30
23
23
104
1079
27
39
13
31
24
24
105
Latinorum V, LATINUS SYLVIUS, annis L.
940 28
40
14
1
25
e Incursus in Asiam Amazonum pariter et Cimmeriorum.
25
106
1077
Hebraeorum rex primus, ex tribu Juda DAVID, annis XL.
29
1
a David primus ex tribu Juda regnat apud Hebraeos.
15
2
26
26
107
1076
30
2
16
3
27
27
108
31
3
17
4
28
28
109
1074
32
4
18
5
29
29
110
33
5
19
6
30
30
111
1072
34
6
20
7
31
31
112
35
7
b Hebraeorum pontifex Abiathar clarus habetur
21
8
32
32
113
1070
[112/113]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Chorinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
Post quem, principes, quos mors finiebat: quorum primus MEDON, Codri filius, annis XX
a Peloponnenses contra Athenienses dimicant.
36
8
Prophetabant:
1
9
13
33
114
1069
37
9
Gad
2
10
14
b Codrus juxta responsum se ipsum morti tradens, interimitur bello Peloponnesiaco, in quo Erechtheidarum regnum destructum est, quod CDLXXXVII annos perseveraverat.
34
115
950 38
10
Nathan
3
11
15
35
116
1067
Asaph
Corinthi II, IXION, annis XXXVII.
39
11
4
12
16
1
117
1066
40
12
5
13
17
2
118
Assyriorum XXX, EUPAL
1
13
6
14
18
3
119
1064
2
14
7
15
19
4
120
3
15
8
16
20
5
121
1062
4
16
9
17
21
6
122
5
17
10
18
22
7
123
1060
Lacedaemoniorum II, AGIS, anno I.
6
18
11
19
1
8
124
1059
Post quem, ECHESTRATUS, annis XXXV.
7
19
12
20
1
9
125
1058
960 8
20
13
21
2
c Pelasgi mare obtinuerunt.
10
126
9
21
14
22
3
11
127
1056
[114/115]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Chorinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
10
22
15
23
4
12
128
1055
11
23
16
24
5
13
129
12
24
17
25
6
a Magnesia in Asia condita.
14
130
1053
13
25
18
26
7
15
131
14
26
19
27
8
16
132
1051
15
27
20
28
9
b Mycena condita in Italia, [quae nunc Cumae].
17
133
Atheniensium II, ACASTUS, annis XXXVI.
16
28
1
29
10
18
134
1049
17
29
2
30
11
19
135
970 18
30
3
31
12
20
136
1047
19
31
4
32
13
c Myrena condita.
21
137
20
32
5
33
14
d Ephesus condita ab Androclo.
22
138
1045
21
33
6
34
15
23
139
22
34
7
35
16
24
140
1043
23
35
8
36
17
25
141
24
36
9
37
18
26
142
1041
25
37
10
38
19
27
143
26
38
11
39
20
e Carthago condita est, ut quidam volunt, a Carchedone Tyrio: ut vero alii, a Didone filia ejus post Trojanum bellum annos CXLIII.
28
144
1039
27
39
12
40
21
29
145
980 28
40
13
41
22
30
146
1037
Hebraeorum II, SOLOMON filius David, annis XL.
29
1
14
42
23
f Ionica emigratio, in qua quidam fuisse Homerum scribunt.
31
147
1036
30
2
15
43
24
32
148
31
3
16
44
25
33
149
1034
[116/117]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Chorinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
32
4
17
45
26
34
150
1033
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
Solomon templum in Jerosolymis aedificare coepit, consummavitque opus annis VII.
et egressu Israhelis ex Aegypto usque ad praesentem anni CDLXXX, ut Regnorum liber tertius in testimonium est.
Colligitur autem omne tempus a Moyseo,
33
5
a Secundum tertium librum regnorum a Moyse et egressu Israhelis ex Aegypto usque ad Solomonem et aedificationem templi computantur anni CDLXXX..
A diluvio usque ad Mosem, anni MCDXLVII.
Ab Adam usque ad diluvium, anni MMCCXLII.
Simul omnes, annis MMMMCLXIX.
18
46
27
35
151
1032
34
6
19
47
28
36
152
35
7
20
48
29
37
152
1030
Corinthiorum III, AGELAUS, annis XXXVII.
36
8
21
49
30
1
153
1029
37
9
22
50
31
2
154
Latinorum VI, ALBA SYLVIUS, Sylvii Aeneae filius, annis XXXIX.
990 38
10
23
1
32
3
155
1027
Assyriorum XXXI, LAOSTHENES, annis XLV.
1
11
24
2
33
4
156
1026
2
12
25
3
34
5
157
3
13
26
4
35
6
158
1024
Lacedaemoniorum IV, LABOTES, annis XXXVII.
b Hebraeorum sacerdos Sadoch, VIII ab Aaron, habetur illustris.
4
14
27
5
36 1
1
7
159
1023
5
15
28
6
37 2
8
160
6
16
29
7
38 3
9
161
1021
Note: I have followed the layout in 'O' for the '~~~' and the arrangement on the page of the red text rather than sticking exactly to that in Helm. The '~~~' in the original consist of a decorative pattern of this character, with a dot under and over it (which I cannot show here). The dots are in the other colour to the line.
1. I have chosen here to reproduce a mistake made by the copyist of 'O', where he wrote in 36-38, crossed them out and placed in 1-3. This is a mistake I have made myself while laying out these pages. It shows that the ancient copyist copied the numbers first and then titles were inserted in the gaps, and then smaller text wherever there was room. I can testify that if you work in this sequence, the mistake is a perfectly natural one to make, and indeed an inevitable one.
[118/119]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Chorinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
7
17
30
8
4
10
163
1020
8
18
a Prophetabant:
31
9
5
11
164
9
19
Sadoch,
32
10
6
12
165
1018
1000 10
20
Achias Silonites,
33
11
7
b Quidam Homerum, et Hesiodum his temporibus fuisse aiunt.
13
166
11
21
Sameas.
34
12
8
14
167
1016
12
22
35
13
9
15
168
13
23
36
14
10
16
169
1014
Atheniensium III, ARCHIPPUS, annis XIX.
c Carthago secundum nonnullos conditur a Didone. Alii vero supra scriptum tempus vindicant.
14
24
1
15
11
17
170
1013
15
25
2
16
12
18
171
16
26
3
17
13
19
172
1011
17
27
4
18
14
20
173
18
28
5
19
15
21
174
1009
19
29
6
20
16
22
175
1010 20
30
7
21
17
23
176
1007
21
31
8
22
18
d Tertio mare obtinuerunt Thraces, annis XIX.
24
177
22
32
9
23
19
25
178
1005
In Aegypto, XXI dynastia, regnavit SMENDIS, annis XXVI.
23
33
10
24
20
26
1
1004
24
34
11
25
21
27
2
25
35
12
26
22
28
3
1002
26
36
13
27
23
29
4
27
37
14
28
24
30
5
1000
[120/121]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum
Principium Hebraeorum, qui in Samaria
Athen-
ians
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Chorinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
28
38
Apud Hebraeos, qui in Samaria erant et vocabantur Israel, primus regnavit JEROBOAM, annis XXII.
15
29
25
31
6
999
29
39
16
30
26
32
7
1020 30
40
17
31
27
33
8
997
Hebraeorum III, ROBOAM, annis XVII. a Post mortem Solomonis, seditione orta in gente Judaea, et regno bifariam diviso, in Samaria decem tribubus regnavit Jeroboam. Roboam filius Solomonis regnavit in Jerusalem duabus tribubus sibi subjectis, quae vocabantur Juda, ob reges Judaeorum, qui ex Judae stirpe descenderant, et universa gens Judae nomen sortita est. 1
31
1
1
18
32
28
34
9
996
32
2
2
19
33
29
35
10
Atheniensium IV, THERSIPPUS, annis XLI.
33
3
3
1
34
30
36
11
994
34
4
4
2
35
31
37
12
Corinthiorum IV, PRYMINAS, annis XXXV.
35
5
5
3
36
32
1
13
992
36
6
6
4
37
33
2
14
37
7
7
5
38
34
3
15
990
38
8
8
6
39
35
4
16
b Susachin, rex aegypti contra iudaeos dimicans templum spoliat.
Latinorum VII, AEGYPTUS SYLVIUS, annis XXIV.
c Sylvius Athys, sive Aegyptus, Albae superioris regis filius fuit. *
39
9
9
7
1
36
5
17
988
1030 40
10
10
8
2
37
6
18
Lacedaemoniorum V, DORISTHUS, annis XXIX.
41
11
11
9
3
1
d Samos condita, et Smyrna in urbs modum ampliata.
7
19
986
42
12
12
10
4
2
8
20
43
13
13
11
5
3
9
21
984
(1) I.e. JUDAeorum.
[122/123]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
44
14
14
12
6
4
10
22
983
45
15
15
13
7
5
11
23
Assyriorum XXXII, PIRITIADES, annis XXX.
1
16
16
14
8
6
12
24
981
2
17
17
15
9
7
13
25
Post quem IV, ABIA, annis III.
3
1
18
16
10
8
14
26
979
Post quem PSEUSENNES, annis XLI.
4
2
19
17
11
9
15
1
978
1040 5
3
20
18
12
10
16
2
Post quem V, ASA, annis XLI, iustus.
6
1
21
19
13
11
17
3
976
7
2
a Hebraeorum pontifex maximus Abimelech illustris habetur.
22
20
14
12
18
4
Hebraeorum Israel II, NADAB, annis II.
Prophetabant Achia,
Samaeas,
8
3
et is qui fuerat apud altare Samariae, 1
21
15
13
18
5
974
9
4
Hieu,
2
22
16
14
19
6
Joede Post quem III, BAASA, annis XXIV.
c Thraces Bebryciam, quae nunc Bithynia vocatur, transeuntes a Strymone, occupaverunt.
Azarias, qui et Addo,
b Principium LXI Jubelei secundum Hebraeos 10
5
Anani.
1
23
17
15
20
7
972
11
6
2
24
18
16
21
8
[124/125]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
12
17
3
25
19
17
23
9
970
13
18
4
26
20
18
24
10
14
19
5
27
21
19
25
11
968
1050 15
20
6
28
22
20
a Thraces mare obtinuerunt. 2
26
12
16
21
7
29
23
21
27
13
966
17
22
8
30
24
22
28
14
Latinorum VIII, CAPIS SYLVIUS, annis XXVIII.
b Atyis [Capis] superioris regis filius. *
18
23
9
31
1
23
29
15
964
19
24
10
32
2
24
c Thraces mare obtinuerunt. 2
30
16
20
25
11
33
3
25
31
17
962
21
26
12
34
4
26
32
18
22
27
13
35
5
27
33
19
960
23
28
14
36
6
28
34
20
24
29
15
37
7
29
35
21
958
Lacedaemoniorum VI, AGESILAUS, annis XLIV
Corinthiorum V, BACCHIS, annis XXXV.
1060 25
30
16
38
8
1
da quo reges Bacchidae cognominati
1
22
957
26
31
17
39
9
2
2
23
27
32
18
40
10
3
3
24
955
28
33
19
41
11
4
4
25
Atheniensium V, PHORBAS, annis XXXI
29
34
20
1
12
5
5
26
953
30
35
21
2
13
6
6
27
Assyriorum XXXIII, OPHRATHEUS, annis XX 1
(1) In Helm's edition, this entry is on two lines. This suggests something is wrong with the layout of that edition on this page. The same problem affects the same page in Fotheringham's edition. It appears on two lines in 'O', mid-page.
(2) This entry appears twice in Helm, and also in 'O'.
[126/127]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
1
26
22
3
14
7
7
28
951
2
27
23
4
15
8
8
29
3
28
24
5
16
9
9
30
949
Post quem IV, HELA, annis II
4
29
1
6
17
10
10
31
948
1070 5
30
2
7
18
11
11
32
Post quem V, AMBRI, annis XII.
6
31
1
8
19
12
12
33
946
7
32
2
9
20
13
13
34
8
33
3
10
21
14
14
35
944
9
34
4
11
22
15
15
36
10
35
5
12
23
16
16
37
942
11
36
6
13
24
17
17
38
12
37
7
14
25
18
18
39
940
13
38
8
15
26
19
19
40
14
39
9
16
27
20
20
41
938
Aegypti, NEPHERCHERES, annis IV.
1080 15
40
10
17
28
21
21
1
937
Latinorum IX, CARPENTUS SYLVIUS, annis XIII
a Carpentus Sylvius superioris regis Capys filius. *
16
41
11
18
1
22
22
2
936
Hebraeorum Juda VI, JOSAPHAT, annis XXV, iustus.
[128/129]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
17
1
12
19
2
23
23
3
935
Hebraeorum Israel VI, ACHAB, annis XXII.
18
2
1
20
3
24
24
4
934
AMMENOPHIS, annis IX.
19
3
2
21
4
25
25
1
933
20
4
3
22
5
26
26
2
Assyriorum XXXIV, OPHRATANES, annis L.
1
5
a Apud Hebraeos
4
23
6
27
27
3
931
2
6
prophetabant:
5
24
7
28
28
4
3
7
Abdias
6
25
8
29
29
5
929
4
8
Hieu
7
26
9
30
30
6
1090 5
9
Ozias
8
27
10
31
31
7
927
6
10
et Michaeas;
9
28
11
32
32
8
7
11
pseudoprophetae
10
29
12
33
33
9
925
erant:
OSOCHOR, annis VI.
Sedechias
8
12
Eliezer.
11
30
13
34
34
1
924
Post quem, TIBERINUS SYLVIUS, annis VIII.
b Tiberinus Carpenti filius a quo et fluvius appellatus est Tiberis, qui prius Albula dicebatur. (*)
9
13
12
31
1
35
35
2
923
Atheniensium VI, MEGACLES, annis XXX.
Corinthiorum VI, AGELAS, annis XXX.
[130/131]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
10
14
13
1
2
36
1
3
922
11
15
14
2
3
37
2
4
12
16
15
3
4
38
3
5
920
13
17
16
4
5
39
4
6
PSINACES, annis IX
14
18
17
5
6
40
5
1
918
1100 15
19
18
6
7
41
6
2
16
20
1
19
7
8
42
a Quarto mare obtinuerunt Rhodii, annis XXIII. 1
7
3
916
Latinorum XI, AGRIPPA SYLVIUS, annis XL.
b Agrippa Tiberini filius. *
17
21
20
8
1
43
8
4
915
18
22
21
9
2
44
9
5
Lacedaemoniorum VII, ARCHELAUS, annis LX.
19
23
22
10
3
1
c In Latina historia ad verbum haec scripta reperimus: "Agrippa apud Latinos regnante, Homerus poeta in Graecia claruit," ut testantur Apollodorus Grammaticus, et Euphorbus Historicus, ante urbem Romanam conditam anni CXXIV, et ut ait Cornelius Nepos, ante Olympiadem primam, anni C. *
10
6
913
Hebraeorum Israhel VII, OCHOZIAS, annis II.
20
24
1
11
4
2
12
7
912
21
25
2
12
5
3
13
8
Hebraeorum Judae VII, JORAM, annis VIII.
Post quem VIII, JORAM, annis XII.
22
1
1
13
6
4
14
9
910
Aegypti, PSUSENNES, annis XXXV.
1. In 'O' the notice about the Rhodians appears on the left-hand page, at the place marked '1'.
[132/133]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
23
2
a Prophetabant:
2
14
7
5
14
1
909
24
3
Elias
3
15
8
6
15
2
1110 25
4
et Elisaeus
4
16
9
7
16
3
907
26
5
5
17
10
8
17
4
27
6
6
18
11
9
18
5
905
28
7
b Elias rapitur.
7
19
12
10
19
6
29
8
8
20
13
11
20
7
903
Postquem VIII, OCHOZIAS, anno I
30
1
9
21
14
12
21
8
902
Post quem GOTHOLIA mater, annis VII
31
1
c Jonadab filius Rechab clarus habetur.
10
22
15
13
22
9
901
32
2
11
23
16
14
23
10
33
3
12
24
17
15
24
11
899
Post quem, HIEU, annis XXVIII.
34
4
1
25
18
16
25
12
898
1120 35
5
2
26
19
17
26
13
36
6
d Joadae apud Hebraeos insignissimus habetur pontifex, qui solus post Moysen vixit annos CXXX.
3
27
20
18
27
14
896
37
7
4
28
21
19
28
15
Post quam, JOAS, annis XL.
38
1
5
29
22
20
29
16
894
39
2
6
30
23
21
30
17
[134/135]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
Atheniensium VII, DIOGNETUS, annis XXVIII
Corinthiorum VII, EUDEMUS, annis XXV.
40
3
7
1
24
22
b Quinto mare obtinuerunt Phryges, annis XXV.
1
18
892
41
4
8
2
25
23
2
19
891
42
5
9
3
26
24
3
20
890
43
6
10
4
27
25
4
21
889
44
7
11
5
28
26
5
22
888
1130 45
8
a Hebraeorum propheta Zacharias occiditur.
12
6
29
27
6
23
887
46
9
13
7
30
28
7
24
886
47
10
14
8
31
29
8
25
885
48
11
15
9
32
30
9
26
884
49
12
16
10
33
31
c Lycurgus insignis habetur.
10
27
883
50
13
17
11
34
32
11
28
882
Assyriorum XXXV, ACRAZAPES, annis XLII
1
14
18
12
35
33
12
29
881
2
15
19
13
36
34
13
30
880
3
16
20
14
37
35
14
31
879
4
17
21
15
38
36
15
32
878
1140 5
18
22
16
39
37
16
33
877
6
19
23
17
40
38
17
34
876
Latinorum XII, AREMULUS SYLVIUS, annis XIX.
d Sylvius remulus, sive Remulus, Agrippae superioris regis filius, praesidium Albanorum inter montes, ubi Roma, nunc est posuit, qui ob impietatem postea fulminatus interiit.
7
20
24
18
1
39
18
35
875
Aegypti XXII dynastia, SESONCHOSIS, annis XXI.
[136/137]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptiorum
BC
8
21
25
19
2
40
Hujus filius fuit Julius proavus Julii Proculi, qui cum Romulo Romam commigrans fundavit Juliam gentem. (*)
19
1
874
9
22
26
20
3
41
20
2
873
10
23
27
21
4
42
21
3
872
11
24
28
22
5
43
22
4
871
Israhel X, JOACHAB, annis XVII
12
25
1
23
6
44
23
5
870
13
26
2
24
7
45
24
6
869
14
27
3
25
8
46
25
7
868
Corinthiorum VIII, ARISTOMEDES, annis XXXV
1150 15
28
4
26
9
47
1
8
867
16
29
5
27
10
48
2
9
866
17
30
6
28
11
49
3
10
865
Atheniensium VIII, PHERECLUS, annis XIX.
c Sexto mare obtinuerunt Cyprii, annis XXXII. 1
18
31
7
1
12
50
4
11
864
19
32
a Elisaeus propheta moritur.
8
2
13
51
5
12
863
20
33
9
3
14
52
6
13
862
21
34
10
4
15
53
7
14
861
22
35
b Apud Hebraeos, Zacharias propheta a rege Joas interficitur.
11
5
16
54
8
15
860
23
36
12
6
17
55
9
16
859
24
37
13
7
18
56
10
17
858
25
38
14
8
19
57
11
18
857
1. This entry is omitted in 'O', no doubt accidentally. I have restored it from Helm, and coloured the same as the other Thassalocracies.
[138/139]
Assyriorum
Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Athe-
niensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptorum
BC
Latinorum XIII, AVENTINUS SYLVIUS, annis XXXVII.
26
39
15
9
1
58
a Aventinus Remuli superioris regis major filius, in eo monte qui nunc pars Urbis est, mortuus et sepultus aeternum loco vocabulum dedit. *
12
19
856
27
40
16
10
2
59
13
20
855
Hebraeorum Juda XI, AMASIAS, annis XXIX.
28
1
17
11
3
60
14
21
854
Israel XI, JOAS, annis XVI.
Lacedaemoniorum VIII, TELECLUS, annis XL.
Aegypti, OSORTHON, annis XV.
29
2
1
12
4
1
15
1
853
30
3
2
13
5
2
16
2
852
31
4
3
14
6
3
17
3
851
32
5
4
15
7
4
b Carthaginem hac aetate quidam conditam putant: alii vero ut supra memoravimus.
18
4
850
33
6
5
16
8
5
19
5
849
34
7
6
17
9
6
20
6
848
1170 35
8
7
18
10
7
21
7
847
36
9
8
19
11
8
22
8
846
Atheniensium IX, ARIPHRON, annis XX.
c Sub Ariphrone Assyriorum regnum destructum et Sardanapallus, ut nonnulli scriptitant.
37
10
9
1
12
9
23
9
845
38
11
10
2
13
10
24
10
844
39
12
11
3
14
11
25
11
843
40
13
12
4
15
12
26
12
842
41
14
13
5
16
13
27
13
841
42
15
14
6
17
14
28
14
840
Assyriorum XXXVI,
[140/141]
Assyriorum Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Athe-
niensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Corinthiorum Aegyptorum
BC
THONOS CONCOLEROS, qui vocabatur Graece Sardanapalus, annis XX.
1
16
15
7
18
15
29
15
839
Post quem TACHELOTIS, annis XIII.
2
17
16
8
19
16
30
1
838
Post quem XII, JEROBOAM, annis XLI.
1180 3
18
1
9
20
17
a VII, Phoenices mare obtinuerunt, annis XLV.
31
2
837
4
19
2
10
21
18
32
3
836
5
20
3
11
22
19
33
4
835
6
21
4
12
23
20
34
5
834
7
22
5
13
24
21
35
6
833
Corinthiorum IX, AGEMON, annis XVI.
8
23
6
14
25
22
1
7
832
9
24
7
15
26
23
2
8
831
10
25
8
16
27
24
b Sardanapalus eodem tempore Tarsum atque Anchialem condidit: et in proelio victus ab Arbace Medo, semet incendio concremavit.
3
9
830
11
26
9
17
28
25
4
10
829
12
27
10
18
29
26
5
11
828
1190 13
28
11
19
30
27
6
12
827
14
29
12
20
31
28
7
13
826
Hebraeorum Juda XII, AZARIAS, qui et Ozias, annis LII.
Atheniensium X, THESPIEUS, annis XXVII.
Aegypti XXIII dynastia, PETUBASTIS, annis XXV
[142/143]
Medes Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Athe-
niensium
Latinorum Lacedaemoniorum
Primus rex Macedonum Corinthiorum Aegyptorum
BC
15
1
13
1
32
29
8
1
825
16
2
14
2
33
30
9
2
824
17
3
15
3
34
31
10
3
823
18
4
16
4
35
32
11
4
822
19
5
17
5
36
33
12
5
821
20
6
18
6
37
34
13
6
820
~~~~
Usque ad id tempus fuisse reges Assyriorum, historia refert, et fiunt simul anni MCXCVII. Omnes autem anni regni Assyriorum a primo anno Nini supputantur MCCXL.
Latinorum XIV, PROCAS SYLVIUS, annis XXIII.
c Aventini superioris regis filius. *
Medis regnavit ARBACES, annis XXVIII.
d Lycurgus Lacedaemoniis jura componit.
1
7
b Arbaces Medus, Assyriorum imperio destructo, regnum in Medos transtulit, et interim sine principibus res agebatur usque ad Dejocem regem Medorum. In medio autem tempore Chaldaei prope praevalebant quorum separatae quaedam successiones regum feruntur. However in the intervening time, the Chaldaeans almost prevailed, of whose kings separate successions are recounted. Reliquae quoque gentes propriis regibus utebantur.
19
7
1
35
14
7
819
2
8
20
8
2
36
15
8
818
1200 3
9
21
9
3
37
16
9
817
Corinthiorum X, ALEXANDER, annis XXV.
4
10
22
10
4
38
1
10
816
5
11
23
11
5
39
2
11
815
6
12
24
12
6
40
e Templum Junonis incensum.
3
12
814
Lacedaemoniorum, ALCAMENES, 1 annis XXXVII.
Macedonum primus rex CARANUS, annis XXVIII.
7
13
25
13
7
1
1
4
13
813
8
14
26
14
8
2
2
5
14
812
9
15
27
15
9
3
3
6
15
811
(1) See introduction for a discussion of this copying mistake and correction by Jerome himself. Eusebius had 'Alcamenes.' In 'O' Thalcames.
[144/145]
Medes Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Athe-
niensium
Latinorum Lacedae- moniorum
Macedo- nium
Corin- thiorum Aegyptorum
BC
10
16
28
16
10
4
4
7
16
810
11
17
29
17
11
5
5
c Hesiodus insignis habetur, ut vult Porphyrius.
8
17
809
12
18
30
18
12
6
6
9
18
808
1210 13
19
31
19
13
7
7
10
19
807
14
20
32
20
14
8
8
11
20
806
15
21
33
21
15
9
9
12
21
805
16
22
a Prophetabant
34
22
16
10
10
13
22
804
17
23
apud Hebraeos:
35
23
17
11
11
14
23
803
18
24
Osee
36
24
18
12
12
15
24
802
19
25
Amos
37
25
19
13
13
16
25
801
Esaias
d Aegyptii regem suum Osorthon Herculem cognominaverunt
Aegypti, OSORTHON, annis IX.
et Jonas prophetae.
20
26
38
26
20
14
14
17
1
800
21
27
39
27
21
15
15
18
2
799
Atheniensium XI, AGAMESTOR, annis XX.
22
28
40
1
22
16
16
e Phidon Argivus mensuras et pondera primus invenit.
19
3
798
1220 23
29
41
2
23
17
17
20
4
797
Israhel XIII ZACHARIAS, mensibus VI. Post quem SELLUM, dies III. Post quem MANAEM, annis X.
Latinorum XV, AMULIUS SILVIUS, annis XLIV.
f Lycurgi leges in Lacedaemone, juxta sententiam Apollodori, hac aetate susceptae.
24
30
b Numitor Procae superioris regis filius major, fratre Amulio regno pulsus, in agro suo vixit. * 3
1
18
18
21
5
796
25
31
1
4
2
19
19
22
6
795
26
32
2
5
3
20
20
23
7
794
[146/147]
Medes Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Athe-
niensium
Latinorum Lacedae- moniorum
Macedo- nium
Corin- thiorum Aegyptorum
BC
27
33
Filia ejus, adimendae spei partus gratia, virgo Vestalis lecta, quae cum XXVII patrui sui anno geminos edidisset infantes, juxta legem in terram viva defossa est. Verum parvulos prope ripam Tiberis expositos Faustulus regii pastor armenti ad Accam Laurentiam uxorem suam detulit: quae propter pulchritudinem et rapacitatem corporis quaestuosi, Lupa a vicinis appellabatur, unde ad nostram usque memoriam meretricum cellulae lupanaria dicuntur. Pueri cum adolevissent, collecta pastorum et latronum manu, interfecto apud Albam Amulio, avum Numitorem in regnum restituunt. *
3
6
4
21
21
24
8
793
28
34
4
7
5
22
22
25
9
792
Medorum II, SOSARMUS, annis XXX.
Corinthiorum XI, TELESTES, annis XII. Post quem PSAMMUS, annis X.
1
35
5
8
6
23
23
1
1
791
2
36
6
9
7
24
24
2
2
790
3
37
7
10
8
25
25
a Trieris prima navigavit in Corintho.
3
3
789
4
38
8
11
9
26
26
4
4
788
1230 5
39
9
12
10
27
27
5
5
787
6
40
10
13
11
28
28
6
6
786
Post quem PHACEAS, annis X.
Macedonum II, COENUS, annis XII.
7
41
1
14
12
29
1
7
7
785
8
42
2
15
13
30
2
b Aegyptii post Phoenices mare obtinuerunt.
8
8
784
9
43
3
16
14
31
3
9
9
783
10
44
4
17
15
32
4
10
10
782
Dynastia XXIV, BOCCHORUS, annis XLIV.
11
45
5
18
16
33
5
11
1
781
12
46
6
19
17
34
6
12
2
780
13
47
7
20
18
35
7
Post quem AUTOMENES, anno I; After these, the yearly prytaneis were established in Corinth.
~~~~~~
779
Atheniensium XII, AESCHYLUS, annis XXIII.
Lydorum primus rex, ARDISUS filius Alyattis, annis XXXVI.
14
48
8
1
19
36
8
1
3
778
[148/149]
Medes Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Athe-
niensium
Latinorum Lacedae- moniorum Macedo- nium
Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
1240
15
49
9
2
21
37
9
2
4
777
f Lacedemoniorum reges defecerunt.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
a OLYMPIAS
PRIMA
g OLYMPIAS
PRIMA
A captivitate Trojae usque ad olympiadem primam anni CDV.
h PRIMAM OLYMPIADEM Africanus temporibus Joathan regis Hebraeorum fuisse scribit.
i Bocchorus Aegyptiis jura constituit, sub quo agnus locutus est.
b Secundo anno Aeschyli Atheniensium judicis prima olympias acta, in qua Coroebus Eliensis exstitit victor.
c Elii agunt quinquennale certamen, quatuor annis in medio expletis, in quibus principes annui constituuntur quatuor; quam olympiadem Iphitus filius Praxonidis, sive Haemonis, primus constituit.
k Nostra quoque supputatio iisdem temporibus eam exhibuit. Scribit autem Africanus &mdash ut verba ejus ponam &mdash ad hunc modum: " Aeschylus Agamestoris filius apud Athenienses obtinuit principatum annis 28: qua aetate Joathan regnabat in Jerusalem". Porro nos in prima olympiade Joathan posuimus.
d Ab hoc tempore Graeca de temporibus historia vera creditur: nam ante hoc, ut cuique visum est, diversas sententias protulerunt.
I Olympias
16
50
10
3
21
10
3
5
776
Israel, PHACEE, annis XX.
e Sub quo Theglath Phalassar rex Assyriorum magnam partem populi Judaeorum in Assyrios transtulit.
17
51
1
4
22
11
l Arctinus Milesius versificator florentissimus habetur.
4
6
775
18
52
2
5
23
12
5
7
774
Hebraeorum Judae, JOATHAM, annis XVI.
Macedonum III, TYRIMAS, annis XXXVIII.
[150/151]
Medorum Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Athe-niensium
Latinorum Macedo- num
Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
19
1
3
6
24
1
d Remus et Romulus generantur, ex Marte et Ilia.
6
8
773
II Olympias
20
2
4
7
25
2
7
9
772
21
3
5
8
26
3
e Athenis primum Trieres navigavit, Aminocleo cursum dirigente.
8
10
771
22
4
6
9
27
4
9
11
770
23
5
a Prophetabant qui et supra.
7
10
28
5
10
12
769
III Olympias
24
6
8
11
29
6
11
13
768
1250 25
7
9
12
30
7
f Hesiodus secundum quosdam clarus habetur.
12
14
767
26
8
10
13
31
8
13
15
766
27
9
b Prophetabant:
11
14
32
9
14
16
765
IV Olympias
Osee
g Cynaethon Lacedaemonius poeta, qui Telegoniam scripsit, agnoscitur.
28
10
Joel
12
15
33
10
15
17
764
29
11
Isaias
13
16
34
11
16
18
763
30
12
Oded
14
17
35
12
17
19
762
Medorum III, MEDIDUS, annis XL.
h Theraei Cyrenen condiderunt, oraculo sic jubente, et conditor urbis Battus, cujus proprium nomen Aristeus.
1
13
15
18
36
13
18
20
761
V Olympias
2
14
c Eumelus poeta, qui Pagoniam et Europiam, et Arctinus qui Aethiopidam composuit et Ilii Persis, agnoscitur.
16
19
37
14
19
21
760
3
15
17
20
38
15
i Aradus insula conditur.
20
22
759
4
16
18
21
39
16
21
23
758
Hebraeorum Judae XIV, ACHAS, annis XVI.
k In Lacedaemone primus εφοροc 1 quod Magistratus nomen est, constituitur: Fuit autem sub regibus Lacedaemonis annis CCCL.
1260
5
1
19
22
40
17
22
24
757
(1) The word 'Ephor' is given in Greek in Helm and appears in 'O' as 'εφοροc'.
[152/153]
Medorum Hebraeorum Juda
Hebraeorum Israel
Atheniensium
Latinorum Macedo- num
Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
VI Olympias
6
2
20
23
41
18
f Cyzicus condita.
23
25
756
Israhel OSEE, annis IX. Atheniensium XIII, ALCMAEON, annis II.
7
3
a Roma Palilibus, 1, qui nunc dies festus est, condita. * 1
1
42
19
g Nonnulli Romani Scriptores Romam conditam ferunt.
24
26
755
8
4
2
2
43
20
25
27
754
b Remus rutro pastorali a Fabio Romuli duce occisus. *
XIV Atheniensium, CHAROPS, annis X.
h Athenis principes, qui usque ad mortem reipublicae praeerant desierunt: et in X annos Magistratum consuetudo versa est: regnavitque primus Carops filius Aeschyli.
9
5
c Ob Asyli impunitatem magna Romulo multitudo conjungitur. * 3
1
44
21
26
28
753
VII Olympias
ROMULUS Romanorum, annis XXXVIII
d Consualibus ludis Sabinae raptae anno ab Urbe condita tertio, et una virginum pulcherrima cunctorum acclamatione rapientium Thalasso duci Romuli decernitur: unde in nuptiarum solemnitatibus 'Thalasso' vulgo clamitant, quod scilicet talis nupta sit quae Thalassum habere mereatur. *
10
6
4
2
1
22
27
29
752
11
7
5
3
2
23
28
30
751
12
8
6
4
3
24
29
31
750
13
9
7
5
4
25
i Mare obtinuerunt Milesii annis XVIII, construxeruntque urbem in Aegypto Naucratim.
30
32
749
VIII Olympias
14
10
8
6
5
26
31
33
748
1270 15
11
9
7
6
27
k Thales Milesius physicus philosophus agnoscitur.
32
34
747
e Prima Captivitas Israel.
Decem tribus gentis Judaeae, quae vocabantur Israel, et erant in parte Samariae victae a Sennacherib, qui et Salmanasar, rege Chaldaeorum, translatae sunt in montes Medorum: regnatumque est in Samaria annis CCL.
l Sennacherib rex Chaldaeorum ad custodiendam regionem Judaeae accolas misit Assyrios, qui aemulatores Judaeae legis facti, Samaritae nuncupati sunt: quod in Latinam lingua exprimitur, custodes.
(1) The Palilia or day of Pales the god of shepherds, sometimes called the Parilia by other ancient writers, is 21 April, the anniversary of Rome's founding. Ovid, Fasti iv.721; Dionysius of Halicarnassus i.88; Varro, De ling. Lat. vi.15; Varro, De re rust, ii.1; Pliny, HN xviii.66.
[154/155]
Medorum Hebraeorum Juda
Atheniensium
Romanorum
Macedo- num Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
16
12
a Ceninenses, Antemnates, Crustumini, Fidenates, Veientes, qui propter Sabinarum raptum bellum moverant, vincuntur a Romulo. *
8
7
28
33
c Lacedaemonii contra Messenios vicennale bellum habebant.
35
746
17
13
9
8
29
34
36
745
IX Olympias
18
14
10
9
30
35
37
744
Atheniensium XV, AESIMEDES, annis X
d Eumelus Corinthius versificator agnoscitur, et Sibylla Erythraea.
19
15
1
10
31
36
38
743
Lydorum II, ALYATTES, annis XIV
20
16
2
11
32
1
39
742
Hebraeorum Juda XV, EZECHIAS, annis XXIX.
e Midas regnavit in Phrygia.
21
1
3
12
33
2
40
741
X Olympias
f Naxus condita in Sicilia.
22
2
4
13
34
3
41
740
23
3
b Apud Hebraeos prophetabant Esaias, Osee.
5
14
35
4
42
739
24
4
6
15
36
5
g Syracusae conditae in Sicilia.
43
738
1280 25
5
7
16
37
6
44
737
XI Olympias
26
6
8
17
38
7
h Catinia in Sicilia conditur.
45
736
Macedonum IV, PERDICA, annis LI.
Aegypti XXV Dynastia, SABACHON Aethiops, annis XII.
27
7
9
18
1
8
i Messena a Lacedaemoniis capitur.
46
735
28
8
10
19
2
9
47
734
1. After the captivity Israel, the colours for kingdoms change in 'O', and the change is reproduced here.
[156/157]
Medorum Hebraeorum Juda
Atheniensium
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
b Hoc in primis annis Romuli gestum est. Sed quis pagina vacabat, hic scrip-tum.
29
9
a Tarpeia clypeis Sabinorum obruta: unde mons Tarpeius, in quo nunc Capitolium. * Post quem CLIDICUS, annis X. Annus I. 20
3
10
3
733
XII Olympias
30
10
2
21
4
11
4
732
31
11
3
22
5
12
5
731
32
12
4
23
6
13
6
730
33
13
5
24
7
14
7
729
XIII Olympias
c Romani Tatio Sabinorum rege regnante cum Romulo a Curibus 'quirites' appellati. 1 *
Lydorum III, MELES, annis XII.
34
14
6
25
8
1
d Romulus primus milites sumit ex populo, et nobilissimos centum senes ob aetatem Senatores, ob similitudinem curae, Patres appellavit. Templa quoque et muros Romanae urbis exstruxit. (*)
8
728
1290
35
15
7
26
9
2
9
727
36
16
8
27
10
3
10
726
37
17
9
28
11
4
11
725
XIV Olympias
38
18
10
29
12
5
12
724
Post quem, HIPPOMENES, annis X.
e Sabachon Bocchorum captum vivum excussit.
Aegypti SEBICHUS, annis XII.
39
19
1
30
13
6
1
723
40
20
2
31
14
7
2
722
Medorum IV, CARDICEAS, annis XIII
1
21
3
32
15
8
f Mare obtinuerunt Cares.
3
721
XV Olympias
2
22
4
33
16
9
h Bellum quod in Thyrea inter Lacedaemonios et Argivos gestum est.
4
720
3
23
5
34
17
10
5
719
4
24
6
35
18
11
6
718
1300
5
25
7
36
19
12
i In Sicilia Chersonesus condita.
7
717
XVI Olympias
Lydorum IV, CANDAULES, annis XVII.
(1) A Sabine town. Plutarch Numa 3.4; a false etymology; see Ernout and Meillet s.v.
[158/159]
Medorum Hebraeorum Juda
Atheniensium
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
6
26
a Romulus apud paludem Caprae nusquam comparuit, et suadente Lucio Proculo Quirini nomine consecratus est.
8
37
20
1
8
716
7
27
9
38
21
2
9
715
Romanorum II, NUMA POMPILIUS, annis XLI.
b Mortuo Romulo per quinos dies Senatores Rempublicam rexerunt, atque ita unus annus expletus, quod tempus Interregnum appellatum est.
8
28
10
1
22
3
e Numa Pompilius duos menses anno addidit --Januarium, Februarium,-- cum ante hoc decem tantum menses apud Romanos fuissent. Capitolium quoque a fundamentis aedificavit, et Congiarium dedit asses ligneos et scorteos.
10
714
Atheniensium XVIII, LEOCRATES, annis X.
9
29
1
2
23
4
11
713
XVII Olymp. Hebraeorum Juda XVI, MANASSES, annis LV.
10
1
2
3
24
5
f Sibylla, quae et Herophila in Samo, insignis habetur.
12
712
c Numa Pompilius nullum cum finitimis bellum gessit. *
Aegypti TARACHUS Aethiops, annis XX.
11
2
3
4
25
6
g Nicomedia condita, quae prius Astacus vocabatur.
1
711
12
3
4
5
26
7
2
710
13
4
5
6
27
8
3
709
XVIII Olympias
h Croton et Parium et Sybaris conditae.
Medorum V, DIOCLES, annis LIV.
d Diocles Ecbatanam condidit.
1
5
6
7
28
9
4
708
1310 2
6
7
8
29
10
5
707
3
7
8
9
30
11
i Hi qui 'Partheniae' vocabantur, Tarentum condiderunt, tunc et Corinthii Corcyram.
6
706
4
8
9
10
31
12
7
705
[160/161]
Medorum Hebraeorum Juda
Atheniensium
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
XIX Olympias
5
9
10
11
32
13
8
704
Post quem APSANDER, annis X.
6
10
1
12
33
14
9
703
7
11
2
13
34
15
10
702
8
12
3
14
35
16
11
701
XX Olympias
9
13
4
15
36
17
12
700
Post quem GYGES, annis XXXV
10
14
5
16
37
1
13
699
11
15
6
17
38
2
14
698
1320 12
16
7
18
39
3
15
697
XXI Olympias
13
17
8
19
40
4
a Midas cum apud Phrygas regnaret, sanguine tauri potato exstinctus est.
16
696
14
18
9
20
41
5
17
695
15
19
10
21
42
6
18
694
Atheniensium XX, ERYXIAS, annis X.
16
20
1
22
43
7
b Glaucus Chius primus ferri inter se glutinum excogitavit.
19
693
XXII Olympias
692
17
21
2
23
44
8
20
Aegypti XXVI dynastia, MERRES AETHIOPS regnavit annis XI.
[162/163]
Medorum Hebraeorum Juda
Atheniensium
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
18
22
3
24
45
9
b In Sicilia Gela, in Pamphylia Phaselis conditur.
1
691
19
23
4
25
46
10
2
690
20
24
5
26
47
11
3
689
XXIII Olumpias
31
25
6
27
48
12
c Hipponax philosophus notissimus redditur.
4
688
1330 32
26
7
28
49
13
5
687
33
27
8
29
50
14
6
686
34
28
9
30
51
15
d Calchedon condita.
7
685
XXIV Olumpias
Macedonum V, ARGAEUS, annis XXXVIII.
35
29
10
31
1
16
8
684
36
30
Athenis annui principes constituti sunt. Cessantibus regibus, novem principes ex nobilibus urbis electi Atheniensibus praefuerunt.
~~~~
32
2
17
9
683
37
31
33
3
18
10
682
38
32
34
4
19
11
681
XXV Olumpias
39
33
35
5
20
12
680
STEPHINATIS, annis VII.
40
34
36
6
21
e Cyzicus condita est et Locri in Italia.
1
679
41
35
37
7
22
2
678
1340 42
36
38
8
23
3
677
XXVI Olumpias
43
37
39
9
24
4
676
44
38
40
10
25
5
675
45
39
41
11
26
6
674
a Tullus Hostilius primus regum Romanorum purpura et fascibus usus est, ac deinceps cum sua domo fulmine conflagravit. Romanorum III, TULLUS HOSTILIUS, annis XXXII.
[164/165]
Medorum Hebraeorum
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
36
40
1
12
27
7
673
XXVII Olumpias
Aegypti, NICHEPSOS, annis VI.
37
41
2
13
28
1
672
38
42
3
14
29
2
671
39
43
4
15
30
b Post Cares, mare obtinuerunt Lesbii, annis LXVIII.
3
670
40
44
5
16
31
4
669
XXVIII Olumpias
41
45
6
17
32
c Nudipedalia primum acta in Lacedaemone.
5
668
1350 42
46
7
18
33
6
667
Post quem NECHAO, annis VIII.
43
47
8
19
34
d Sibylla, quae et Herophila, in Samo nobilis habetur.
1
666
44
48
9
20
35
2
665
XXIX Olumpias
a Tullus Hostilius post longam pacem bella reparavit, Albanos, Veientes, Fidenates vicit, et adjecto monte Caelio, Urbem ampliavit. *
45
49
10
21
36
e Archilochus et Simonides, et Aristoxenus musicus illustres habentur.
3
664
Lydorum VI, ARDYS, annis XXXVII.
46
50
11
22
1
f Zeleucus legum lator apud Locros crebro sermone celebratur.
4
663
47
51
12
23
2
5
662
48
52
13
24
3
6
661
XXX Olumpias
g Cypsellus in Corintho tyrannidem exercet, annis XXVIII.
49
53
14
25
4
7
660
50
54
15
26
5
h Byzantium conditum.
8
659
PSAMMETICHUS, annis XLIV.
i Alcmaeon clarus habetur, et Lesches Lesbius, qui fecit Parvam Iliada.
51
55
16
27
6
1
658
[166/167]
Medorum Hebraeorum
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
Hebraeorum Juda XVII, HAMMON, annis XII
1360 52
1
a Hammon secundum LXX senum interpretationem XII annis regnavit: secundum Hebraeos annis II.
17
28
7
b Histrus civitas in Ponto condita.
2
657
XXXI Olumpias
53
2
18
29
8
3
656
54
3
19
30
9
c Acanthus condita, et Stagera.
4
655
Medorum VI, PHRAORTES, annis XXIV
1
4
20
31
10
d Lampsacus condita, et Abdera.
5
654
2
5
21
32
11
6
653
XXXII Olumpias
3
6
22
33
12
e Phalaris apud Agrigentinos tyrannidem exercet.
7
652
4
7
23
34
13
8
651
5
8
24
35
14
f In Sicilia Selinus condita.
9
650
6
9
25
36
15
10
649
XXXIII Olumpias
7
10
26
37
16
11
648
1370 8
11
27
38
17
g In Ponto Boristhenes condita.
12
647
Macedonum VI, PHILIPPUS, annis XXXVIII.
9
12
28
1
18
13
646
Post quem in Juda XVIII, JOSIAS, annis XXXII.
10
1
29
2
19
14
645\\gd
[168/169]
Medorum Judaeorum
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
XXXIV Olympias
11
2
30
3
20
15
644
12
3
31
4
21
16
643
13
4
a Hebraeorum pontifex maximus Elchias insignis habetur.
32
5
22
17
642
Romanorum IV, ANCUS MARTIUS, annis XXIII.
e Terpander musicus insignis habetur.
14
5
1
6
23
18
641
XXXV Olympias
15
6
b Thales Milesius Examii filius, primus physicus philosophus agnoscitur, quem vixisse aiunt usque ad LVIII olympiadem.
2
7
24
19
640
16
7
3
8
25
f Oraculo Dodonaeo primum Graecia usa est.
20
639
17
8
4
9
26
21
638
1390 18
9
5
10
27
g Messena a Lacedaemoniorum societate discessit.
22
637
XXXVI Olympias
19
10
6
11
28
23
636
20
11
7
12
29
h Scythae usque ad Palaestinam penetraverunt.
24
635
21
12
8
13
30
25
634
22
13
c Hieremias prophetare orsus.
9
14
31
i Myrtheus atheniensis poeta cognoscitur.
26
633
XXXVII Olympias
23
14
10
15
32
k Battus condidit Cyrenem.
27
632
24
15
11
16
33
28
631
Medorum VII, CYAXARES, annis XXXII.
l Sinope condita.
1
16
12
17
34
m Lipara condita.
29
630
2
17
d Olda mulier apud Hebraeos prophetabat.
13
18
35
30
629
XXXVIII Olympias
n Apud Corinthios tyrannidem exercuit Periander.
3
18
14
19
36
31
628
[170/171]
Medorum Judaeorum
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
1390
4
19
15
20
37
d Prusias condita.
32
627
Lydorum VII, SADYATTES, annis XV. e Epidamnus condita, quae postea est vocata Dyrrachium.
5
20
16
21
1
33
626
6
21
a Prophetabant Sophonias, Hieremias.
17
22
2
f Phalaridis tyrannis destructa.
34
625
XXXIX Olympias
7
22
18
23
3
g Draco legum lator, ut quibusdam videtur, agnoscitur.
35
624
8
23
19
24
4
36
623
9
24
b Ancus Martius Numae ex filia nepos Aventinum montem, et Janiculum Urbi addidit, et supra mare XVI ab Urbe milliario Ostiam condidit: ad extremum morbo periit. *
20
25
5
h Cyaxares adversum Assyrios dimicans Ninum civitatem capit.
37
622
10
25
21
26
6
38
621
XL Olympias
11
26
22
27
7
39
620
12
27
23
28
8
40
619
Romanorum V, TARQUINIUS PRISCUS, annis XXXVII.
i Tarquinius Priscus Capitolium exstruxit.
k Arion Methymnaeus clarus habetur, qui a Delphino in [portum] Taenarum dicitur transportatus.
13
28
1
29
9
41
618
1400 14
29
2
30
10
42
617
XLI Olympias
15
30
c Josias rex Judaeorum cum Nechaone Aegyptiorum rege congressus occiditur, ac mihi miraculum subit, quomodo in praesens tempus sibi uterque convenerit, maxime cum Scriptura divina hunc eumdem Pharaonem 'Nechaonem' appellet. 1
3
31
11
43
616
16
31
4
32
12
44
615
Aegypti NECHAO secundus, qui et NECHEPSOS, annis VI.
l Panaetius primus in Sicilia arripuit tyrannidem.
17
32
5
33
13
1
614
Hebraeorum Judae XIX,
(1) cf Rg23:29. Is there a pun on necare, 'to slay'? Necho=Neco=I slay. Since following Allen and Greenough (236), the Latin suffix -o, -onis indicates 'a person employed in some specific art or trade.' For example from Gero, gero-geronis: carrier. From Neco (that is a contraction from neca-o) necao-necaonem would mean 'killer' if it were in the dictionary. The text reads, "...quomodo in praesens tempus sibi uterque convenerit, maxime cum Scriptura divina hunc eumdem Pharaonem, Nechaonem appellet." In the manuscript T we read instead: "...quomodo in presens tempus ista conveniunt maxime cum scriptura divina hunc eundem pharaonem nechaonem appellet." Maybe: "...in which way, in this time (in presens tempus) these things (ista) are appropriate (conveniunt) in the highest degree (maxime) since holy scripture calls this same Pharaoh 'Necho'(Killer)?"
[172/173]
Medorum Judaeorum
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
JOACHAS, mensibus III. Post quem ELIACHIM, XX, qui et Joachim, annis XI.
18
6
34
14
2
613
XLII Olympias
19
1
7
35
15
3
612
Lydorum VIII, ALYATTES, annis IL.
20
2
8
36
1
d Stesichorus poeta clarus habetur.
4
611
21
3
a Anno tertio Joachim Nabuchodonosor rex Babyloniae Judaeam capit, et in ditionem suam redactis plurimis Judaeorum, cum etiam partem vasorum templi invasisset, et tributarium fecisset Joachim, victor ad patriam revertitur.
9
37
2
5
610
22
4
10
38
3
e Alcman, ut quibusdam videtur, agnoscitur.
6
609
XLIII Olympias
Macedonum VII, EUROPUS, annis XXVI.
Post quem PSAMMITES, alius qui et Psammetichus, annis XII.
f Cyaxares Medus subvertit Ninum civitatem.
23
5
11
1
4
1
608
1410 24
6
12
2
5
g Pittacus Mitylenaeus, qui de VII Sapientibus fuit, cum Phrynone Atheniense Olympionice congressus eum interfecit.
2
607
25
7
13
3
6
3
606
26
8
b In Babylone Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, et Misael clari habentur.
14
4
7
4
605
XLIV Olympias
27
9
15
5
8
5
604
28
10
16
6
9
6
603
29
11
c Et hunc rex babylonius captum in Babyloniam duxit, oculosque eius eruit.
17
7
10
h Perinthus condita.
7
602
Hebraeorum Judae JOACHIM,
[174/175]
Medorum Juadaeorum
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
qui et Jechonias, mensibus III. Post quem SEDECHIAS, annis XI.
30
1
a Prophetabant Hieremias et Baruch.
18
8
11
c Camerina urbs condita.
8
601
XLV Olympias
31
2
19
9
12
d Sappho et Alcaeus poetae clari habentur.
9
600
32
3
20
10
13
10
599
Medorum VIII, ASTYAGES, annis XXXVIII.
1
4
b Tarquinius Priscus Circum Romae aedificavit, numerum Senatorum auxit, Romanos ludos instituit, muros et cloacas aedificavit, ad extremum ab Anci filiis occisus est, regis ejus, cui ipse successerat. *
21
11
14
e Massilia condita civitas Galliae.
11
598
1420 2
5
22
12
15
12
597
XLVI Olympias
f Epimenides Athenas emundavit.
Aegypti VAPHRES, annis XXX.
3
6
23
13
16
1
596
4
7
24
14
17
2
595
5
8
25
15
18
g Solon, Draconis legibus antiquatis, extra eas quae ad sanguinem pertinebant, sua jura constituit.
3
594
6
9
26
16
19
4
593
XLVII Olympias
7
10
27
17
20
5
592
8
11
28
18
21
6
591
Primus annus captivitatis Hierusalem.
JUDAEA GENS
CAPITUR
[176/177]
Medorum Judaeorum Captivitas
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
a Nabuchodonosor rex Chaldaeorum Hierosolymis captis templum incendit, quod ab initio aedificationis suae manserat annis CDXLII.
Sententiae autem nostrae etiam Clemens congruit in primo Stromate, XLVII Olympiase Captivitatem Judaeorum factam esse contestans, regnante apud Aegyptios Vaphre, apud Athenas Phenippo: et supputari LXX annos desolationis templi usque in secundum annum Darii.
c Capta Hierosolyma, ab Assyriis ad Vaphrem 1, regem Aegypti, Judaeorum reliqui transfugerunt. Hujus Vaphris Hieremias quoque propheta meminit.
d His temporibus, certantibus in agone tragus -- id est hircus -- in praemio dabatur: unde aiunt tragoedos nuncupatos.
Hebraeorum captivitatis, et exterminii templi, quod fuit in Hierusalem, anni LXX.
9
1
29
19
22
7
590
10
2
30
20
23
8
589
XLVIII Olympias
11
3
31
21
24
e Corinthiorum monarchia destructa est.
9
588
1930 12
4
32
22
25
10
587
13
5
33
23
26
f Solis facta defectio, cum futuram eam Thales ante dixisset.
11
586
14
6
b In Babylone prophetabant
34
24
27
12
585
(1) Apries, called Vaphres by Eusebius, and Hophra by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 44:30.
[178/179]
Medorum Judaeorum Captivitas
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
XLIX Olympias
Daniel
15
7
et Ezechiel
35
25
28
13
584
16
8
36
26
29
14
583
Macedonum VIII, ALCETAS, annis XXIX.
17
9
37
1
30
c Alyattes et Astyages dimicaverunt.
15
582
Romanorum VI, SERVIUS, annis XXXIV.
18
10
a Servius ancillae, sed nobilis captivae filius, tres montes Urbi addidit, Quirinalem, Viminalem et Esquilinum: fossas circum muros duxit: census Romanorum civium primus instituit, et ad extremum Tarquinii Superbi generi sui, superioris regis filii, scelere occisus est. *
1
2
31
d Isthmia post Melicertem, et Pythia primum acta.
16
581
50th Olympias
19
11
2
3
32
17
580
20
12
3
4
33
e Septem Sapientes appellati.
18
579
21
13
4
5
34
19
578
1440 22
14
5
6
35
f Astyages contra Lydos pugnat.
20
577
LI Olympias
23
15
6
7
36
g Anaximander Milesius physicus agnoscitur.
21
576
24
16
7
8
37
22
575
25
17
8
9
38
23
574
26
18
9
10
39
h Agon Nemeacus primum ab Argivis actus, post eum qui sub Archemoro fuerat.
24
573
LII Olympias
27
19
b Mortuo Nabuchodonosor, Babyloniorum rege, suscepit imperium EVILMERODAC, cui successit frater ejus BALTASAR, sub quo Daniel eam scripturam, quae in pariete apparuerat, interpretatus est, significantem imperium Chaldaeorum in Medos et Persas transferendum.
10
11
40
25
572
28
20
11
12
41
i Phalaris tyrannidem exercuit an. 16.
26
571
29
21
12
13
42
27
570
30
22
13
14
43
28
569
LIII Olympias
k Abaris de Scythia venit in Graeciam.
31
23
14
15
44
29
568
[180/181]
Medorum Judaeorum Captivitas
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum
Aegyptorum
BC
1450
32
24
15
16
45
b Eugamon Cyrenaeus, qui Telegoniam fecit [scripsit], agnoscitur. 1
30
567
Aegypti AMASIS annis XLII.
33
25
16
17
46
c Agon gymnicus, quem Panathenaeon vocant, [Athenis] actus.
1
566
34
26
17
18
47
2
565
LIV Olympias
35
27
18
19
48
d Aesopus interimitur a Delphis.
3
564
36
28
19
20
49
4
563
Lydorum IX, CROESUS, annis XV.
37
29
20
21
1
e Pisistratus Atheniensium tyrannus in Italiam transgreditur.
5
562
38
30
21
22
2
6
561
LV Olympias
Cyrus Medorum destruxit imperium, et regnavit Persis, subverso Astyage rege Medorum.
f Anaximenes physicus [philosophus] agnoscitur.
a Cyrus Hebraeorum captivitate laxata, quinquaginta ferme hominum millia regredi fecit in Judaeam, qui constructo altari, Templi fundamenta jecerunt: sed cum a vicinis gentibus fabricatio impediretur, imperfectum opus usque ad Darium permansit, solo tantum altari consistente.
Persarum I, CYRUS, annis XXX.
1
31
22
23
3
g Stesichorus poeta moritur.
7
560
2
32
23
24
4
h Simonides clarus habetur.
8
559
3
33
24
25
5
9
558
1460 4
34
25
26
6
10
557
LVI Olympias
i Chilon, qui de VII Sapientibus fuit, εφοροc in Lacedaemone constituitur [ id est, respector].
5
35
26
27
7
11
556
(1) The work by Eugamon (or Eugammon) of Cyrene was a poem in two books and concerned Telegonus, the supposed son of Odysseus by Circe. It is lost, but a summary survives in Proclus, Chrestomathia, book II (see Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica by Hugh G. Evelyn-White, 1914 (Loeb Classics #57)). There is an anecdote about this author in Eusebius, PE X.12.
[182/183]
Persarum Judaeorum Captivitas
Romanorum
Macedonum Lydorum Regnum defecit.
Aegyptorum
BC
6
36
a Prophetabant Aggaeus et Zacharias, quo tempore Jesus filius Josedech, et Zorobabel regii generis filius Salathiel, clari habentur, qui et principes fuerunt eorum qui regressi sunt in Judaeam.
27
28
8
12
555
7
37
28
29
9
d Xenophanes Colophonius clarus habetur.
13
554
Macedonum IX, AMYNTAS, annis L.
8
38
29
1
10
e Ea quae de Croeso memorantur, quomodo temptarit oraculum.
14
553
57th Olympiad
9
39
30
2
11
15
552
10
40
31
3
12
f Croesus adversus Cyrum bellum iniit.
16
551
11
41
32
4
13
17
550
12
42
Colligitur omne tempus captivitatis Judaeorum anni LXX, qui secundum quosdam a tertio anno Joachim usque ad vicesimum annum Cyri regis Persarum computantur. Porro secundum alios, a Josiae Judaeorum regis anno XIII, sub quo Jeremias prophetare coepit, usque ad primum annum supra dicti Cyri regis. Desolationis vero templi sub Dario rege complentur anni LXX.
33
5
14
g Templum Apollinis Delphici secunda vice incensume.
18
549
58th Olympiad
13
43
34
6
15
h Thales moritur.
19
548
Romanorum VII, TARQUINIUS, annis XXXV
Croesus a Cyro captus est: et Lydorum regnum destructum est, quod stetit annis CXXX. i Cyrus Sardeis capit.
1970 14
44
c Tarquinius Superbus excogitavit vincula taureas, fustes, compedes, catenas latomias, carceres, exsilia, metalla.
1
7 k Harpagus, qui apud Cyrum primi loci habebatur , adversus Ioniam dimicat.
20
547
15
45
2
8
21
546
16
46
3
9
22
545
59th Olympiad
l Theognis poeta clarus habetur.
17
47
4
10
23
544
18
48
5
11
24
543
19
49
6
12
m Pisistratus secunda vice Athenis regnat.
25
542
20
50
7
13
nPherecides historicus Pythagorae magister clarus habetur.
o Hybicus carminum scriptor agnoscitur.
26
541
60th Olympiad
p Simonides lyricus, et Phocylides clari habentur, et Xenophanes physicus tragoediarum scriptor.
21
51
8
14
27
540
22
52
9
15
28
539
23
53
10
16
29
538
(1) Lit. "who was held by Cyrus in the first place".
[184/185]
Persarum Judaeorum Captivitas
Romanorum
Macedonum
Aegyptorum
BC
1980
24
54
a Tarquinius Superbus, socero Servio occiso, arripuit imperium. Volscos, Gabios, Suessam, Pometiam subegit: et cum oppugnaret Ardeam, causa Tarquinii junioris filii sui, qui Lucretiam corruperat, regno exclusus est. *
11
17
30
537
61st Olympiad
25
55
12
18
f Anacreon Lyricus poeta agnoscitur.
31
536
26
56
13
19
32
535
27
57
14
20
33
534
28
58
15
21
g Apud Samum tyrannidem exercent tres fratres Polycrates, Sylus, et Pantagnostus.
34
533
62nd Olympiad
29
59
16
22
35
532
30
60
b Tomyris regina Massagetarum Cyrum interfecit.
17
23
36
531
Persarum II, CAMBYSES, annis VIII
h Samii Dicaearchiam condiderunt, quam nunc Puteolos vocant.
1
61
c Cambisen istum aiunt ab Hebraeis secundum Nabuchodonosor vocari, sub quo Judith historia conscribitur.
18
24
i Pythagoras physicus philosophus clarus habetur.
37
530
2
62
19
25
38
529
63rd Olympiad
3
63
20
26
k Hipparchus et Hippias Athenis tyrannidem exercent.
39
528
1990 4
64
d Apud Hebraeos pontifex maximus Jesus filius Josedech, et princeps gentis Zorobabel, [ qui eos regnabat,] clari habentur.
21
27
40
527
5
65
22
28
41
526
6
66
23
29
42
525
64th Olympiad
Aegypti XXVII dynastia Persarum, obtinuit quippe Aegyptum Cambyses in anno V regni sui, usque ad Darium filium Xerxis, annis CXI
7
67
e Prophetabant apud Hebraeos novissimi Aggaeus, Zacharias et Malachias.
24
30
524
8
68
25
31
523
Persarum III, duo fratres magi, menses VII, post quos (IV,) DARIUS, annis XXXVI
[186/187]
Persarum
Judaeorum Captivitas
Romanorum
Macedonum
BC
1
69
26
32
a Ideo secundus annus bis scribitur quia unus annus in magorum fratrum VII mensibus computantur.
2
70
27
33
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
a Secundo anno Darii regis, Templum in Hierosolymis exstruitur a Zorobabel, consummaturque opus anno IV.
d Clemens quoque his congruit in primo Stromate ita scribens:
"Et perseveravit captivitas annis LXX usque ad secundum annum Darii filii Hystaspis, qui Persis, Assyriis, et Aegypto regnavit: sub quo Aggaeus et Zacharias, et unus de duodecim, qui vocatur Angelus (Malachias), prophetaverunt, sacerdotioque functus est Jesus filius Josedech. Haec supradictus vir."
Quod autem LXX annus desolationis Templi altero anno Darii fuerit expletus, domesticus testis est Zacharias propheta, secundo anno Darii dicensr: "Domine omnipotens, quousque non misereberis Jerusalem et civitatibus Juda, quas despexisti?" Iste LXX annus est.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
b Remissio quidem captivitatis Judaeorum, et venia Templi aedificandi sub Cyro exordium habuit: consummatur vero Templum sub Dario; quia vicinae gentes assiduis incursionibus aedificationem impedierant.
65th Olympiad
c In qua Persarum regis Darii filii Hystaspis fuit annus secundus.
1. This is the last page of the double-page arrangement of the Chronicle. Hereafter the Chronicle appears on successive pages normally. In 'O', there are stubs of parchment sticking out of the spine, suggesting that pages were removed. This is the exact middle of the codex.
This text was transcribed and edited by JMB. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_chronicle_06_latin_part .htm
Jerome, Chronicle (2005) pp.188-332
Jerome, Chronicle (2005) pp.188-332
[188/189]
Persarum
Initium Consulum
Romanorum Macedonum BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
2
a Armodius et Aristogiton Hipparchum tyrannum interfecerunt, et Leaena meretrix amica eorum, cum tormentis cogeretur, ut socios proderet linguam suam mordicus amputavit. 28
34
520
LXVIII Olympias a XVII mare obtinuerunt Aeginetae, annis XX, usque ad transitum Xerxis.
3
29
35
519
14
46
508
1510
15
47
507
16
b Valerius Bruti consulis collega adeo pauper mortuus est, ut sumptu publico sepeliretur. *
48
506
4
30
36
518
17
49
505
1500
5
31
37
517
LXIX Olympias
LXVI Olympias
18
c Censu Romae agitato, inventa sunt hominum CXX millia.
50
504
6
b Templum Jerosolymis consummatur, prophetantibus apud Judaeos Aggaeo et Zacharia. 32
38
516
Macedonum X, ALEXANDER, annis XLIII
7
33
39
515
d Nono anno post exactos reges nova dignitas est creata, dictatura scilicet, et magister equitum, qui dictatori obsequeretur. Dictator primus Largius, magister equitum Spurius Cassius fuit. (*)
8
34
40
514
9
35
41
513
LXVII Olympias
~~~~
19
1
503
10
c Pulsis ab Urbe regibus, vix usque ad XV lapidem Roma tenebat imperium. Romanorum reges VII a Romulo usque ad Tarquinium Superbum imperaverunt annis CCXL, sive, ut quibusdam placet, CCXLIII. (*)
42
512
20
2
502
21
3
501
11
43
511
LXX Olympias e Hellanicus historiographus, et Democritus philosophus, et Heraclitus cognomento Tenebrosus, et Anaxagoras physicus clari habentur.
22
4
500
23
5
499
24
6
498
12
44
510 1520
25
f Pythagoras philosophus moritur.
7
497
d Romae post exactos Reges primum consules duo a Bruto esse coeperunt; deinde tribuni plebis ac dictatores, et rursum consules rempublicam obtinuerunt per annos ferme CDLXIV usque ad Julium Caesarem, qui primus singulare arripuit imperium olympiade CLXXXIII.
LXXI Olympias g Volsci Coriolos perdiderunt. *
26
h Aeschylus tragoediarum scriptor agnoscitur.
8
496
13
45
509
27
i Latini contra Romanos rebellarunt.
9
495
28
l Romae populus a patribus facta seditione discessit.
10
494
[190/191]
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
29
a Marcius, qui Coriolos ceperat, interventu matris Veturiae et uxoris Volumniae ab oppugnatione Urbis removit exercitum. *
11
493
3
a Choerilus et Phrynicus illustres habentur.
21
483
b Diagoras agnoscitur, et sectatores ejus physici philosophi.
4
22
482
LXXII Olympias
5
c Xerxes cum Athenas venisset, incendit urbem sub principe Callia.
23
481
30
b Bellum quod in Marathone gestum est, et ea quae de Miltiade scribuntur et Aristide, qui cognominabatur Justus.
12
492
31
13
491
LXXV Olympias
32
14
490
6
d Bellum quod in Thermopylis gestum est. Apud Salaminam navale certamen.
24
480
33
c Panyasis poeta habetur illustris.
15
489
d Trecenti nobiles Fabiae familiae a Veientibus caesi. *
7
e Athenienses Piraeum muro vallant.
25
479
e Cum in Algido monte Romani milites obsiderentur, a dictatore Quintio Cincinnato liberati sunt. *
8
f Hieron Syracusis regnat.
26
478
1540
9
g Aeschylus tragoediarum scriptor agnoscitur.
27
477
LXXVI Olympias
10
h Bellum quod in Plateis, et in Mycale.
28
476
LXXIII Olympias
11
i Hieron post Gelonem Syracusis tyrannidem exercet.
29
475
34
f Aegyptus recessit a Dario.
16
488
12
30
474
1530
35
g Gelo obtinuit Syracusas.
17
487
13
k Pindarus [musicus] clarus habetur.
31
473
36
h Pindarus et Simonides lyrici poetae insignes habentur.
486
LXXVII Olympias
14
l Themistocles in Persas fugit.
32 n Principium LXXI Jubilaei secundum Hebraeos. 472
i Romae virgo Vestalis Pompilia deprehensa in stupro, viva defossa est.
18
15
m Sophocles tragoediarum scriptor primum ingenii sui opera publicavit.
33 471
Persarum V, XERXES, filius Darii, annis XX.
1
19
485
16
o Romae virgo Vestalis Sunia deprehensa in stupro, viva defossa est.
34 470
LXXIV Olympias k Xerxes Aegyptum capit.
2
l Aristides cum ignominia ejicitur.
20
484
17
p Sophocles et Euripides clari habentur. 35
469
[192/193]
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
LXXVIII Olympias
et ea deinceps consecuta, quae ab his gesta referuntur.
a Herodotus historiarum scriptor agnoscitur.
3
a Sicilia a populo regebatur.
42
462
18
b Bacchylides et Diagoras Athenis plurimo sermone celebrantur.
36
468
4
b Cimon juxta Eurimedontem Persas navali pedestrique certamine superrat: et Medicum bellum conquiescit.
43
461
1550
19
c Zeuxis pictor agnoscitur, ex cujus alii imaginibus, quas plurimas invitatus fecerat, 'Lavacrum Byzantinorum' appellatum arbitrantur. *
37
467
Of the Macedonum, Perdiccas, for 28 years.
c Solis facta defectio.
LXXX Olympias
d Themistocles, hausto tauri sanguine, moritur.
5
d Anaxagoras moritur.
1
460
e Heraclitus clarus habetur.
20
e Socrates nascitur.
38
466
f Evenus poeta clarus habetur. important.
f Lapis in Aegon fluvium de coelo ruit.
g Ezras sacerdos apud Hebraeos insignis agnoscitur, cujus aetate Pontifex Maximus habitus est Heliasib, filius Joachim, filii Jesu, filii Josedech. Fuit autem Ezras eruditissimus Legis divinae, et clarus omnium Judaeorum magister, qui de Captivitate regressi fuerant in Judaeam..
Persarum VI, ARTABANUS, menses VII, [qui menses in ordine annus reputantur]. Post quem ARTAXERXES VII, qui Longimanus cognominabatur, annis XL.
6
2
459
39
465
7
3
458
1560
8
4
457
LXXXI Olympias h Empedocles et Parmenides physici philosophi notissimi habentur.
LXXIX Olympias g Ea quae de Hester, et Mardochaeo scripta sunt: quidam affirmant sub hoc rege gesta, quod ego non puto; numquam enim Ezras de Hester siluisset, qui scribit hoc tempore Ezram et Neemiam reversos ex Babylone,
9
5
456
1
40
464
i Zeno et Heraclitus Tenebrosus agnoscitur.
10
k Pherecydes secundus historiarum scriptor agnoscitur.
6
455
2
41
463
11
l Cratinus et Plato comoediarum scriptores 7
454
[194/195]
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
clari habentur.
1570
18
sibi domino suo, XX ejus anno de Babylone venit in Judaeam, et XXXII anno muros, urbemque restituit. Scribit Ezras opus fuisse completum sub pontifice Joade filio Joasib, cui successit Joannes filius suus, qui temporibus Alexandri Macedonis fuit, opus fuisse completum.
14
447
a Aristarchus tragoediographus agnoscitur.
b Romae clarior Agon centenarius primus actus.
12
c CCCII anno ab Urbe condita Decemviri creati, et post annum ejecti sunt propter Appium Claudium, qui Virginii cujusdam filiam contra Latinos in Algido militantis voluit abducere. *
8
453
19
a Huc usque Hebraeorum divinae Scripturae annales temporum continent: ea vero quae post haec apud eos gesta sunt, exhibemus de libro Machabaeorum, et Josephi, et Africani scriptis, qui deinceps universam historiam usque ad Romana tempora persecuti sunt.
15
446
LXXXII Olympias
13
d Romani per legatos ab Atheniensibus jura petierunt, ex quibus duodecim tabulae conscriptae.
9
452
20
b Athenienses et Lacedaemonii foedus XXX annorum ineunt.
16
445
14
e Crates Comicus, et Telesilla ac Bacchylides Lyricus, clari habentur: Praxilla quoque et Cleobulina sunt celebres.
10
451
c Herodotus cum Athenis libros suos in concilio legisset, honoratus est.
LXXXIV Olympias
15
f Templum Junonis, quod Argis fuerat, incensum.
11
450
21
d Melissus physicus agnoscitur.
17
444
22
e Euripides tragoediarum scriptor clarus habetur, et Protagoras sophista, cujus libros decreto publico Athenienses combusserunt.
18
443
16
g Abaris Hyperboreanus Ariolus agnoscitur.
12
449
23
19
442
LXXXIII Olympias h Tribuni plebis et Aediles Romae facti, Consulibus ejectis.
24
20
441
LXXXV Olympias
17
i Neemias Hebraeus, minister vinarius Artaxerxis regis, concedente
13
448
25
f Romae rursus Consules creati.
21
440
26
g Phidias eburneam Minervam facit.
22
439
[196/197]
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
a Fidennates contra Romanos rebellant. *
35
a Athenienses pestilentia laborant.
3
430
27
b Theaetetus mathematicus agnoscitur. Aristophanes clarus habetur, et Sophocles poeta tragicus.
23
438
bThucydides agnoscitur.
1580
28
24
437
36
c Pericles moritur.
4
429
LXXXVI Olympias
LXXXVIII Olympias
c Gens Campanorum in Italia constituta.
37
d Eupolis et Aristophanes scriptores comoediarum agnoscuntur.
5
428
29
d Democritus Abderites, et Empedocles, et Hippocrates medicus, Gorgias, Hippiasque, et Prodicus, et Zeno, et Parmenides philosophi insignes habentur.
25
436
30
26
435 1590
38
6
427
31
27
434
39
e Ex Aetna monte ignis erupit.
7
426
32
28
433
e Socrates, qui scholam congregavit, plurimo sermone celebratur.
f Terraemotu apud Locros, scissa Atalante, civitas facta est insula.
fNeemiam, qui muros Jerusalem construxit, consummasse opus XXXII anno Artaxerxis regis Persarum, Ezras memorat. Si quis ab hoc tempore LXX hebdomadas a Daniele scriptas numeret, quae faciunt annos CDXC, reperiet eas in regno Neronis expletas, sub quo obsideri Jerusalem coepta, secundo postea Vespasiani anno capitur.
40
g Plato nascitur.
8
425
LXXXIX Olympias
Persarum VIII, secundus XERXES, menses II. Post quem IX SOGDIANUS, menses VII. Cui succedit X DARIUS, cognomento Nothus, annis XIX.
Macedonum XII, ARCHELAUS annis XXIV.
1
h Lacedaemonii et Athenienses foedus percutiunt.
9
424
LXXXVII Olympias
2
i Eudoxus Cnidius clarus habetur.
10
423
33
g Initium belli Peloponnesiaci.
1
432
3
k Lacedaemonii ver sacrum Heracleam destinantes urbem condunt. (*)
11
422
h Bacchylides carminum scriptor agnoscitur.
4
12
421
34
2
431
XC Olympias
[198/199]
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
Aegyptiorum BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
Aegyptiorum
BC
5
13
1
420
Darii et Parysatidis filius, annis XL. a Sub hoc rege mihi videtur historia, quae in Hester libro continetur, expleta: ipse quippe est, qui ab Hebraeis Assuerus, et a LXX Interpretibus Artaxerxes vocatur.
6
14
419
7
15
418
1
1
3
405
1600
8
16
417
XCIV Olympias
XCI Olympias
Aegyptus a Persis recessit, et regnavit AMARTHEUS, Saites annis VI.
9
a Clades quae Atheniensibus accidit in Sicilia. 17
416
2
2
4
404
10
18
415
3
3
5
403
11
19
414
4
4
6
402
12
b Alcibiades profugus abiit ad Tisaphernem. 20
1
413
b Dionysius Syracusis tyrannidem exercet.
Macedonum XIV, AMYNTAS, anno I.
Post quem ACHORIS, annis XII.
XCII Olympias
13
c Euboea ab Atheniensium societate discedit. 21
2
412
c Athenienses sustinent tyrannidem.
14
22
3
411
15
23
4
410
5
d Isocrates rhetor agnoscitur. 1
1
401
16
24
5
409
Post quem PAUSANIAS, anno I.
XCIII Olympias
Macedonum, ORESTES annis III.
2
e XXIX dynastia Aegypti Mendesiorum.
17
d Euripides apud Archelaum, et Sophocles Athenis moritur. 1
6
408
f Democritus moritur.
XXVIII Aegypti dynastia. NEPHERITES, annis VI.
g Alcibiadem Pharnabazus interficit.
1610
18
2
1
407
h Cyri regis ascensus, de quo scribit Xenophon.
19
3
2
406
XCV Olympias
Persarum XI, ARTAXERXES, qui cognominatus est Mnemon, e Dionysius in Sicilia tyrannidem exercet.
Macedonum XIII, ARCHELAUS, annis IV.
6
i Tyranni Athenis oppressi. 1
2
400
k Athenienses XXIV litteris uti coeperunt, cum antea XVI tantum litteras haberent.
1. At this point, in mid-page in 'O', the column of Macedonian regnal years which is black up to this point suddenly turns red. This is clear evidence that the scribe copied the colours from his exemplar, and did not amend them. It also shows that the exemplar did indeed have 26 lines, because the colour change occurs at the page-break (as here) in such an exemplar, rather than in mid-page, as in 'O'.
2. This entry should be red, but is in fact black in 'O'.
[200/201]
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
Aegyptiorum BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
Aegyptiorum
BC
a Xenophon filius Grylli, et Ctesias clari habentur.
Post quem, AMYNTAS, annis VI.
NECTANEBUS, annis XVIII.
7
b Socrates venenum bibit.
1
3
399 1630
19
a Evagoras in furorem versus cum regnaret Cypri. 1 5
1
387
8
c Templum rursus Ephesi incensum. 2
4
398
20
6
2
386
1620
9
d Socratici clari habentur. 3
5
397
21
7
3
385
XCVI Olympias
XCIX Olympias
10
e Diogenes Cynicus agnoscitur. 4
6
396
22
b XXX dynastia Aegypti, Sebennytarum. 8
4
384
11
f Speusippus insignis habetur. 5
7
395
23
9
5
383
12
6
8
394
24
10
6
382
g Dionysius in tyrannide perseverat. Post quem, ARGEUS, annis II.
25
11
7
381
C Olympias
13
h Carthaginensium bellum famosum. 1
9
393
26
c Magno terrae motu Helice et Bura Peloponnesi urbes absorptae sunt. 12
8
380
XCVII Olympias
27
13
9
379
14
i Eudoxus astrologus agnoscitur. 2
10
392
28
14
10
378
Post quem rursum AMYNTAS, annis XVIII.
1 11
1640
29
d Praenestini a Romanis victi apud flumen Alliam per Quinctium Cincinnatum. (*) 15
11
377
15
k Galli Senones Romam invaserunt, excepto Capitolio. (*)
391
16
2
12
390
Aegypti PSAMUTHES, anno I.
e Athenienses principes Graeciae facti.
CI Olympias
17
3
1
389
30
f Isocrates rhetor agnoscitur. 16
12
376
XCVIII Olympias l Plato philosophus agnoscitur.
Post quem NEPHERITES, menses IV.
31
17
13
375
32
g Plato et Xenophon, necnon et alii Socratici clari habentur. 18
14
374
18
m Tribuni militares pro consulibus esse coeperunt. * 4
1
388
Macedonum ALEXANDER, anno I.
Post quem,
33
1
15
373
(1) Diodorus 14.110.5.
[202/203]
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
Aegyptiorum BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
Aegyptiorum regnum destructum est.
BC
CII Olympias
Post quem PTOLEMAEUS ALORITES, annis IV.
Post quem Macedonum, PHILIPPUS, annis XXVII.
4
1
6
362
34
1
16
372
5
2
7
361
35
2
17
371
CV Olympias
36
3
18
370
6
a Demosthenes orator agnoscitur. 3
8
360
Aegypti THEO, annis II.
7
b Ochus Apodasmo Judaeorum capta, in Hyrcaniam accolas translatos juxta mare Caspium collocavit. 4
9
359
a Theo rex Aegypti fugit in Arabiam.
8
5
10
358
37
4
1
369 1660
9
6
11
357
CIII Olympias
Post quem PERDICCA, annis VI.
CVI Olympias
10
c Dionysius Sicilia pellitur. 7
12
356
38
b Dionysius rex Siciliae 19 anno moritur, post quem junior Dionysius regnum invadit. 1
2
368
11
d Alexander Philippi et Olympiadis filius nascitur. 8
13
355
XXX dynastia Aegyptiorum, NECTANEB, annis XVIII.
12
e Dion Syracusis interimitur. 9
14
354
13
f Hipparinus Dionysii filius Syracusis tyrannidem exercet. 10
15
353
CVII Olympias
1650
39
c Aristoteles XVIII aetatis gerens annum, Platonis auditor est. 2
1
367
14
g Erinna poetria agnoscitur. 11
16
352
40
3
2
366
15
h Ochus Aegyptum tenuit, Nectanebo in Aethiopiam pulso, in quo Aegyptiorum regnum destructum est. 12
17
351
Persarum XII, ARTAXERXES, qui et OCHUS, annis XXVI
16
13
18
350
17
14
@@@@@@ 349
1
4
3
365
CVIII Olympias
CIV Olympias d Alexander Pheraeus agnoscitur.
18
i huc usque Manethos: Ochus Sidonem subvertit, et Aegyptum suo junxit imperio. 15
2
5
4
364 1670
19
16
3
e Camillus Gallos, qui bellum Romanis intulerant, superat. 6
5
363
k Demosthenes Orator
[204/205]
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum BC
Persarum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
omnium rumore [fama] celebratur.
Post quem DARIUS, XIV, Arsami filius, annis VI.
a Manasses frater Jaddi pontificis Judaeorum templum in montem Garizin construit.
20
a Romani Gallos superant.
17
346
21
b Dionysius Corinthum sub foedere navigavit.
18
345
1
b Alexander adversus Illyricos et Thracas feliciter dimicans, subversis Thebis, in Persas arma corripuit, et apud Granicum flumen, regiis ducibus oppressis, urbem Sardeis capit.
2
335
c Plato moritur, post quem Academiam Speusippus tenuit.
2
3
334
3
4
333
CIX Olympias d Romani cum Samnites duobus proeliis cecidissent, universos confines, quia a sua societate discesserant, in ditionem propriam redigunt.
22
19
344
23
20
343
c Romanorum consul Manlius Torquatus filium suum, quod contra imperium in hostem pugnaverat, virgis caesum securi percussit. (*)
24
21
342
25
e Dionysius Corintho expulsus.
22
341
CX Olympias f Descriptione Romae facta, inventa sunt civium CLX millia.
26
23
340
CXII Olympias
Persarum XIII, ARSES, Ochi filius, annis IV. g Judaeorum pontifex maximus Jaddus clarus habetur.
4
d Alexander, capta Tyro, Judaeam invadit, a qua favorabiliter exceptus, Deo victimas immolat, et pontificem templi honoribus plurimis prosequitur, Andromacho locorum custode dimisso, quem postea Samaritani interficiunt: ob quae ab Aegypto reversus Alexander Magnus magnis eos suppliciis adfecit, et urbem eorum captam Macedonibus ad inhabitandum tradit. (*)
5
332
1
h Speusippus moritur, cui successit Xenocrates.
24
339
2
25
338
1680
3
26
337
5
6
331
CXI Olympias
Macedon. XXIV, ALEXANDER, Philippi filius, annis XII, menses VI.
6
e Alexandria in Aegypto condita, septimo anno regni Alexandri: quo tempore etiam Latini a Romanis perdomiti sunt.
7
330
4
1
336
[206/207]
Regnum Persarum destructum est
Consulum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Macedonum
BC
a Alexander obtinuit Babylonem, interfecto Dario, in quo Persarum regnum destructum est.
Aegypto primus regnavit PTOLEMAEUS, Lagi filius, annis XL.
Macedonibus regnavit PHILIPPUS, qui et Aridaeus, frater Alexandri, annis VII.
Alexander regnum Asiae anno regni sui VII occupat, et tenet omnia annis XII.
a Appius Claudius Caecus Romae clarus habetur, qui aquam Claudiam induxit, et viam Appiam stravit. *
Of Alexander
1
b Lydiam, et Thraciam, et Hellespontum Lysimachus tenuit.
1
324
8
b Anaximenes, et Epicurus clari habentur.
329
c Macedonum duces in seditionem versi.
c Alexander Hyrcanos et Mardos capit, revertensque in Ammone condidit Paraetonium.
2
d Agathocles Syracusis tyrannidem exercet.
2
323
CXIII Olympias
e Lamiacum bellum motum.
9
d Alexander Aornim petram capit, et Indum amnem transgreditur.
328
f Perdicca adversus Aegyptios dimicat.
3
g Ptolemaeus Lagi filius Jerosolymis et Judaea in dicionem suam dolo redactis, plurimos captivorum in Aegyptum transtulit.
3
322
1690
10
e Bellum Alexandri in India adversum Porum, et Taxillen.
327
11
f Harpalus fugit in Atticam.
h Judaeorum pontifex maximus Onias Jaddi filius clarus habetur.
12
g Romani Samnites subigunt, et colonias deducunt.
326
4
i Menander primam fabulam cognomento Oργην 1 docens, superat.
4
321
CXIV Olympias
h Alexander XXXII aetatis suae anno moritur in Babylone, post quem translato in multos imperio.
k Theophrastus philosophus agnoscitur, qui a divinitate loquendi, ut ait Cicero, nomen accepit. (*)
(1) ΟΡΓΗΝ = 'anger'.
[208/209]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Primus Syriae
Macedonum Primus Asiae
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae
Macedonum Asiae
BC
CXV Olympias
16
a Theodorus Atheus agnoscitur.
4
9
10
309
5
a Demetrius Phalereus habetur illustris.
5
320
CXVIII Olympias
17
b Demetrius Phalereus ad Ptolemaeum veniens impetravit, ut Atheniensibus democratia redderetur.
5
10
11
308
b Romani Samnites diutissime contra proeliantes, ad extremum in servitutem redigunt.
Asiae regnat ANTIGONUS, annis XVIII.
1710
18
6
11
12
307
6
6 319
19
7
12
13
306
7
7
1
318
20
8
13
14
305
Macedonum CASSANDER, annis XIX.
CXIX Olympias
21
c Seleucus Antiochiam, Laodiciam, Seleucim, Apamiam, Edessam, Beroeam, et Pellam urbes condidit, quarum Antiochiam XII anno regni sui exstruxit..
9
14
15
304
1700
8
1
2
317
CXVI Olympias
22
10
15
16
303
9
c Menedemus et Speusippus philosophi insignes habentur.
2
3
316
10
3
4
315
23
11
16
17
302
11
4
5
314
24
12
17
18
301
12
5
6
313
d Seleucus Babyloniam obtinuit.
CXVII Olympias
CXX Olympias
Asiae DEMETRIUS, qui et Poliorcetes, annis XVII
d Machabaeorum Hebraea historia hinc Graecorum supputat regnum. Verum hi libri inter divinas Scripturas non recipiuntur.
Syriae et Babyloniae, et superiorum locorum, regnavit SELEUCUS NICANOR, annis XXXII.
e Judaeorum pontifex maximus Simon Oniae filius clarus habetur, cui cognomentum Justo fuit propter sollicitam in Deum religionem, et in cives suos pronam clementiam.
25
13
18
1
302
26
14
19
2
303
Macedonum filii Cassandri, annis IV, ANTIGONUS et ALEXANDER.
13
e Romani Marsos, a Umbros, et Pelignos superant.
1
6
7
312
27
15
1
3
302
Ab hoc loco Edesseni sua tempora computant. 14
f Romani colonias deducunt.
2
7
8
311 1720
28
16
2
4
301
g Lysimachia in Thracia condita.
CXXI Olympias
15
h Cyprum Ptolemaeus invasit.
3
8
9
310
29
f Demetrius rex Asiae,
17
3
5
300
[210/211]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae
Macedonum Asiae
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae
Macedonum Asiae
BC
30
cognomento Poliorcetes, Samaritanorum urbem vastat, quam Perdicca construxerat.
18
4
6
295
Syriae et Asiae pariter imperavit.
DEMETRIUS, annis VI.
39
a Serapis ingressus est Alexandriam.
27
2
15
286
a Censu Romae agitato, inventa sunt civium Romanorum CCLXX millia.
31
19
1
7
294
40
b Conditae a Romanis Ariminum et Beneventum. *
28
3
16
285
CXXIV Olympias
32
b Legati Alexandrini a Ptolemaeo primum Romam missi amicitias impetraverunt. *
20
2
8
293
Aegypti II, PTOLEMAEUS Philadelphus, annis XXXVIII
1
c Sostratus Gnidius Pharum in Alexandria construxit.
29
4
17
284
CXXII Olympias
Demetrius semetipsum Seleuco tradidit.
33
c Menander comicus moritur. 21
3
9
292
d Antigonus cognomento Gonatas Lacedaemonem obtinuit.
d TRomani Gallos, Tyrrhenosque superant: et Sabinorum terra sorte dividitur.
e Romani Crotonem capiunt.
34
22
4
10
291
2
f Ptolemaeus Philadelphus Judaeos, qui in Aegypto erant, liberos esse permisit: et, vasa Eleazaro Pontifici Jerosolymarum votiva transmittens, divinas Scripturas in Graecam vocem ex Hebraea lingua per LXX Interpretes transferri curavit, quas in Alexandrina bibliotheca habuit, quam sibi ex omni genere litteraturae comparaverat.
30
5
283
e Seleucus in eas urbes, quas exstruxerat, Judaeos transfert, jus eis civium et municipalem ordinem cum Graecis aequali honore concedens.
Macedonum PTOLEMAEUS, cognomento ΚΕΡΑΥΝΟΣ. 1
35
23
5
11
3
31
1
282
36
24
6
12
MELEAGRUS, menses II. ANTIPATER, dies XLV. Post quem SOSTHENES annis II.
CXXIII Olympias
Macedonum PYRRHUS, menses VII
f Judaeorum pontifex Eleazarus frater Simonis suscepit templi ministerium, filio Simonis Onia parvo admodum derelicto.
37
25
13
Post quem, LYSIMACHUS, annis V.
g Seleucus in Cilicia, capto Demetrio
1720
38
26
1
14
1. In 'O' this reads 'Ceraunos' in Roman letters.
[212/213]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Macedonum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Macedonum
BC
4
22
1
281 1750
18
multaeque urbes in Sicilia eis junctae. 14
13
267
Syriae et Asiae post Seleucum regnavit ANTIOCHUS SOTER, annis XIX.
19
a Romae virgo Vestalis in stupro detecta, laqueo vitam explet. * 15
14
266
CXXV Olympias
20
16
15
265
5
1
2
280
CXXIX Olympias
ANTIGONUS GONATAS, annis XXXVI.
21
b Zeno Stoicus moritur, post quem Cleanthes. 17
16
264
6
2
1
279
22
c Romani Syracusas capiunt. 18
17
263
7
3
2
278
d Nicomedes rex Bithyniae urbem amplians, Nicomediam nuncupavit.
1740
8
4
3
277
23
19
18
262
CXXVI Olympias
Syriae ANTIOCHUS, qui vocabatur Theos, annis XV.
9
a Una virginum Romanarum in corruptione deprehensa percutitur. 5
4
276
24
1
19
261
10
b Milo Romanis Tarentum tradidit. 6
5
275
CXXX Olympias
11
c Romani Calabriam, Messanamque tenuerunt. 7
6
274
25
e Romani Carthaginenses navali certamine superant, et centum Libyae urbes capiunt. 2
20
260
12
8
7
273
26
3
21
259
CXXVII Olympias
27
4
22
258
13
d Aratus agnoscitur.
9
8
272 1760
28
f Erasistratus medicus agnoscitur. 5
23
257
14
e Argenteus nummus primum in Urbe figuratus. 10
9
271
CXXXI Olympias
29
g Antigonus Atheniensibus reddit libertatem. 6
24
256
15
f Polemon philosophus moritur, post quem Arcesilas et Crates clari habentur. 11
10
270
16
12
11
269
30
h Judaeorum pontificatum post Eleazarum avunculus ejus Manasses accepit. 7
25
255
31
8
26
254
32
9
27
253
CXXVIII Olympias g Epicurus moritur.
CXXXII Olympias
17
h Romani colonias deduxerunt, 13
12
268s
33
i Carthaginenses XC Romanorum naves 10
28
252
[214/215]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syria and Asia
Macedonum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syria and Asia
Macedonum
BC
34
in Sicilia capiunt, Metello consule in fugam verso. 11
29
251
6
6
3
241
35
12
30
250
CXXXV Olympias
36
13
31
249
7
a Quintus Ennius poeta Tarenti nascitur, qui a Catone quaestore Romam translatus, habitavit in monte Aventino, parco admodum sumptu contentus, et unius ancillae ministerio. * 7
4
240
CXXXIII Olympias
37
a Parthis a Macedonum imperio recedentibus, primus regnavit ARSACES, unde Arsacidae dicti. 14
32
248
8
8
5
239
9
9
6
238
1770
38
15
33
247 1780
10
10
7
237
Aegypti III, PTOLEMAEUS EVERGETES, annis XXVI
Syriae SELEUCUS CALLINICUS, annis XX.
CXXXVI Olympias
11
b Virgo Vestalis Romae a servo corrupta, propria manu se interemit. 11
8
236
12
12
9
235
1
b Judaeorum pontifex Onias, Simonis Justi filius, clarus habetur, qui consueta regi Ptolemaeo tributa non reddens, ad iram eum compulit. Verum Josephus, vir inter suos nobilis, legatus a Judaeis ad Ptolemaeum missus, cum familiaritatem regis ob plurima in eum meruisset obsequia, dux Judaeae et regionum finitimarum constituitur. 1
34
246
13
13
10
234
Macedonum ANTIGONUS, annis 15.
14
14
1
233
CXXXVII Olympias
15
c Judaeorum pontifex Simon, Oniae filius, clarus habetur, sub quo Jesus filius Sirach Sapientiae librum componens, quem vocant Panareton, etiam Simonis in eo fecit mentionem.
15
2
232
2
2
35
245
16
16
3
231
CXXXIV Olympias
17
17
4
230
3
3
36
244
18
18
5
229
CXXXVIII Olympias
Macedonum DEMETRIUS, annis X.
19
19
6
228
1790
20
d XL ferme millia Gallorum a Romanis caesa. 20
7
227
c Censu Romae agitato, inventa sunt hominum CCLX millia.
Syriae, SELEUCUS CERAUNUS, annis III.
4
4
1
243
5
d Romae templum Vestae incensum. 5
2
242
21
1
8
226
[216/217]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syria and Asia
Macedonum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syria and Asia
Macedonum
BC
22
2
9
225
CXLII Olympias Syracusas capiunt.
CXXXIX Olympias
9
a Romani subjugant Capuam et Siciliam. 12
7
212
23
3
10
224
ANTIOCHUS MAGNUS, annis XXXVI
10
b Antiochus rex Syriae, victo Philopatore Ptolemaeo, Judaeam sibi sociat.
13
8
211
11
14
9
210
24
a Caria et Rhodos ita terraemotu concussae sunt, ut Colossus magnus rueret. 1
11
223
12
c Levinus cum rege Asiae Attalo amicitiam facit. * 15
10
209
25
2
12
222
CXLIII Olympias
26
3
13
221
13
d Judaeorum pontifex maximus Onias, filius Simonis, insignis habetur, ad quem Lacedaemoniorum rex Arrius legatos mittit. 16
11
208
CXL Olympias
1810
14
17
12
207
Aegypti PTOLEMAEUS PHILOPATOR, annis XVII
15
18
13
206
16
19
14
205
CXLIV Olympias
1
b Ea quae in tertio Machabaeorum libro scripta sunt, sub hoc Ptolemaeo gesta referuntur.
4
14
220
17
e Scipio Hiberiae multas urbes recipit. 20
15
204
2
5
15
219
Aegypti V, PTOLEMAEUS EPIPHANES, annis XXIV
Macedonum PHILIPPUS, annis XLII
3
6
1
218
1
f Ptolemaeus Epiphanes, Scopa principe militiae destinato, Judaeam capit, et plurimas Syriae civitates. 21
16
203
1800
4
7
2
217
CXLI Olympias
2
22
17
202
5
c Victi Judaei, et LX millia armatorum ex numero eorum caesa sunt. 8
3
216
3
g Naevius comicus Uticae moritur, pulsus Roma, factione nobilium, ac praecipue Metelli. * 23
18
201
d Romae virgines Vestae ob stupri reatum terra obrutae.
6
9
4
215
7
10
5
214
CXLV Olympias h Plautus ex Umbria Sarsinas Romae moritur, qui propter annonae difficultatem ad molas manuarias pistori se locaverat;
8
e Eratosthenes philosophus agnoscitur. 11
6
213
4
24
19
200
f Romani, Marcello consule,
[218/219]
Alexandrinorum
Romans
Syria and Asia
Macedonum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syria and Asia
Macedonum
BC
ibi quotiens ab opere vacaret, scribere fabulas, et solitus vendere. *
'dotis' nomine Syriam, Phoenicen, Samariam, Judaeamque concedit.
15
35
30
189
CXLVIII Olympias
5
a Juxta Theram apparuit insula, quae vocatur Hiera. 25
20
199
a Eumenes, frater regis Attali, qui Eumeniam in Phrygia condidit, clarus habetur. *
6
26
21
198
1820
7
b Antiochus, Scopa superato, Syriae urbes recepit, et Judaea ei voluntate conjungitur. 27
22
197
16
b Secundus liber Machabaeorum apud Judaeos hujus temporis gesta continet. 36
31
188
Syriae et Asiae, SELEUCUS qui et PHILOPATOR, annis XII
CXLVI Olympias
8
c Romani Graecos liberos esse jusserunt: et universa Hiberia imperata fecit. 1 28
23
196
c Titus Livius tragoediarum scriptor clarus habetur, qui ob ingenii meritum a Livio Salinatore, cujus liberos erudiebat, libertate donatus est. 2 *
1830
17
1
32
187
9
d Antiochus Judaeorum erga se cognita voluntate, magnis eos muneribus donat, et per epistolas crebris laudibus prosequitur. 29
24
195
10
30
25
194
d Cum ab Antiocho per legatos Hannibal reposceretur, cui se a Scipione victus sociaverat, ad Prusiam regem Bithyniae transfugit; quem cum rursus per Flaminium etiam ab eo Senatus repeteret, et tradendus esset, venenum bibit, et apud Libyssan Bithyniae sepultus est. *
11
31
26
193
CXLVII Olympias
18
2
33
186
e Post proelium, quo in Thermopylis est victus Antiochus, hoc inter Romanos et eum convenit, ut mille talenta per annos singulos 'vectigalis' nomine solveret.
12
32
27
192
19
3
34
185
13
33
28
191
XCLIX Olympias
f Romani multas colonias deduxerunt.
20
e Simon praepositus templi Jerosolymorum, ad Apollonium Phoenicis ducem confugiens, multis ei muneribus repromissis, sacerdotium sibi vindicare coepit: 4
35
184
g Antiochus in amicitiam Ptolemaei regressus pacem cum eo fecit, et Cleopatra filia sua uxore ei tradita,
14
34
29
190
(1) Hiberia: Only the Roman province of Hispania, as the remainder was still not under Roman control until 29 BC.
(2) cf. The Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature entry for "Livius Andronicus" who is here intended; the facts are disputed, see the Loeb Remains of Old Latin II p.viii ff. Titus is the name of Livius historicus not of the Lucius Livius Andronicus, writer of tragedy and epic here referred to.
[220/221]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Macedonum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Macedonum
BC
21
quo Seleucus audito, Heliodorum mittit ad negotium providendum: qui cum Judaeam venisset, inique judicans, et multa perperam gerens, divinis adversus se signis deterretur, et ad Seleucum revertitur. Onias autem sacerdos curaverat, ut Simon profugus fieret. 5
36
183
CLI Olympias
4
a Aristobulus, natione Judaeus, Peripateticus philosophus agnoscitur, qui ad Philometorem Ptolemaeum explanationum in Mosen Commentarios scribit.
12
1
176
Syriae et Asiae, ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, annis XI.
22
6
37
182
5
1
2
175
6
2
3
174
23
a Hyrcanus Josephi ducis Judaeae filius, cum ad Ptolemaeum perrexisset, honorifice ab eo susceptus est. Verum fratres ejus seditione contra eum mota, magnarum calamitatum Judaeae genti causa exstiterunt. 7
38
181
7
3
4
173
CLII Olympias
8
b Antiochus Epiphanes cum de regione Ptolemaeorum, quam subito invaserat, Senatus praecepto recessisset, [in] Judaeam venit, ibique Jesu, cui et Jason, fratri Oniae pontificatum tradidit; quo deinde expulso, Oniam cognomento Menelaum successorem ei dedit. Itaque ob sacerdotii dignitatem orta seditione inter principes, ingentium miseriarum semina pullulaverunt. 4
5
172
9
5
6
171
CL Olympias
24
8
39
180
10
6
7
170
Aegypti VI, PTOLEMAEUS PHILOMETOR, annis XXXV
11
7
8
169
1
b Statius Caecilius comoediarum scriptor clarus habetur: natione Insuber Gallus et Ennii primum contubernalis: quidam Mediolanensem ferunt. Mortuus est anno post mortem Ennii, et juxta Janiculum sepultus. * 9
40
179
CLIII Olympias
2
10
41
178
c Antiochus Judaeorum legem impugnat, primum quidem omnem eorum provinciam ad idololatriam compellens, qui parere noluerunt, eneca.
1840
3
11
42
177
Macedonum PERSES, annis X.
[222/223]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Macedonum BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
postea vero Jerosolymam ascendens, templum et vasa Dei quae ministerio fuerant consecrata, vastat: in templo, Jovis Olympii simulacrum ponit, in Samaria super verticem montis Garizi Jovis Peregrini delubrum aedificat, ipsis Samaritanis ut id faceret precantibus. Verum hoc in tempore Matthathias quidam ex sacerdotibus, filius Asamonaei, vico Modeim, adversum Antiochi duces arma corripiens, fultus etiam auxilio filiorum, leges patrias vindicavit olympiade CLIII.
CLIV Olympias
Syriae et Asiae, ANTIOCHUS EUPATOR, annis II.
a Judaeorum dux Judas, qui et Machabaeus, filius Matthathiae, Antiochi duces de Judaea expellens, et templum ab idolorum imaginibus emundans, patrias leges post triennium suis civibus reddidit olympiade CLIV.
16
1
164
17
2
163
DEMETRIUS SOTER, annis XII.
18
1
162
19
2
161
CLV Olympias
Judaeorum dux, JUDAS [MACHABAEUS], annis III.
b Menelao pontifice Judaeorum a juniore Antiocho occiso, qui prius Judaeam Epiphani Antiocho prodiderat, Alcimus alienus a genere sacerdotali, ambitione pontificatum invadit. Ob quod Onias filius pontificis Oniae Aegyptum transmigrans, in Heliopolitano pago civitatem nominis sui condidit, templo ad similitudinem templi patrii constructo. Alcimus vero adversus Judam Machabaeum inimicitias gerens, post non multum temporis, Dei ira percussus interiit; ac sic cum omnium Judaeorum favore, Judae Machabaeo sacerdotium decernitur, qui dignitate suscepta, legatos Romam dirigit; decrevitque senatus Judaeos amicos et auxiliatores Romanorum habendos.
12
a Ennius poeta septuagenario major articulari morbo perit, sepultusque est in Scipionis monumento via Appia intra primum ab Urbe milliarium. Quidam ossa ejus Rudiam ex Janiculo translata adfirmant. * 8
9
168
20
3
1
160
1850
13
9
10
167
14
10
11
166
15
b Romani, interfecto Perse, Macedonas, Illyricos, et Galatas liberos esse jusserunt. 11
12
165
21
4
2
159
Macedonum regnum defecit.
~~~~~~~~
[224/225]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
CLVII Olympias
28
a Pseudophilippus regnat in Macedonia anno I. 11
6
152
22
a Publius Terentius Carthaginensis comoediarum scriptor, ob ingenium et formam libertate donatus, in Arcadia moritur, qui primam Andriam, antequam aedilibus venderet, Caecilio multum se mirari legit. * 5
3
158
29
b Alexander Antiochi, qui Epiphanes cognominatus est, filius, Syriae et Asiae imperans, Jonathan corona et multis insignibus donis prosequitur. 12
7
151
Judaeorum dux, JONATHAS, annis XIX
Syriae et Asiae, ALEXANDER, annis IX, menses X
1860
23
b Judas adversum Demetrii duces inito proelio occiditur, tribus annis pontificatu gesto. 6
1
157
30
c Romani, interfecto Pseudophilippo, Macedonas tributarios faciunt. 1
8
150
31
2
9
149
CLVI Olympias
CLVIII Olympias
24
c Aristarchus grammaticus agnoscitur. 7
2
156
32
d Samaritani et Judaei Alexandriae Ptolemaeo judicante contendunt de honoribus ex utraque parte templo suo deferendis, et superant Judaei. 3
10
148
25
d Dux Judaeorum Jonathas frater Judae, Bacchide duce Demetrii Judaea expulso, pontificatum suscepit. * 8
3
155
e Lucilius poeta nascitur. *
26
e Pacuvius Brundusinus tragoediarum scriptor clarus habetur, Ennii poetae ex filia nepos, vixitque Romae quoad picturam exercuit, ac fabulas venditavit: deinde Tarentum transgressus, prope nonagenarius diem obiit.1 9
4
154 1870
33
f Descriptione Romae facta, inventa sunt hominum CCCXXII millia. 4
11
147
34
g Oppius Gallos capit: et Carthago in ditionem Romanorum per Scipionem redigitur, habens a conditione sui annos DCLXVIII; ut vero alii affirmant, DCCXLVIII 5
12
146
27
10
5
153
35
6
13
145
(1) The "Remains of Old Latin," vol. II (Loeb Library, 1982), says that Pacuvius was "[p. xvii] a son of the sister of the poet | [p. xviii] Ennius," with footnote e, attached to the word "sister," saying "So Pliny, XXXV, 19; son of Ennius's daughter, says Jerome wrongly" (p. xvii). Later, the text says: "His year of fame is stated by Jerome to have been 154 B.C." with footnote d, "Jerome, ad ann. 600 = 154" (p. xviii).
[226/227]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
a quo fundus Accianus juxta Pisaurum dicitur: quia illuc inter Colonos fuerat ex Urbe deductus. *
CLIX Olympias
Aegypti VII, PTOLEMAEUS EUERGETES, annis XXIX.
7
a Trypho Syriae regnum conatus invadere, Antiocho filio Alexandri interfecto ad extremum et ipse super moritur. 3
1
138
Post quem ANTIOCHUS SIDETES, annis IX.
1
a Jonathas dux Judaeorum pariter et pontifex cum Romanis et Spartiatibus amicitias facit. 7
14
144
1880
8
b Post Demetrium regnavit universae Syriae frater ejus Antiochus, qui cognominatus est Sidetes. 1
2
137
2
b Alexandro filio Balae, regi Syriae, Ptolemaeus filiam suam tradidit uxorem. 8
15
143
3
c Scipio Numantinos subvertit. 9
16
142
CLXI Olympias
d Brutus Hiberiam usque ad Oceanum subigit.
9
c Simoni, Judaeorum pontifici pariter et principi, Romani et Spartiatae --legatione ejus libenter excepta--, amicalia misere rescripta. 2
3
136
4
e Trypho Jonatham pontificem Judaeorum interficit, et in sacerdotium fratris Jonathae Simon assumitur. 10
17
141
Syriae et Asiae, DEMETRIUS, annis III.
10
3
4
135
CLX Olympias
d Bellum Servile ortum in Sicilia.
5
f Trypho Antiochum occidit Alexandri filium. 1
18
140
11
e Simon Judaeorum pontifex interficitur, cui succedit filius suus Joannes. 4
5
134
g Ptolemaeus filiam suam Demetrio tradit uxorem cum regno quod abstulerat Alexandro.
12
f Primus liber Machabaeorum hujus temporis historiam continet. 5
6
133
CLXII Olympias g Antiochus Sidetes rex Syriae adversus Judaeam arma corripiens, et Jerosolymam vallo circumdans, cum ad conditiones pontificem Simonem compulisset, recedit CLXII olympiade.
6
hLucius Accius tragoediarum scriptor clarus habetur, natus Mancino et Serrano consulibus parentibus libertinis, et seni jam Pacuvio Tarenti sua scripta recitavit: 2
19
139
13
6
7
132
Judaeorum dux, SIMON, annis VIII.
14
7
8
131
Judaeorum, HYRCANUS, qui et Joannes, annis XXVI.
h Attalus moriens regni sui
[228/229]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
15
populum Romanum instituit haeredem. 8
1
130
27
quam postea Herodes instaurans Sebasten in honorem Augusti appellari voluit. 7
13
118
16
a Ptolemaeus expulsus Aegypto. 9
2
129
CLXIII Olympias
Post quem DEMETRIUS iterum, annis IV
1900
28
8
14
117
b Arsaces Parthus Antiochum interfecit.
CLXVI Olympias
29
a Marcus Terentius Varro philosophus et poeta nascitur. * 9
15
116
17
c Servi, qui in Sicilia rebellabant, obsidionis necessitate compulsi, ad sua invicem cadavera devoranda conversi sunt. 1
3
128
Aegypti VIII, PTOLEMAEUS PHYSCON, qui et Soter, annis XVII.
1890
18
2
4
127
d Arverni nobilissima Galliarum urbs capta, et rex Vituitus. *
1
10
16
115
2
11
17
114
19
e Juxta Aeoliae insulas, igne ex flatu suscitato, apparuit insula, quae nunc Hiera vocatur. 3
5
126
3
12
18
113
Post quem ANTIOCHUS CYZICENUS, annis XVIII
20
4
6
125
CLXVII Olympias
CLXIV Olympias
Syriae et Asiae, ANTIOCHUS GRYPUS, annis XII
b Antiochus Cyzicenus, Grypo ejecto, Syriam obtinuit: ac rursum Grypus, superato Cyziceno, eamdem recepit. Ita ex successione regnabant adversum se in vicem dimicantes.
f Joannes dux Judaeorum et pontifex adversus Hyrcanos bellum gerens, Hyrcani nomen accepit, et a Romanis jus amicitiae postulans, decreto senatus inter amicos relatus est.
4
1
19
112
5
2
20
111
21
5
7
124
6
3
21
110
7
4
22
109
22
6
8
123
CLXVIII Olympias
23
7
9
122
8
c Jugurtha contra Romanos dimicans capitur. 5
23
108
24
g Narbonam coloniae deductae. 8
10
121
CLXV Olympias
1910
9
d Rhodo terraemotu concussa, Colossus ruit. 6
24
107
25
h Hyrcanus pontifex Judaeorum Samariam, et nostro tempore Sebaste vocatur, obsidione captam solo coaequavit, 9
11
120
e Jonathas gloriose apud Judaeos principatum gerit.
26
10
12
119
[230/231]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Syriae et Asiae
Judae-orum
BC
10
a Cicero Arpini nascitur, matre Helvia, patre equestris ordinis ex regio Volscorum genere. * 7
25
106
CLXX Olympias et post de his cum Catulo triumphat. (*)
16
a Thraces a Romanis victi. 13
4
100
b Rursum in Sicilia bellum Servile consurgit.
11
b Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus oritur. * 8
26
105
17
14
5
99
CLXIX Olympias
Judaeorum ARISTOBOLUS, anno I.
Aegypti IX, PTOLEMAEUS, qui et Alexander, annis X.
c Aristobolus filius Jonathae rex pariter et pontifex, primus apud Judaeos diadematis sumpsit insigne, post CDLXXXIV annos Babylonicae captivitatis
Post quem regnavit Jannaeus cognomento Alexander, qui pontificatum quoque administrans, crudelissime civibus praefuit.
12
9
1
104
Post quem JANNAEUS, qui et ALEXANDER, annis XXVII.
1
c Expulso de regno Ptolemaeo Physcone per matrem Cleopatram, et in Cyprum secedente.
15
6
98
1920
2
16
7
97
CLXXI Olympias
3
d Aquilius in Sicilia bellum Servile compescuit. 17
8
96
d Turpilius comicus, senex admodum, Sinuessae moritur. *
e Ptolemaeus rex Cyrenaeorum moriens Romanos testamento reliquit haeredes.
13
e Gaius Lucilius satirarum scriptor Neapoli moritur, ac publico funere effertur, anno aetatis XLVI. * 10
1
103
4
f Seleucus ab Antiocho filio Cyziceni vivus exuritur. 18
9
95
Syriae PHILIPPUS, annis II
f Marcus Furius poeta, cognomento Bibaculus Cremonae nascitur. *
5
g Titus Lucretius poeta nascitur, qui postea amatorio poculo in furorem versus, cum aliquot libros per intervalla insaniae conscripsisset, quos postea Cicero emendavit, propria se manu interfecit, anno aetatis XLIV. * 1
10
94
14
g CC millia Cimbrorum caesa, et LXXX millia capta per Marium cum duce Teutomodo. * 11
2
102
6
2
11
93
Syriae reges defecerunt.
~~~~~~~~
15
h Gaius Marius quinquies consul, juxta Heridanum Cimbros superat, 12
3
101
[232/233]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Judaeo-rum
BC
CLXXII Olympias
a Antiochus in Parthos fugiens, Pompeio se deinceps tradidit, post quem Philippus captus est a Gabinio.
3
a Sallustius Crispus, scriptor historicus, in Sabinis Amiterni nascitur. *
18
86
7
12
92
b Sylla Athenienses vastat.
4
c Descriptione Romae facta, inventa sunt hominum CDLXIII millia. *
19
85
8
b Huc usque Syria possessa per reges, in Romanam ditionem cessit.
13
91
CLXXIV Olympias
9
c Bellum adversum Romanos, Picentes, Marsi, Pelignique moverunt. *
14
90
5
d Templum tertio apud Delphos a Thracibus incensum, et Romae Capitolium.
20
84
10
15
89
d Lucius Pomponius Bononiensis, Atellanarum scriptor, clarus habetur. *
6
e Jannaeus plurimas civitates capit.
21
83
f XXVI anno aetatis suae Cicero Quintium defendit. *
CLXIII Olympias
7
g Publius Terentius Varro, vico Atace, in provincia Narbonensi nascitur, qui postea XXXV annum agens, Graecas litteras cum summo studio didicitl. *
22
82
Aegypti X, PTOLEMAEUS, qui a matre fuerat ejectus, annis VIII
e Regressus de fuga regnum obtinuit, quia Alexandrum, qui ante eum fuerat, ob interfectionem matris cives pepulerant.
1
16
88
8
h Vultacilius Plotus Latinus rhetor, Gnaei Pompeii libertus et doctor scholam Romae aperuit. *
23
81
f Plotius Gallus primus Romae latinam rhetoricam docuit, de quo Cicero sic refert: "Memoria teneo, pueris nobis, primum Latine docere coepisse Plotium quemdam". *
CLXXV Olympias
Aegypti XI, PTOLEMAEUS DIONYSUS, annis XXX
1930 2
g Gaius Valerius Catullus, scriptor lyricus, Veronae nascitur.
17
87
1
i Sylla Romam obtinuit, et post biennium moritur.
24
80
[234/235]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Judaeo-rum
BC
2
a Roscio contra Chrysogonum defenso, Cicero Athenas secedit, et inde post triennium Romam regreditur. *
25
79
a Virgilius Maro in pago, qui 'Andes' dicitur, haud procul a Mantua nascitur, Pompeio et Crasso consulibus. *
12
8
69
3
b Pompeius gloriosissime triumphavit. 26
78
c Jannaeus multas vastat civitates.
b Marcus Porcius Cato stoicus philosophus agnoscitur. *
d Lepidus publicus hostis judicatus.
1940 4
e T. Quintius Atta, scriptor togatarum 1, Romae moritur, sepultusque via Praenestina ad milliarium II. *
27
77
CLXXVIII Olympias
Judaeorum regnavit ALEXANDRA, annis IX.
13
c Antiochia Syriae capta a Romanis.
9
68
d Creticum bellum ortum, unde Metellus Creticus. Judaei Romanorum vectigales per Pompeium facti, et pontificatum apud eos suscepit HYRCANUS, annis XXXIV.
CLXXVI Olympias
5
f Alexandra, quae et Salina 2, uxor Alexandri, Jerosolymis regnavit, ex cujus aetate Judaeos rerum confusio et variae clades oppresserunt.
1
76
e Lucus Daphnensium juxta Antiochiam a Pompeio Apollini consecratur. *
1950 14
f Aristobulus et Hyrcanus filii Alexandrae, contra se de imperio dimicantes, occasionem praebuere Romanis, ut Judaeam invaderent. Itaque Pompeius Jerosolymam veniens, capta urbe, et templo reserato, usque ad sancta sanctorum accedit, Aristobulum vinctum secum adducit, pontificatum confirmat Hyrcano, deinde Antipatrum Herodis Ascalonitae filium procuratorem Palaestinae facit.
1
67
6
2
75
7
g Bellum gladiatorium in Campania. 3 *
3
74
h Lucius Lucullus primus imperator appellatus est, victa Armenia, Mesopotamia, et Nisibi cum fratre regis capta. (*)
15
2
66
8
4
73
CLXXVII Olympias
9
i Pompeius universam Hiberiam subjugavit. 4 *
5
72
10
k M. Lucullus de Bessis triumphavit, capta Cabyle, et Tomis, et caeteris vicinis urbibus. *
6
71
16
g Libya per testamentum Appionis regis Romanis relicta. *
3
65
11
l Crassus triumphavit. *
7
70
h Horatius Flaccus,
(1) 'togatae' i.e the plot of the play was settled in a Roman environment instead of the usual Greek one.
(2) Salome.
(3) The Third Servile War (Gladiators' War), instigated in 73 B.C. by Spartacus, an escaped slave and gladiator; the war ended in 71 B.C.
(4) Not the peninsula as a whole, but the entire Roman province. This had been in revolt under Sertorius.
[236/237]
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Alexandrinorum
Consulum
Judaeo-rum
BC
satiricus et lyricus poeta, libertino patre Venusii 1 nascitur. *
Placentiae obiit. *
25
a Caesar Rhenum transiens, Germanos vastat.
12
56
CLXXIX Olympias
17
a Apollodorus Pergamenus, Graecus orator, praeceptor Callidii et Augusti, clarus habetur. *
4
64
b Crassus consul cum filio suo apud Carras captus. *
26
c Ventidius, primus Romanorum, Parthos superat. *
13
55
18
b Pompeius, captis Jerosolymis, tributarios Judaeos facit.
5
63
d Curio promptus et popularis orator Romae habetur insignis; qui deinceps in Africa, pudore amissi exercitus, mori maluit quam evadere. *
19
c Ea quae de Catilina, Cethego, Lentulo, et consule Cicerone, Sallustius scribit et Livius, hoc gesta sunt tempore. (*)
6
62
27
14
54
28
15
53
20
d Cicero in exsilio annum facit, honorifice susceptus a Plancio. 2 *
7
61
e Virgilius, sumpta toga, Mediolanum transgreditur, et post breve tempus Romam pergit. *
e Pompeius imperator appellatus.
CLXXX Olympias
21
f Caesar Lusitaniam, et quasdam insulas in Oceano capit.
8
60
CLXXXII Olympias
29
f Simulacrum Olympiaci Jovis tactum fulmine.
16
52
22
g Messalla Corvinus orator nascitur, et Titus Livius Patavinus scriptor historicus. *
9
59
30
g Caesar Germanos et Gallos capit.
17
51
Aegypti XII, CLEOPATRA, annis XXII
h Virgilius Cremonae studiis eruditur. *
23
i Catullus XXX aetatis suae anno Romae moritur. *
10
58
1
h Principium belli civilis Caesaris et Pompeii.
18
50
1960 24
k M. Callidius orator clarus habetur, qui bello postea civili Caesareanas partes secutus, cum togatam Galliam regeret,
11
57
2
i Diodorus Siculus Graecae scriptor historiae, clarus habetur. *?
19
49
CLXXXI Olympias
CLXXXIII Olympias
(1) Venusia was on the borders of Apulia and Lucania; the date was 8 December 65 B.C.
(2) 58BC, in Macedonia. Gnaeus Plancius was quaestor of Macedonia.
[238/239]
Romanorum 3
Alexandrinorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Romanorum
Alexandrinorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
a Gaius Julius Caesar primus apud Romanos singulare obtinuit imperium, a quo 'Caesares' Romanorum principes appellati.
CLXXXIV Olympias a Antonius decernit Quintilem mensem, Julium debere dici: quia in eo fuisset natus Julius.
5
b Cassius, Judaea capta, templum spoliat. 7
23
44
First Romanorum primus, C. JULIUS CAESAR, annis IV, menses VII
c Idibus Martiis, G. Julius Caesar in Curia occiditur, et fasces statim suscepit Publius Dolabella. 1 *
b Ab hoc loco Antiocheni sua tempora computant. 1
c Pompeius praelio victus, et fugiens, a spadonibus Alexandrini regis occiditur. 3
20
48
d Gaii Caesaris corpus in rostris, ob honorem, concrematum. *
d Marcus Caelius praetor, et T. Annius Milo exsul, oppressi, res novas in Thuriano, Brutioque agro simul molientes. *
e Servius Sulpitius juris consultus, et Publius Servilius Isauricus, publico funere elati. *
f Romae tres simul exorti soles paulatim in eumdem orbem coierunt. *
1970 2
e Ptolemaei cadaver cum lorica aurea in Nilo inventum. * 4
21
47
g Inter caetera portenta, quae toto orbe facta sunt, bos in suburbano Romae ad arantem locutus est: " frustra se urgeri: non enim frumenta, sed homines brevi defuturos." 2 *
f Caesar in Aegypto regnum Cleopatrae confirmat ob stupri gratiam.
3
g Romae Basilica Julia dedicata. * 5
22
46
h Decretum senatus, et Atheniensium ad Judaeos mittitur, qui per legationem amicitiam postularant.
Romanorum II, regnavit OCTAVIANUS CAESAR Augustus, annis LVI, menses VI (A quo 'Augusti' Romanorum reges appellati)
i Cleopatra regio comitatu Urbem ingressa. *
1
h Antonius adversum Caesarem Augustum bellum movet. *? 9
25
43
k Prohibitae lecticis, margaritisque uti, quae nec viros, nec liberos haberent, et minores essent annis XLIV. *
i Laberius, mimorum scriptor, decimo mense post Caesaris interitum, Puteolis moritur.
4
l Nigidius Figulus pythagoricus et magus in exsilio moritur. *? 6
23
45
k Publius mimographus, natione Syrus, Romae scenam tenet. *
(1) Literally "received the fasces."
(2) Cf. Livy 28.11.4 (for 206 BC, not this 41 BC) "et bos in agro Romano locutus."
(3) Prior to this page in 'O' the heading always reads 'Consulum'. Thereafter it is 'Romans'.
[240/241]
Romanorum
Alexandrinorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Romanorum
Alexandrinorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
a Cicero in Formiano suo ab Herennio et Popilio occiditur, 64 aetatis suae anno. *
in amicitiam cum eo regreditur.
a Cornificius poeta a militibus desertus interiit, quos saepe fugientes 'galeatos lepores' appellat. Hujus soror Cornificia, cujus insignia exstant epigrammata. *
c Cicero ut quibusdam placet interficitur in Caietis. b Ciceronis caput cum manu dextra pro Rostris positum, juxtaque coronata imago Popilii militis, qui eum occiderat. *
b Templum Rhodiorum depopulatus est Cassius. *
c Secunda secessio Augusti et Antonii.
d Ovidius Naso nascitur in Pelignis. 1 *
CLXXXV Olympias
4
d Cornelius Nepos scriptor historicus clarus habetur. * 11
28
40
2
e Caius Falcidius tribunus plebis legem tulit 2, ne quis plus testamento legaret, quam ut quarta pars haeredibus superesset, si quatuor, aut minus essent. * 9
26
42
e Antigonus contra Judaeos dimicans, tandem occiditur, a quo usque in praesens tempus Jerosolymitarum regnum destructum est. Siquidem Herodes post eum a Romanis constitutus est princeps alienigena, et nihil omnino pertinens ad Judaeam
5
12
29
39
f Curtius Salassus in insula Arada, cum quatuor cohortibus vivus combustus est, quod tributa gravius exigeret. *
6
13
30
38
3
gVibium Maximum designatum quaestorem agnovit dominus suus, et abduxit. * 10
27
41
f Fornii pater et filius clari oratores habentur, quorum filius consularis ante patrem moritur. *
1980 7
14
31
37
h E taberna meritoria 3 trans Tiberim, oleum terra erupit, fluxitque toto die sine intermissione, significans Christi gratiam ex gentibus. *
CLXXXVI Olympias
8
g Sallustius diem obiit, quadriennio ante Actiacum bellum. * 15
32
36
9
h Marcus Vavius poeta, quem Virgilius in Bucolicis notat, in Cappadocia moritur. 16
33
35
i Antonium superat Augustus, et interveniente senatu,
(1) Literally "among the Peligni."
(2) The Falcidian Law,(Justinian, Digest of Roman Law, 35.2) by its first Article, conferred the power of disposing of an estate up to and including three-fourths of the same. English translation. It is followed in some manuscripts by a long and confused gloss, which adds the words "... if four or less." And then goes on, "Si autem plus quatuor, medietas eo tenore, ut sive liberis, sive propinquis idem exteris pater sua legaret, illa pars quam Falcidius constituit, nisi pater interdixerit, et legatis fruentibus, et eisdem carentibus aequanimiter partiretur."
(3) Cassius Dio 48.43.4, giving the date as 38 BC. Here one day, in 38 BC, oil suddenly started to gush out from the ground. This mysterious event was given the Latin name fons olei ("oil source", or "oil fountain"). This is the legend of S.Maria in Trastevere. A taberna meritoria was an upmarket tavern and lodging house.
[242/243]
†
Romanorum
Alexandrinorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Romanorum
Alexandrinorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
10
a Herodes Antipatri Ascalonitae, et matris Cypridis Arabicae filius, a Romanis Judaeorum suscepit principatum: cujus tempore, Christi nativitate vicina, regnum, et sacerdotium Judaeae, quod prius per successiones minorum tenebatur, destructum est, completa prophetia, quae ita per Mosen loquitur: 17
34
34
Quae LXIX hebdomades 1 faciunt annos CDLXXXIII, in quibus Christi, id est, sacerdotes per unctionem consecrati regnaverunt usque ad Hyrcanum. Quo extremo omnium a Parthis capto, Herodes Antipatri filius nihil ad se pertinentem Judaeam ab Augusto et senatu accepit. Filiique ejus post eum regnaverunt usque ad novissimam Jerosolymitarum captivitatem, nequaquam ex successione sacerdotalis generis pontificibus constitutis, perpetuitate vitae secundum legem Moysi servientibus Deo. Ignobiles vero quidam, et alio tempore alii, et nonnulli unius anni, sive modico amplius, a Romanis imperatoribus sacerdotium emebant. Quae omnia etiam Daniel Propheta vaticinatur, dicens:
Judaeis regnavit HERODES alienigena, Deficiente Pontificum principatu, annis XXXVII.
"Non deficiet princeps ex Juda, neque dux de femoribus ejus, donec veniat, cui repositum est. Et ipse erit exspectatio gentium." 2
In hoc etiam loco, Christus, quem Danielis scriptura praefatur, accepit finem. Nam usque ad Herodem, Christi, id est, sacerdotes erant reges Judaeorum, qui imperare coeperunt a LXV olympiade, et ab instauratione templi sub Dario usque ad Hyrcanum, et ad 186 olympiadem, annis CDXLIII in medio transactis: quos Daniel quoque significat, dicens:
" Et post hebdomadas VII et LXII interibit chrisma, et judicium non erit in eo, et templum et sanctum corrumpet populus duce veniente: et caedentur in cataclysmo belli. " Et in sequentibus: "Et super templum, inquit, abominatio desolationum: et usque ad consummationem temporis, consummatio dabitur super desolationem."
a Herodes Ananelum quemdam de Babylone accitum, pontificem Judaeorum constituit, et post exiguum temporis Aristobulum fratrem uxoris suae, n
Et scies et intelliges ab initio sermonis respondendi, et aedificandi Jerusalem usque ad Christi principatum, hebdomades VII et hebdomades LXII. 1
(1) 'Hebdomades' is properly a 'group of seven' years rather than a week. The word 'weeks' is intended to be quaint or mystical, as note where it is initially explained by Leviticus 25:8 'numerabis quoque tibi septem ebdomades annorum id est septem septies quae simul faciunt quadraginta novem' -- 'And you shall count seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the time of the seven weeks of years shall be to you forty-nine years.' Jerome's 'id est' is not in the Heb (or RSV) but the phrase SHBX SHBTT SHNYM 'seven sabbaths of years' is clearly meant to be pointed in some way, and not just a way of saying something numerical like 'group of seven'. Even the Gk word E(BDOMAS is somewhat obscure [cf. Chantraine s.v. e(pta at end]. Finally, it is already traditional language in Jerome s time and remains so: NJB, Lev. 25:8 'You will count seven weeks of years--seven...' [note their long dash = Jerome s id est] and then Dan 9:24 'Seventy weeks are decreed...'.
(2) The quotation marks represent a line of vertical squiggles against this paragraph in the left-hand margin in 'O'.
[244/245]
Romanorum
Alexandrinorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Romanorum
Alexandrinorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
nepotem Hyrcani successorem ei dedit, quo post annum interfecto, rursum Ananelo reddidit sacerdotium..
12
a Usque ad Cleopatram Ptolemaei, qui vocabantur Lagidae, in Aegypto regnaverunt annis CCXCV. 19
2
32
a Lunae, secundum Romanos, cursus inventus. *
b Artorius medicus Augusti, post Actiacam victoriam naufragio perit. *
11
b Antonii et Augusti foedus. 18
1
23
c Colonias deduxere Romani.
13
c Quidam ab hoc loco primum annum Augusti monarchiae supputant. 20
3
31
d Augustus triumphavit pedestris certaminis triumpho.
e Antonius Cleopatrae Arabiam tradidit.
d Caesar Augustus appellatus, a quo Sextilis mensis Augusti nomen accepit.
f Augusti et Antonii tertiae dissensionis exordium, quod repudiata sorore Caesaris, Cleopatram induxisset uxorem. (*)
14
e Cum ingenti triumphorum pompa Augustus Romam ingressus, et Cleopatrae liberi, Sol et Luna ante currum ejus ducti. 1 21
4
30
g Nicetes, et Hibreas, et Theodorus, et Plution nobilissimi artis rhetoricae Graeci praeceptores habentur. *
15
f Nicopolis juxta Actium condita et agon Actiacus constitutus. 22
5
29
Aegypti regnum, quod fuit in Alexandria, destructum est..
~~~~~~
g Augustus Romanis plurimas leges statuit.
CLXXXVII Olympias
h Cleopatra et Antonius semet interficiunt, et Aegyptus fit Romana provincia, quam primus tenuit Caius Cornelius Gallus, de quo Virgilius scribit in Bucolicis. (*)
CLXXXVIII Olympias
h Censu Romae agitato, inventa sunt civium Romanorum XLI centena et LXIV millia.
2
16
i Coloniae deductae.
23 2
6 3
28
k Anaxilaus Larisseus Pythagoricus
(1) Dio Cassius 51.21.8. The reference is to Alexander Helios (the 'sun') and Cleopatra Selene (the 'moon').
(2) This number is missing in 'O'.
(3) This number is coloured red in 'O'.
[246/247]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
et Magus ab Augusto Urbe Italiaque pellitur. *
renuit.
21
a Quintilius Cremonensis Virgilii et Horatii familiaris moritur. *
11
23
a M. Terentius Varro philosophus prope nonagenarius moritur. *
b Augustus Cyzicenos libertate privavit.
1990 17
b Thebae Aegypti usque ad solum erutae.
7
27
22
c Pylades Cilix pantomimus, cum veteres ipsi canerent atque saltarent, primus Romae chorum et fistulam sibi praecinere fecit. *
12
22
c Cornelius Gallus Forojuliensis poeta, a quo primum Aegyptum rectam, supradiximus, XLIII aetatis suae anno propria se manu interfecit. *
23
d Tiberius ab Augusto missus occupavit Armeniam.
13
21
d Trallis terraemotu consederunt.
18
e Indi ab Augusto per legatum amicitiam postularunt. *
8
26
e Atratinus, qui septem decim natus annis Caelium accuraverat, clarus inter oratores habetur: ad extremum morborum taedio in balneo, voluntate exanimatus, haeredem reliquit Augustum. *
f Messala Corvinus primus praefectus Urbis factus, sexto die magistratu se abdicavit, incivilem potestatem esse contestans. *
CXC Olympias
19
g Augustus Calabriam et Gallos vectigales facit.
9
25
24
f Cantabri res novas molientes opprimuntur.
14
20
h Munatius Plancus, Ciceronis discipulus, orator habetur insignis, qui cum Galliam Comatam regeret, Lugdunum condidit. *
25
g Herodes apud Jerosolymam multas et magnas aedes construxit.
15
19
26
h Virgilius Brundusii moritur, Sentio Saturnino et Lucretio Cinna consulibus. Ossa ejus Neapolim translata in secundo ab urbe milliario sepeliuntur, titulo istiusmodi supra scripto, quem moriens ipse dictaverat:
16
18
CLXXXIX Olympias
20
i Marcus Lollius Galatiam provinciam facit.
k Augustus, cum ei monarchia deferretur
[248/249]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
"Mantua me genuit, Calabri rapuere, tenet nunc Parthenope, cecini pascua, rura, duces." *
a Bosphorum Agrippa capit.
31
b Cestius Smyrnaeus rhetor Latine Romae docuit. *
21
13
a Herodes Samariam olim jam in cineribus sedentem, a fundamentis suscitans, in honorem Augusti Augustam, id est, Sebastiam appellavit, et in Paneade id quod Panion vocatur, exstruxit.
CXCII Olympias
c Augustus a senatu pontifex maximus appellatur.
32
22
12
d Herodes Caesaream in nomine Caesaris condidit, quae prius Turris Stratonis vocabatur.
2000 27
b Augustus Samiis libertatem dedit. 17
17
c In Cypro plurimae civitatum partes terraemotu conciderunt.
e Herodes Anthidonam condidit, et Antipatridam: atque Herodionem in honorem patris Antipatri et suum exstruxit: innumerabilia quoque opera in singulis Syriarum urbibus, quas regebat, solertissime aedificavit.
33
23
11
d Germanos in arma versos Marcus Lollius superat.
e Varius et Tucca, Virgilii et Horatii contubernales, poetae habentur illustres, qui Aeneidum libros postea emendaverunt sub lege ea, ut nihil adderent. *
34
f Tiberius Caesar de captivis Pannoniis triumphat.
24
10
CXCI Olympias
35
g Horatius LVII aetatis suae anno Romae moritur. *
25
9
28
f Augustus Gaium Agrippam adoptavit in filium.
18
16
36
h Passienus Pater, declamator insignis, diem obiit. *
26
8
g Aemilius Macer Veronensis poeta in Asia moritur. *
i C. Julius Hyginus cognomento Polyhistor, grammaticus habetur illustris. *
29
h Tiberius Vindelicos, et eos qui Thraciarum confines erant, Romanas provincias facit.
19
15
193rd Olympias
k Tiberius, vastata Germania, imperator appellatur.
30
i Coloniae Berytum et Patras deductae.
20
14
[250/251]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
BC
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
BC/AD
36
a Herodes Hyrcanum, qui olim sacerdos Judaeorum fuerat, de captivitate Parthica regressum, et filium ejus, qui sacerdotio patris successerat, interfecit: sororem quoque ejus uxorem suam, cum duobus propriis filiis jam adolescentibus, et matrem uxoris occisae, socrum suam, crudelissime necat.
26
8
taedio duplicis quartanae semet interfecit.
41
a Herodes ad ea quae supra crudeliter gesserat, etiam hoc addidit: virum sororis suae Salomae interfecit, et cum eam alii tradidisset uxorem, etiam hunc necat: scribas quoque et interpretes divinae legis simili scelere occidit.
31
3
b Tertullianus in eo libro, quem contra Judaeos scripsit, affirmat Christum XLI anno Augusti natum, et XV Tiberii esse passum. *
2010 37
27
7
42
32
2
38
b Tiberius de Rhetis, Vindelicis, Armenis, ac Pannoniis triumphavit.
28
6
c JESUS CHRISTUS filius Dei in Betheleem Judae nascitur
43
33
1 BC
c Albutius Silo Novariensis clarus rhetor agnoscitur. *
d Quirinus ex consilio senatus Judaeam missus, census hominum, possessionumque describit.
39
dIn insula Coo terraemotu plurima conciderunt.
29
5
e Colliguntur omnes anni ab Abraham usque ad nativitatem Christi, anni MMXV.
e Augustus Juliam filiam suam in adulterio deprehensam damnat exsilio.
CXCV Olympias
CXCIV Olympias
f C. Caesar amicitiam cum Parthis fecit.
f M. Tullius Tiro Ciceronis libertus, qui primus notas commentus est, in Puteolano praedio usque ad centesimum annum consenescit. *
44
g Sextus Pythagoricus philosophus agnoscitur.
34
1 AD
h Augustus Tiberium et Agrippam in filios adoptat.
40
30
4
g Augustus gladiatorium ludum, et navale certamen exhibuit.
45
i Judas Galilaeus ad rebellandum Judaeos cohortatur.
35
2
h Melissus Spoletinus grammaticus agnoscitur. *
k Herodes, cum Christi nativitatem, Magorum indicio, cognovisset, universos in Bethleem parvulos jussit interfici.
i M. Porcius Latro, Latinus declamator,
[252/253]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
46
a Herodes morbo intercutis aquae, et scatentibus toto corpore vermibus, miserabiliter et digne moritur.
36
3
ita memoriam ac sensum amisit, ut vix pauca verba conjungeret, et ad extremum ulcere sibi circa sacram spinam nato, inedia se confecit, annos aetatis LXXII. *
2020 47
b Asinius Pollio orator et consularis, qui de Dalmatis triumpharat, LXX aetatis suae anno in villa Tusculana moritur. *
37
4
Judaeorum dux, ARCHELAUS, annis IX
CXCVIII Olympias
a Augustus cum Tiberio filio suo censum Romae agitans, invenit hominum nonagies tercentena et septuaginta millia.
CXCVI Olympias
c In Herodis locum Archelaus, ab Augusto substituitur, et Tetrarchae fiunt quatuor fratres ejus, Herodes, Antipater, Lysias, et Philippus.
56
b Sotio philosophus Alexandrinus, praeceptor Senecae clarus habetur. (*)
9
13
48
1
5
c Archelaus nono anno regni sui, in Viennam urbem Galliae relegatur. Judaeorum principatum tenet HERODES Tetrarcha annis XXIV
d Fames Romae ita ingens facta, ut quinque modii venderentur denariis XXVII semis.
d Defectio solis facta, et Augustus LXXVI aetatis suae anno, Atellae in Campania moritur, sepeliturque Romae in campo Martio. (*)
49
e Philisthion mimographus, natione Magnesianus, Romae clarus habetur. *
2
6
50
f Tiberius Caesar Dalmatas, Sarmatasque in Romanam redigit potestatem.
3
7
Romanorum III, TIBERIUS regnavit annis XXIII
2030 1
e Gaius Asinius Gallus orator, Asinii Pollionis filius, cujus etiam Virgilius meminit, diris a Tiberio suppliciis enecatur. *
1
14
51
g Athenodorus Tarsensis Stoicus philosophus, et M. Verrius Flaccus grammaticus, insignes habentur. (*)
4
8
2
2
15
3
3
16
CXCVII Olympias
CXCIX Olympias
52
h Athenienses res novas contra Romanos molientes opprimuntur, auctoribus seditionis occisis.
5
9
4
f T. Livius historiographus Patavii moritur.
4
17
53
6
10
g Ovidius poeta in exilio diem obiit, et juxta oppidum Tomos sepelitur. *
54
7
11
55
i Messala Corvinus orator ante biennium quam moreretur,
8
12
h Germanicus Caesar de Parthis triumphat.
[254/255]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
5
a Tredecim urbes terraemotu corruerunt, Ephesus, Magnesia, Sardis, Mosthene, Aegae, Hierocaesarea, Philadelphia, Tmolus, Temnus, Cymae, Myrhina, Apollonia Dia, Hyrcania.
5
18
in qua plurimas aedes construxerat, Caesaream Philippi vocavit, et Juliadem aliam civitatem.
13
a Pontius Pilatus procurator Judaeae a Tiberio mittitur. *
13
26
6
b Fenestella, historiarum scriptor et carminum, septuagenarius moritur, sepeliturque Cumis. *
6
19
14
b Votienus Montanus Narbonensis orator in Balearibus insulis moritur, illuc a Tiberio relegatus.
14
27
7
c Tiberius multos reges ad se per blanditias evocatos numquam remisit: in quibus Archelaum Cappadocem, cujus regno in provinciam verso, Mazacam nobilissimam civitatem, Caesaream appellare jussit. *
7
20
15
c Herodes Tiberiadem condidit, et Libiadem.
15
28
d Joannes filius Zachariae in deserto juxta Jordanem fluvium praedicans, Christum filium Dei in medio eorum adesse testatur. Ipse quoque Dominus Jesus Christus hinc in populos salutarem viam annuntiat, signis atque virtutibus vera comprobans esse, quae diceret.
CC Olympias
8
d Pompeii theatrum incensum.
8
21
9
e Tiberius Drusum consortem regni facit.
9
22
f Computantur in praesentem annum, id est XV Tiberii Caesaris, a secundo anno instaurationis Templi, quae facta est sub altero anno Darii regis Persarum, anni DXLVIII
10
f Drusus Caesar veneno periit.
10
23
2040 11
g Quintus Haterius, promptus et popularis orator, usque ad XC prope annum summo honore consenescit. *
11
24
h Servius Plautus corrupti filii reus semet in judicio interficit. *
fa Salomone autem et prima aedificatione templi, anni MLX
CCI Olympias
a Moyse, et egressu Israhelis ex Aegypto, anni MDXXXIX
12
i Philippus tetrarcha Paneadem,
12
25
[256/258]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
ab Abraham et regno Nini et Semiramidis, anni MMXLIV
"Quarto autem anno CCII olympiadis, magna et excellens inter omnes, quae ante eam acciderant, defectio solis est facta; dies hora sexta in tenebrosam noctem versus, ut stellae in caelo visae sint, terraeque motus in Bithynia Nicaenae urbis multas aedes subvertit." Haec supradictus vir.
Argumentum autem hujus rei, quod Salvator isto anno passus sit, Evangelium praebet Johannis, in quo scribitur, post decimum quintum annum Tiberii Caesaris, tribus annis Dominum praedicasse. Josephus etiam vernaculus Judaeorum scriptor, circa haec tempora die Pentecostes sacerdotes primum commotionem locorum, et quosdam sonitus sensisse testatur. Deinde ex adyto Templi repentinam subito erupisse vocem dicentium: "Transmigremus ex his sedibus." Scribit autem supra dictus vir, quod eodem anno Pilatus praeses secreto noctis imagines Caesaris in templo statuerit. Et haec prima seditionis et turbarum Judaeis causa exstiterit.
a diluvio usque ad Abraham, anni CMXLII
ab Adam usque ad diluvium, anni MMCCXLII
CCII Olympias
a Principium LXXXI jubilaei secundum Hebraeos 16
b Jesus Christus filius Dei salutarem cunctis praedicans viam, miracula quae in Evangeliis scripta sunt, facit. 16
29
17
c Jesus Christus filius Dei, discipulos suos divinis imbuens sacramentis, ut universis gentibus conversionem ad Deum nuntient, imperat. 17
30
18
d Jesus Christus, secundum prophetias, quae de eo fuerant praelocutae, ad passionem venit anno Tiberii 18, quo tempore etiam in aliis ethnicorum commentariis haec ad verbum scripta reperimus: Solis facta defectio 1, Bithynia terraemotu concussa, et in urbe Nicaena aedes plurimae corruerunt: quae omnia his congruunt, quae in passione Salvatoris acciderunt. Scribit vero super his et Phlegon, qui olympiadarum egregius supputator est, in XIII libro ita dicens: 18
31
19
19
32
a Ecclesiae Jerosolymorum primus episcopus ab Apostolis ordinatur Jacobus frater Domini.
(1) November 24, 29 AD. Note that paras b,c and d are merged in the Merton Ms.
[258/259]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
a Ex hoc loco considerandum, quantae deinceps calamitates Judaeorum gentem oppresserint.
ut inter caetera sacra reciperetur. 4 Verum cum ex consulto patrum, Christianos eliminari Urbe placuisset, Tiberius per edictum accusatoribus Christianorum comminatus est mortem: scribit Tertullianus in Apologetico. 5
23
23
36
b Cassius Severus orator egregius, qui Quintianum illud Proverbium luserat, XXV exsilii sui anno summa inopia moritur, vix panno verenda contectus. 1 *
a Multi senatorum et equitum Romanorum interfecti.
CCIII Olympias
c Pilatus post supradictam seditionem, quae ob Caesaris imagines fuerat concitata, sacrum thesaurum, quem Corbonan Judaei vocant, in aquaeductum Jerosolymorum expendens, secundae seditionis praebuit semina.
b Tiberius in Campania moritur. 6 (*)
CCIV Olympias
20
20
33
Romanorum IV, GAIUS CALIGULA, regnavit annis III, menses X.
1
c Gaius Caesar cognomento Caligula, Agrippam vinculis liberatum, regem Judaeae facit.
24
37
Judaeorum princeps, AGRIPPA, annis VII
2050 21
d Sejanus praefectus Tiberii, qui apud eum plurimum poterat, instantissime cohortatur, ut gentem Judaeorum deleat: Philo meminit in libro Legationis II. 2
21
34
d Gaius semetipsum inter deos refert.
e Flaccus Avilius praefectus Aegypti, multis Judaeos calamitatibus premit, consentiente Alexandriae populo, et crebris adversus eos clamoribus personante: synagogas quoque eorum imaginibus, statuis, aris et victimis polluit. Refert Philo in eo libro, qui Flaccus inscribitur, haec omnia se praesente gesta, ob quae etiam legationem ad Gaium ipse susceperat
e Persius Flaccus Satiricus poeta Volaterris nascitur.
22
f Agrippa filius Aristobuli, filii Herodis regis, accusator Herodis tetrarchae, Romam profectus a Tiberio in vincula conjicitur. 3
22
35
g Pilato de Christianorum dogmate ad Tiberium referente, Tiberius retulit ad senatum,
(1) After this in the PL is the following entry, where the Merton ms. has a blank: 'Stephanus lapidatur: Saulus ad Christum convertitur'.
(2) Another blank in the manuscript is filled in the PL with these two entries: 'Jacobus frater Joannis Apostoli, jubente Herode rege, capite truncatus occiditur. -- Petrus Apostolus ab Herode in carcerem trusus, et vinctus catenis duabus, mirabiliter ab angelo liberatur'.
(3) In the PL, but not in the Ms. this entry continues: 'eo quod publice Deum precatus fuisset, ut, mortuo statim Tiberio, Caium cunctorum dominum videret'.
(4) 'Sacra' rendered as 'recognised religions'.
(5) In the PL, not in the Ms. there follows: 'Petrus Apostolus Antiochenam Ecclesiam fundavit, ibique cathedram adeptus, sedit annis XXV'.
(6) The PL adds: 'in Lucullana villa'.
[260/261]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum V, CLAUDIUS, regnavit annis XIII, mensibus VIII, diebus XXVIII.
CCV Olympias
a Passienus filius fraude haeredis suae necatus. 1 *
1
a Iste est Claudius patruus Drusi, qui apud Moguntiacum monumentum habet: Alibi legi, avunculus, quia frater matris Gaii fuit. *
4
41
3
b Gaius cognomento Caligula, Memmii Reguli duxit uxorem, impellens eum, ut uxoris suae patrem esse se scriberet.
2
39
2
b PETRUS Apostolus, natione Galilaeus, Christianorum Pontifex primus, cum primum Antiochenam Ecclesiam fundasset, Romam proficiscitur, ubi Evangelium praedicans XXV annis ejusdem urbis episcopus perseverat.
5
42
c Pontius Pilatus in multas incidens calamitates, propria se manu interfecit: scribunt Romanorum historici.
3
c Marcus Evangelista interpres Petri, Aegypto et Alexandriae Christum annuntiat.
6
43
d Gaius Petronio praefecto Syriae praecepit, ut Jerosolymis statuam suam sub nomine Jovis Optimi Maximi poneret: quod Judaei maxima negaverunt obstinatione.
2060 4
d Primus Antiochiae episcopus ordinatur Evodius.
7
44
e Agrippa rex Judaeorum annos VII imperans moritur. Post quem filius ejus Agrippa, a Claudio substituitur in regnum.
e Toto orbe Romano, sicut Philo scribit, et Josephus, in Synagogis Judaeorum statuae, et imagines, et arae G. Caesaris consecratae.
Judaeorum rex, AGRIPPA, annis XXVI
f Prophetia Agabi, quae in Actibus Apostolorum famem in toto orbe futuram dixerat sub Claudio expletur.
4
f Plurimi nobilium a Gaio interfecti.
3
40
g Gaius sorores suas, quibus stuprum intulerat, insulari exsilio condemnavit. (*)
g Claudius de Britannis triumphavit, et Orchadas insulas Romano adjecit imperio, In cujus gloriae memoriam filium suum Britannicum appellavit. (*)
h Gaius omnes exsules jussit interfici.
i Gaius a protectoribus suis occiditur in palatio, anno aetatis suae XXIX.
h Domitius Afer Nemausensis clarus orator habetur,
(1) In the Merton manuscript there is a space following. In the Patrologia Latina, there follows this entry: 'Matthaeus in Judaea Evangelium primus scribit'.
[262/263]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
qui postea, Nerone regnante, ex cibi redundantia in coena moritur. *
CCVII Olympias
9
a Fame facta in Graecia, modius sex drachmis venundatus est. 4
5
49
a Claudus Quirinalis Rhetor Arelatensis Romae insignissime docet. *
10
b Magna fames Romae. 5
6
50
c Claudius Felicem procuratorem Judaeae mittit, apud quem Paulus apostolus accusatus in defensionem sui perorat. 6
CCVI Olympias
11
7
51
5
b Inter Theram et Therasiam exorta est insula habens stadia 30.
1
45
12
8
52
c Descriptione Romae facta sub Claudio inventa sunt civium Romanorum LXVIII centena et XLIV millia. 1
CCVIII Olympias
d Sub Felice procuratore Judaeae exstiterunt multi, qui populum sua persuasione deciperent, in quibus et Aegyptius quidam pseudopropheta fuit, qui plurimos sibi associans, in ipso magnarum rerum conatu per exercitum Felicis opprimitur. Scribit Josephus consentanea apostolorum Actibus, in quibus Paulo dicitur a Tribuno: 'Nonne tu es Aegyptius, qui ante hos dies concitasti, et eduxisti in desertum quatuor millia virorum?' 7
6
2
46
d Thracia hucusque regnata, in Romanorum provinciam redigitur. 2
13
9
53
7
e Sub procuratore Judaeae Cumano in diebus azymorum 3 tanta est Jerosolymis orta seditio, ut in portarum exitu, populo corruente, 30 millia Judaeorum perierint.
3
47
8
f Palaemon Vicetinus insignis grammaticus Romae habetur, qui quondam interrogatus, quid inter stillam et guttam interesset: "Gutta, inquit, stat, et stilla cadit". *
4
48
2070 14
e Claudius moritur in Palatio, anno aetatis suae LXIV. (*)
10
54
g Marcus Antonius Liberalis Latinus rhetor gravissimas inimicitias cum Palaemone exercet. *
Romanorum VI, NERO regnavit annis XIII, mensibus VII, diebus XXVIII.
1
f Hujus avunculus fuit Gaius Caligula. *
11
55
(1) The Patrologia Latina text has two extra entries at this point, which are not found in the 9th century Merton College manuscript No. 315, although there seems to be a space in the text at this point:
-- Claudius circa haec tempora Fucinum lacum exsiccavit, XI annos triginta hominum millibus sine intermissione operantibus.
-- Portum Ostiae Claudius exstruxit, dextra laevaque duobus quasi brachiis objectis.
(2) Another entry from the PL, not in the Merton Ms. follows, where there is a space in the page: 'Maria virgo Jesu Christi mater ad Filium in coelum assumitur, ut quidam fuisse sibi revelatum scribunt'.
(3) The passover.
(4) Another entry from the PL, not in the Merton Ms. follows, where there is a space in the page: 'Tres simul soles apparuerunt, statimque simul in eumdem orbem coierunt'.
(5) Another PL entry, but no space in the Ms.: Dionysius the Areopagite, once a distinguished philosopher, is famous.
(6) Another PL entry follows, again with no space in the Ms.: 'Philippus apostolus Christi apud Hierapolim Asiae civitatem, dum Evangelium populo nuntiaret, cruci affixus, lapidibus opprimitur'.
(7) The reference is to Acts 21:38, and the citation is slightly altered from: 'Nonne tu es Aegyptius qui ante hos dies tumultum concitasti, et eduxisti in deseertum quattuor milia virorum sicariorum?'
[264/265]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
a Felice regente Judaeam, seditio in Caesarea Palaestinae orta magnam Judaeorum multitudinem perdidit.
a Judaeis lapidibus opprimitur: in cujus thronum Simeon, qui et Simon secundus assumitur.
2
b Festus in gubernatione succedit Felici, apud quem, praesente Agrippa rege, Paulus apostolus religionis suae rationem exponens, vinctus Romam mittitur.
12
56
8
a Ante mensam Neronis fulmen cecidit. 18
62
b Post Marcum Evangelistam primus Alexandrinae ecclesiae ordinatur episcopus Annianus, qui praefuit annis XXII.
c Probus Berytius eruditissimus grammaticorum, Romae agnoscitur. *
c Persius 1 moritur anno aetatis suae XXIX. *
CCIX Olympias
9
d Thermae a Nerone aedificatae, quas Neronianas appellavit.
19
63
d Statius Surculus Tholosanus in Gallia, celeberrime rhetoricam docuit. *
e Nero Romae in citharistarum agone contendens omnes superat.
3
e Terraemotus Romae, et solis defectio.
13
57
f Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, Cordubensis poeta, in Pisoniana conjuratione deprehensus, brachium ad secandas venas medico praebuit. *
4
f Nero Agrippinam matrem suam et sororem patris interficit.
14
58
5
g Nero tantae luxuriae fuit, ut frigidis et calidis lavaretur unguentis, retibusque aureis piscaretur, quae purpureis funibus extrahebat. *
15
59 2080 10
g Nero, ut similitudinem ardentis Trojae inspiceret, plurimam partem Romanae urbis incendit. (*)
20
64
6
16
60
h In Asia tres urbes terraemotu conciderunt, Laodicia, Hierapolis, Colossae.
CCX Olympias
h Nero Romae cithara contendens superat.
i Albino procuratori Judaeae Cestius Florus succedit, sub quo Judaei contra Romanos rebellaverunt.
i Festo in magistratu Judaeae succedit Albinus.
7
k Jacobus, frater Domini, quem omnes Justum appellabant,
17
61
k Junius Annaeus Gallio frater Senecae egregius declamator propria se manu interfecit. *
(1) Late manuscripts insert after the word Persius "Volaterranus, Satiricus poeta,".
[266/267]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
14
a Musonius et Plutarchus philosophi insignes habentur.
24
68
a CCXI Olympias. Non est, Nerone in suam praesentiam differente.
b L. Annaeus Mella, Senecae frater et Gallionis, bona Lucani poetae filii sui a Nerone promeretur. *
11
b Duae tantum provinciae sub Nerone factae, Pontus Polemoniacus, et Alpes Cottiae, Cottio rege defuncto. 1 *
21
65
c 1 Prima persecutio sub Nerone c Primus Nero super omnia scelera sua, etiam persecutionem in Christianos facit, in qua Petrus et Paulus gloriose Romae occubuerunt.
c Multi nobilium Romae a Nerone interfecti.
d Nero in olympiade coronatur, cerycas, citharistas, tragoedos, aurigas vario certamine superans.
d Contra Judaeos, qui Cestii Flori avaritiam non ferentes, rebellabant, Vespasianus magister militiae a Nerone transmittitur.
12
e Lucius Annaeus Seneca Cordubensis, praeceptor Neronis, et patruus Lucani poetae, incisione venarum, et veneni haustu periit. *
22
66
e Vespasianus plurimas urbes Judaeae capit.
f Flavius Josephus scriptor historicus, dux belli Judaeorum, cum a Romanis interficiendus esset, Vespasiano praenuntiat de morte Neronis, et ejus imperio: cujus rei causa vitam dono accepit.
f Rursum Nero isthmia, pythia, actia celebrans, inter cerycas, tragoedos, et citharistas coronatur.
13
g Neroni in expensas centies centena millia decreto senatus annua subministrantur.
23
67
g Post Petrum primus Romanam Ecclesiam tenuit LINUS annis XI.
h Nero cum caeteris viris insignibus et Octaviam uxorem suam interfecit, Cornutumque philosophum praeceptorem Persii in exsilium fugat.
h Nero cum a Senatu quaereretur ad poenam, e palatio fugiens ad quartum Urbis milliarium, in suburbano liberti sui inter Salariam et Nomentanam viam semet interficit,
(1) Pontus Polemoniacus was added in 64 AD. M. Julius Cottius ruled the Cottian Alps as praefectus civitatium.
[268/269]
Romanorum
Judaeo-rum
AD
Romanorum
Judaeorum regnum finitus est
AD
anno aetatis suae XXXII, atque in eo omnis Augusti familia consummata est. (*)
2
a Titus, Judaea capta, et Jerosolymis subversis, sexcenta millia virorum interfecit. Josephus vero scribit, undecies centena millia fame et gladio periisse, et alia centum millia captivorum publice venundata. Ut autem tanta multitudo Jerosolymis reperiretur, causam azymorum fuisse refert, ob quam ex omni gente Judaeae ad Templum confluentes, urbe quasi carcere sunt reclusi: oportuit enim iisdem diebus Paschae eos interfici, in quibus Salvatorem crucifixerant..
26
70
a Post Neronem GALBA in Hiberia, VITELLIUS in Germania, OTHO Romae imperium arripuerunt.
3
71
b Marcus Fabius Quinctilianus Romam a Galba perducitur. *
CCXII Olympias
4
72
c Galba septimo mense imperii sui, in medio Romanae urbis foro, capite truncatur.
d Vespasianus duobus praeliis superatos Judaeos ad muros compulit.
e Otho tertio regni sui mense, apud Bebriacum propria manu occubuit. (*)
b Colligitur omne tempus in secundum annum Vespasiani, et novissimam eversionem Jerosolymarum:
f Antiochiae secundus episcopus ordinatur Ignatius.
a quinto decimo Tiberii Caesaris anno, et ab exordio Evangelicae praedicationis, XII [Olympiades].
g Vitellius octavo imperii sui mense a Vespasiani ducibus occisus, in Tiberim projicitur. (*)
Romanorum VII, VESPASIANUS regnavit annis IX, mensibus XI, diebus XXII.
a captivitate autem, quam ab Antiocho perpessi sunt, anni CCXXXIX
1
h Vespasianus apud Judaeam imperator ab exercitu appellatus, et bellum Tito filio commendans, Romam per Alexandriam proficiscitur.
25
69
porro a Darii secundo anno, sub quo rursum Templum aedificatum est, anni, DXC
a prima autem aedificatione Templi sub Salomone usque ad novissimam ejus ruinam, quae sub Vespasiano facta est, anni MCII.
i Capitolium Romae incensum.
[270/271]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
CCXIII Olympias
circa Sabinos, anno aetatis LXIX. (*)
5
a Vespasianus Capitolium aedificare orsus.
73
Romanorum VIII, TITUS, regnavit annis II, mensibus II.
b In Alexandria facta seditio.
1
a Titus filius Vespasiani in utraque lingua disertissimus fuit, et tantae bonitatis, ut cum quadam die recordatus fuisset in coena, nihil se illo die cuiquam praestitisse, dixit: 'Amici, hodie diem perdidi.'
79
2090 6
c Achaia, Lycia, Rhodus, Byzantium, Samus, Thracia, Cilicia, Comagene, quae liberae antea et sub regibus amicis erant, in provincias redactae. *
74
7
d Colossus erectus habens altitudinis pedes CVII.
75
b Mons Vesuvius ruptus in vertice tantum ex se jecit incendii, ut regiones vicinas et urbes cum hominibus exureret.
e Q. Asconius Pedianus scriptor historicus clarus habetur, qui LXXIII aetatis suae anno captus luminibus, XII postea annis in summo honore consenescit. *
c Titus Musonium Rufum philosophum de exsilio revocat. *
8
76
d Titus amphitheatrum Romae aedificat et in dedicatione ejus quinque millia ferarum occidit. *
f Gabinianus celeberrimi nominis rhetor in Gallia docuit. *
2
e Romanae Ecclesiae II constituitur Episcopus, CLETUS, annis XII.
80
CCXIV Olympias
9
g Tres civitates Cypri terraemotu corruerunt.
77
f Romae plurimae aedes incendio concremantur.
h Lues ingens Romae facta, ita ut per multos dies in ephemeriden decem millia ferme mortuorum hominum referrentur.
g Titus morbo periit in ea villa, qua pater. pridie Idus Septembres, anno aetatis XLII. 1 (*)
CCXV Olympias
10
i Vespasianus Colonias deduxit, et mortuus est profluvio ventris in villa propria
78
Romanorum IX, DOMITIANUS, regnavit annis XV, mensibus V.
h Domitianus Titi frater junior. *
(1) Titus died on September 13, 81 AD at Aquae Cutiliae, where his father Vespasian had died two years earlier. The ides of September are the 12th.
[272/273]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
a Domitiani uxor Augusta appellatur.
9
a Multa opera Romae facta, in quibus Capitolium, Forum transitorium, divorum Porticus, Isium ac Serapium, Stadium, Horrea piperataria, Vespasiani templum, Minerva Chalcidica, Odeum, Forum Trajani, Thermae Trajanae et Titianae, Senatus, Ludus matutinus, Mica aurea, Meta sudans, et Pantheon. 1 *
89
2
b Decreto senatus Titus inter deos refertur. 82
c Domitianus eunuchos fieri prohibuit.
3
d Tres virgines Vestae ob stuprum damnatae.
83
e Plurimos senatorum Domitianus in exsilium mittit.
10
90
2100 4
f Secundus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae constituitur episcopus, Abilius, qui praefuit annis XIII.
84
b Domitianus de Dacis et Germanis triumphat.
CCXVI Olympias
5
g Domitianus templum sine admixtione lignorum construit.
85
11
c Domitianus tantae superbiae fuit, ut aureas et argenteas statuas sibi in Capitolio poni jusserit: Haecque et caetera omnia suo tantum titulo, sine ulla prisci auctoris memoria, signaret. *
91
6
h Primus Domitianus dominum se et deum appellare jussit. *
86
d Maxima virginum Vestalium Cornelia convicta stupri, juxta legem viva defossa est.
i Nasamones et Daci dimicantes contra Romanos victi.
7
k Duo menses aliter appellati, September Germanicus, et October Domitianus.
87
12
e Domitianus prohibuit vites in urbibus seri.
92
8
l Quinctilianus ex Hispania Calaguritanus, qui primus Romae publicam scholam et salarium e fisco accepit, claruit. *
88
f Romanae Ecclesiae episcopus III praefuit, CLEMENS, annis IX.
CCXVIII Olympias
CCXVII Olympias
13
g Flavius Josephus vicesimum librum Antiquitatum his temporibus scribit.
93
m Domitianus plurimos nobilium in exsilium mittit, et occidit.
n Domitianus mathematicos et philosophos Romana urbe pellit.
h Domitianus multos nobilium perdidit, quosdam vero in exsilium misit.
(1) The Ludus Matutinus was a school for the training of bestiarii, "beast fighters." The Meta Sudans was a fountain built next to the Colosseum in the second half of the st century A.D. "The Mica Aurea was a little palace which the Emperor Domitian had built on Monte Caelio's west side across from his large emperial palace on the Palatin hill. It was located by the Via Triumphalis of ancient times, nowadays Via di San Gregorio, between the ancient roads, the Clivus Pulveratus (which does not exist today), and the Clivus Scauri, which today is called Clivio di Scauro. The latin name means "the little gold-beaming (house)", as "mica" means "a crumb, or a piece" or "a little room" and "aurea" means "golden" or "beaming like gold" and the little palace which was built as a private residence as opposed to the large official palace did have a golden roof."
[274/275]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
2110
14
a Secundus post Neronem Domitianus Christianos persequitur, et sub eo apostolus Joannes in Patmon insulam relegatus, Apocalypsim vidit, quam Irenaeus interpretatur.
94
a Alexandrinae ecclesiae III episcopus praefuit Cerdo, annis XI.
b Persecutio a Domitiano
b Senatus decrevit, ut omnia quae Domitianus statuerat, in irritum deducerentur. Itaque multi, quos injuste ejecerat, de exsilio reversi: nonnulli bona propria receperunt. Aiunt et apostolum Joannem hoc tempore exsilio solutum, Ephesum secessisse, in qua urbe et hospitiolum, et amicos amantissimos sui habebat.
15
c Domitianus rursum philosophos et mathematicos Roma per edictum extrudit.
95
16
d Apollonius Tyaneus, et Euphrates insignes philosophi habentur.
96
1
97
e Domitianus eos, qui de genere David erant, interfici praecipit, ut nullus Judaeorum regni reliquus foret. Scribit Brutius, plurimos Christianorum sub Domitiano fecisse martyrium, inter quos et Flaviam Domitillam Flavii Clementis consulis ex sorore neptem in insulam Pontiam relegatam, quia se Christianam esse testata sit.
c Justus a Tiberiade Judaeorum scriptor agnoscitur.
d Nerva morbo periit in hortis Sallustianis anno aetatis LXXII cum jam Trajanum adoptasset in filium. (*)
e Trajanus Agrippinae in Galliis imperator factus, natus Italicae in Hispania. *
Romanorum XI, TRAJANUS, regnavit annis XIX, mensibus VI.
f Multa signa atque portenta Romae et toto orbi facta.
1
f Decreto senatus Nerva inter deos relatus est. 98
2
g Romanae Ecclesiae episcopatum IV suscepit, EVARISTUS, annis IX.
99
g Domitianus occisus in Palatio, et per vespillones ignobiliter exportatus anno aetatis XLV. (*)
3
h JOANNEM APOSTOLUM usque ad Trajani tempora Irenaeus episcopus permansisse scribit: post quem auditores ejus insignes fuerunt
100
CCXIX Olympias
Romanorum X, NERVA, regnavit anno uno, mensibus IV.
[276/277]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
Papias Hieropolitanus episcopus et Polycarpus Smyrnaeus, et Ignatius Antiochenus.
post quem tertius episcopus constituitur Eron. (*)
a Plinius Secundus, cum quamdam provinciam regeret, et in magistratu suo plurimos Christianorum interfecisset, multitudine eorum perterritus, quaesivit a Trajano, quid facto opus esset, nuntians ei, Praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi, et antelucanos coetus ad canendum cuidam Christo ut Deo, nihil apud eos reperiri. Praeterea ad confoederandam disciplinam, vetari ab his homicidia, furta, adulteria, latrocinia, et his similia. Ad quae commotus Trajanus rescribit: "Hoc genus quidem inquirendum non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere." Tertullianus refert in Apologetico.
CCXX Olympias
4
a Trajanus de Dacis et Scythis triumphat. 101
5
b Trajanus, victo rege Decebalo, Daciam fecit provinciam: Iberos, Sauromatas, Orsoenos, Arabes, Bosphoranos, Colchos in fidem accepit: Seleuciam, Ctesiphontem, Babylonem occupavit, et tenuit: in mari Rubro classem instituit, ut per eam Indiae fines vastaret. *
102
6
103
2120 7
c Romae aurea domus incendio conflagravit.
104
CCXXI Olympias
8
d Terraemotu quatuor urbes Asiae subversae, Elaea, Myrrhina, Pytanae, Cymae: et Graeciae duae, Opuntiorum, et Oritorum.
105
9
e Alexandrinae ecclesiae IV episcopus ordinatur nomine Primus, annis XII.
106
CCXXII Olympias
10
f Trajano adversus Christianos persecutionem movente, Simon filius Cleophae, qui Jerosolymis episcopatum tenebat, crucifigitur: cui succedit Justus.
107
b Romanae ecclesiae episcopatum V tenet, ALEXANDER, annis X.
g Item persecutio a Trajano
12
c Plinius Secundus Novocomensis orator et historicus insignis habetur, cujus plurima ingenii opera exstant. *
109
g Ignatius quoque Antiochenae ecclesiae episcopus Romam perductus, bestiis traditur:
13
d Tres Galatiae civitates terraemotu erutae.
110
11
108
e Pantheon Romae fulmine concrematum.
[278/279]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
14
a Post Justum Ecclesiae Jerosolymitanae episcopatum IV suscepit Zachaeus, post quem V Tobias, cui succedit VI Benjamin, ac deinde VII Joannes, et VIII Matthias, in cujus locum IX constituitur Philippus.
111
a Trajanus morbo in Selinunte perit, sive, ut alibi scriptum reperimus, apud Seleuciam Isauriae profluvio ventris exstinctus est, anno aetatis LXIII, mense IX, die IV. Ossa ejus in urnam auream collata, et in foro sub columna posita: solusque omnium intra Urbem sepultus est 1. (*)
15
112
CCXXIII Olympias
16
b Trajanus Armeniam, Assyriam, Mesopotamiam fecit provincias. *
113
CCXXIV Olympias
Romanorum XII, HADRIANUS, regnavit annis XXI
c Terraemotus Antiochiam pene totam subruit civitatem.
1
b Hadrianus Italicae in Hispania natus, consobrinae Trajani filius fuit. *
117
2130 17
d Judaei, qui in Libya erant, adversum cohabitatores suos alienigenas dimicant. Similiter in Aegypto, et in Alexandria, apud Cyrenem quoque, et Thebaidem magna seditione contendunt; verum gentilium pars superat in Alexandria.
114
c Hadrianus Alexandriam a Romanis subversam publicis instauravit expensis.
d Hadrianus Trajani invidens gloriae, de Assyria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, quas ille provincias fecerat, revocavit exercitus. *
18
e Judaeis Mesopotamiae rebellantibus praecepit imperator Trajanus Lysiae Quieto, ut eos provincia exterminaret: adversus quos Quietus aciem instruens infinita millia eorum interfecit, et ob hoc procurator Judaeae ab imperatore decernitur.
115
e Hadrianus Judaeos capit secundo contra Romanos rebellantes.
2
f Senatus Trajanum in deos refert.
118
g Hadrianus eruditissimus fuit in utraque lingua, sed in puerorum amore parum continens fuit. *
19
f Salaminam urbem Cypri, interfectis in ea gentilibus, subvertere Judaei.
h Hadrianus reliqua tributorum urbibus relaxavit, chartis publice incensis: plurimos etiam ipsis tributis liberos praestitit.
(1) I.e. within the pomerium.
[280/281]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
3
aPlutarchus Cheronaeus, et Sextus 1, et Agathobolus, et Oenomaus 2 philosophi insignes habentur.
119
ad eversionem, quam ab Hadriano perpessa est Jerusalem, ex circumcisione episcopi praefuerunt.
b Romanae Ecclesiae episcopatum VI tenet SIXTUS, annis X.
CCXXVI Olympias
9
a Hadrianus sacris Eleusinae initiatus, multa Atheniensibus dona largitus est.
125
c Alexandrinae Ecclesiae V constituitur episcopus Justus, annis XI.
b Quadratus discipulus apostolorum, et Aristides Atheniensis noster philosophus, libros pro Christiana religione Hadriano dedere compositos. Et Serenus Granius legatus, vir apprime nobilis, litteras ad imperatorem mittit, iniquum esse dicens, clamoribus vulgi innocentium hominum sanguinem concedi, et ullo crimine, nominis tantum et sectae reos fieri. Quibus commotus Hadrianus Minutio Fundano proconsuli Asiae scripsit, sine objectu criminum Christianos non condemnandos. Cujus epistolae usque ad nostram memoriam durat exemplum.
4
d Bellum contra Sauromatas gestum.
120
e Terraemotu facto Nicomedia ruit, et Nicaenae urbis plurima eversa sunt: ad quarum instaurationem Hadrianus de publico est largitus impensas.
10
126
CCXXV Olympias
5
f Euphrates Stoicus philosophus moritur.
121
g Hadrianus in Libyam, quae a Judaeis vastata fuerat, Colonias deducit.
11
127
6
h Hadrianus Atheniensibus leges petentibus 3, ex Draconis et Solonis, reliquorumque libris jura composuit 4.
122
7
i Cephisus fluvius Eleusinam inundavit, quem Hadrianus ponte conjungens, Athenis hiemem exegit.
123
12
c Imperator Hadrianus Pater Patriae appellatur, et uxor ejus Augusta.
128
k Jerosolymis X post Philippum constituitur episcopus Seneca, post quem XI Justius, cui successit XII Levi, post quem XIII Ephres, XIV Joses, XV Judas. Hi omnes usque
d Romanae ecclesiae episcopatum VII suscepit TELESPHORUS, annis XI.
2140 8
124
e Antiochiae constituitur IV episcopus, Cornelius.
(1) Sextus Empiricus.
(2) Oenomaus of Gadara.
(3) I.e. for a constitution.
(4) The other legislators.
[282/283]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
CCXXVII Olympias
CCXXVIII Olympias
a Nicopolis et Caesarea terraemotu conciderunt.
a Basilides haeresiarches in Alexandria commoratur, a quo Gnostici.
13
b Antinous puer egregius eximiae pulchritudinis, in Aegypto moritur, quem Hadrianus diligenter sepeliens, --nam in deliciis habuerat-- in deos refert, ex cujus nomine etiam urbs appellata est.
129
17
b Barcochebas, dux factionis Judaeorum, nolentes sibi Christianos adversum Romanum militem ferre subsidium, omnimodis cruciatibus necat.
133
2150 18
c Bellum Judaicum, quod in Palaestina gerebatur, finem accepit, rebus Judaeorum penitus oppressis. Ex quo tempore etiam introeundi eis Jerosolymam licentia ablata, primum Dei nutu, sicut prophetae vaticinati sunt, deinde Romanis interdictionibus.
134
14
c Alexandrinae ecclesiae VI episcopus praefuit Eumenes, annis XIII.
130
15
d Templum Veneris ab Hadriano Romae factum. *
131
19
135
e Salvius Julianus perpetuum composuit edictum. *
f Hadrianus Athenis hiemem exigens, Eleusinam invisit.
d Jerosolymis primus ex gentibus constituitur episcopus Marcus, cessantibus his, qui fuerant ex Judaeis.
16
g Hadrianus, cum insignes et plurimas aedes Athenis fecisset, agonem edidit, bibliothecamque miri operis exstruxit.
132
20
e Aelia ab Aelio Hadriano condita, et in fronte ejus portae, qua Bethleem egredimur, Sus sculptus in marmore, significans Romanae potestati subjacere Judaeos. Nonnulli a Tito Aelio filio Vespasiani exstructam arbitrantur.
136
h Judaei in arma versi Palaestinam depopulati sunt, tenente provinciam Tynio Rufo, cui ad opprimendos rebelles Hadrianus misit exercitum.
CCXXIX Olympias
i Favorinus et Polemon rhetores insignes habentur.
21
f Hadrianus morbo intercutis aquae apud Baias moritur major sexagenario. (*)
137
[284/285]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum XIII, T. ANTONINUS, cognomento Pius, cum liberis suis Aurelio et Lucio regnavit, annis XXII, mensibus III.
10
147
11
148
CCXXXII Olympias
1
a Romanae ecclesiae episcopatum VIII, suscipit HYGINUS, annis IV.
138
12
a Arrianus Philosophus Nicomediensis agnoscitur, et Maximus Tyrius.
149
2
b Antoninus Pater Patriae appellatur.
139
13
b Apollonius Stoicus natione Chalcidicus, et Basilides Scythopolitanus philosophi illustres habentur: qui Verissimi quoque Caesaris praeceptores fuerunt.
150
3
c Sub Hygino Romanae urbis episcopo Valentinus haeresiarches, et Cerdo magister Marcionis, Romam venerunt.
140
14
151
15
152
CCXXX Olympias
CCXXXIII Olympias
4
d Justinus philosophus librum pro nostra religione conscriptum Antonino tradidit.
141
16
c Alexandrinae ecclesiae VIII episcopus praefuit, Celadion, annis XIV.
153
2170 17
d Crescens Cynicus agnoscitur, qui Justino nostri dogmatis philosopho, quia se gulosum et praevaricatorem philosophiae coarguebat, persecutionem suscitavit, in qua ille gloriose pro Christo sanguinem fudit.
154
5
e Romae IX episcopus ordinatur PIUS, annis XV.
142
18
155
f Antiochiae V constituitur episcopus Heros.
19
156
6
g Alexandriae VII episcopatum suscipit Marcus, annis X.
143
CCXXXIV Olympias
h Valentinus haereticus agnoscitur, et permanet usque ad Anicetum.
20
e Romanae ecclesiae episcopatum X tenet ANICETUS, annis X, sub quo Polycarpus Romam veniens multos ab haeretico errore correxit.
157
21
158
2160 7
i Mesomedes Cretensis citharoedorum carminum musicus poeta agnoscitur.
144
22
159
23
160
CCXXXI Olympias
CCXXXV Olympias
8
k Taurus Berytius Platonicae sectae philosophus clarus habetur.
f Jerosolymae episcopatum post Marcum XVII suscepit Cassianus, post quem XVIII Publius,
9
[286/287]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
cui succedit XIX Maximus, XX Julianus, XXI Gaianus, XXII Symmachus, XXIII Caius, XXIV Julianus, XXV Capito.
a Lucius Caesar de Parthis cum fratre 1 triumphavit.
6
b Alexandrinae ecclesiae IX episcopus praefuit Agrippinus, annis XII.
166
a Antoninus Pius apud Lorium villam suam, XII ab Urbe milliario, moritur anno vitae suae LXXVII. (*)
d Perse-cutio
c Persecutione orta in Asia, Polycarpus et Pionius fecere martyrium, quorum scriptae quoque passiones feruntur.
167
7
Romanorum XIV, MARCUS ANTONINUS, qui et VERUS, regnavit; et L. AURELIUS COMMODUS, annis XIX, mense uno.
e Plurimi in Gallia gloriose ob Christi nomen interfecti, quorum usque in praesentem diem condita libris certamina perseverant.
1
b Hi primum aequo jure imperium administraverunt, cum usque ad hoc tempus, singuli Augusti fuerint. *
161
2
c Lucio Caesari Athenis sacrificanti ignis in coelo ab oriente in occidentem referri visus.
162
8
f Lues multas provincias occupavit, Roma ex parte vexata..
168
g Romani contra Germanos, Marcomannos, Quados, Sarmatas, et Dacos dimicant..
3
d Vologaesus rex Parthorum, vicinas sibi Romanas provincias depopulatus est.
163
CCXXXVII Olympias
2180 4
e Fronto orator insignis habetur, qui Marcum Antoninum Verum Latinis litteris erudivit. *
164
h Romanae ecclesiae episcopatum XI suscepit SOTER, annis VIII.
9
i Antiochiae VI episcopus ordinatur Theophilus, cujus plurima ingenii opera exstant.
169
f Seleucia Assyriae urbs cum CCC millibus hominum a Romanis capta. *
CCXXXVI Olympias
k Lucius imperator anno regni sui IX, sive, ut quidam putant, XI inter Concordiam et Altinum apoplexi exstinctus est, sedens cum fratre in vehiculo. (*)
5
g Apud Pisas Peregrinus philosophus rogo, quem ex lignis composuerat, incenso, semet superjecit.
165
(1) His 'brother' is Marcus Aurelius.
[288/289]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
10
a Antonino imperatori Melito Asianus Sardensis episcopus Apologeticum pro Christianis tradidit.
2190 14
semel Pertinaci et exercitui, qui cum eo in Quadorum regione pugnabat, siti oppresso, pluvia divinitus missa est; cum econtrario Germanos et Sarmatas fulmina persequerentur, et plurimos eorum interficerent. Exstant litterae Marci Aurelii gravissimi imperatoris, quibus illam Germanicam sitim, Christianorum forte militum precationibus, impetrato imbre, discussam contestatur.
174
b Apollinaris Asianus Hierapolitanus episcopus insignis habetur.
15
175
11
c Dionysius episcopus Corinthiorum clarus habetur, et Pinytus Cretensis vir eloquentissimus.
d Pseudoprophetia, quae Cataphrygas nominatur, accepit exordium, auctore Montano, Priscilla, Maximillaque insanis vatibus.
16
176
a Atticus Platonicae sectae philosophus agnoscitur.
12
e Tatianus haereticus agnoscitur, a quo Encratitae.
CCXXXIX Olympias
17
b Romanae Ecclesiae XII episcopatum suscipit ELEUTHERIUS, annis XV.
177
f Bardesanes alterius haereseos princeps notus efficitur.
c Antiochiae VII episcopus constituitur Maximinus.
g Oppianus Cilix poeta cognoscitur, qui Halieutica miro splendore conscribit.
d Antoninus Commodum filium suum consortem regni facit.
h Tanta per totum orbem pestilentia fuit, ut pene usque ad internecionem Romanus exercitus deletus fuerit. *
e Antoninus cum filio de hostibus triumphavit, quos, per triennium apud Carnuntum habens stativa castra, vastaverat. (*)
CCXXVIII Olympias
13
i Imperator Antoninus multis adversum se nascentibus bellis saepe ipse intererat, saepe duces nobilissimos destinabat, in quibus
18
f Imperatores multis multa largiti sunt, et pecuniam, quae fisco debebatur, provinciis concedentes, tabulas debitorum in medio Romanae urbis foro incendi praeceperunt,
178
[290/291]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
ac ne quid bonitati deesset, severiores quasque leges novis Constitutionibus temperaverunt.
Post quem XXVII Antoninus, XXVIII Valens, XXIX Dulichianus, XXX Narcissus, XXXI Dius, XXXII Germanio, XXXIII Gordius, XXXIV rursum Narcissus. Tantis apud Jerosolymam episcopis constitutis, non potuimus discernere tempora singulorum, eo quod usque in praesentem diem eorum episcopatuum anni minime salvarentur.
7
186
19
179
a Antoninus post victoriam, adeo in editione munerum magnificus fuit, ut centum simul leones exhibuerit.
8
187
b Commodus a senatu Augustus appellatur.
c Smyrna urbs Asiae terraemotu ruit, ad cujus instaurationem decennalis tributorum immunitas data est.
9
a In Capitolium fulmen ruit, et magna inflammatione facta, bibliotheca, et vicinae quoque aedes concrematae.
188
d Antoninus in Pannonia morbo periit.
e Alexandrinae ecclesiae X episcopatum sortitur Julianus, annis X.
CCXLII Olympias
10
b Alexandriae XI constituitur episcopus Demetrius, annis XLIII.
189
Romanorum XV, COMMODUS, regnavit annis XIII.
c Commodus imperator colossi capite sublato, suae imagini caput imposuit.
1
f Commodus de Germanis triumphavit. 180
CCXL Olympias
2
g Templum Serapidis Alexandriae incensum. 181
11
d Serapion, VIII Antiochiae episcopus ordinatur.
190
3
h Irenaeus episcopus Lugdunensis insignis habetur.
182
e Commodus multos nobilium interficit, et spectacula populo Romano praebet insignia.
4
i Thermae Commodianae Romae factae. 183
2200 5
k Commodus Septembrem mensem nomine suo appellavit. *
184
12
f Incendio Romae facto palatium et aedes Vestae, plurimaque urbis pars solo coaequatur.
191
CCXLI Olympias
6
l Jerosolymis XXVI ordinatur episcopus Maximus,
185
[292/293]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
13
a Commodus strangulatur in domo Vestiliani.
192
a Clemens Alexandrinae ecclesiae presbyter, et Pantaenus Stoicus philosophus, in disputatione dogmatis nostri disertissimi habentur.
CCXLIII Olympias
Romanorum XVI, AELIUS PERTINAX, regnavit mensibus VI.
3
b Narcissus Jerosolymitarum episcopus, et Theophilus Caesariensis, Polycrates quoque, et Bacchylus Asianae provinciae episcopi insignes habentur.
195
1
b Pertinax septuagenario major, cum praefecturam Urbis ageret, ex senatusconsulto imperare jussus est.
193
c Romae episcopatum suscipit XIII, VICTOR, annis X, cujus mediocria de religione exstant volumina.
4
c Quaestione orta in Asia inter episcopos, an secundum legem Mosi, 14 mensis Pascha observandum esset, Victor Romanae urbis episcopus, et Narcissus Jerosolymarum, Polycrates quoque, et Irenaeus, et Bacchylus, plurimique ecclesiarum pastores, quid eis probabile visum fuerat, litteris ediderunt, quarum memoria ad nos usque perdurat.
196
d Pertinax, obsecrante senatu, ut uxorem suam Augustam, et filium suum Caesarem appellaret, contradixit: sufficere testatus, quod ipse regnaret invitus.
e Pertinax occiditur in palatio, Juliani jurisperiti scelere: quem postea Severus apud Milvium pontem interfecit. (*)
CCXLIV Olympias
5
d Judaicum et Samariticum bellum motum.
197
Romanorum XVII, SEVERUS, regnavit annis XVIII.
6
e Severus Parthos, et Adiabenos superavit, Arabesque interiores ita cecidit, ut regionem eorum Romanam provinciam faceret, ob quae Parthicus, Arabicus, et Adiabenicus cognominatus est. (*)
198
2210 2
f Severus provincia Tripolitana oppido Lepti, solus ex Africa usque in praesentem diem, Romanis imperator fuit, et in honorem Pertinacis, quem Julianus occiderat, Pertinacem se cognominari jussit. *
194
g Eo quod superioris anni sex mensibus regnavit Severus.
7
199
8
200
[294/295]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
a Severo imperante, thermae Severianae apud Antiochiam, et Romae factae, et Septizonium exstructum. *
CCXLVII Olympias
17
a Severus moritur Eboraci in Britannia.
209
18
210
CCXLV Olympias
Romanorum XVIII, ANTONINUS cognomento CARACALLA, Severi filius, regnavit annis VII.
9
b Romae XIV ecclesiae episcopatum suscepit ZEPHYRINUS, annis XVII.
201
1
b Antiochiae IX episcopus constituitur Asclepiades.
211
10 d V Persecutio c Persecutione in Christianos facta, Leonides Origenis pater gloriosa martyrii morte transfertur.
202
2
c Alexander XXXV Jerosolymorum episcopus ordinatur, adhuc vivente Narcisso, et cum eo pariter Ecclesiam regit.
212
11
203
2220 12
e Alexander ob confessionem Dominici nominis insignis habetur.
204
h In hoc anno Jubeleum a majoribus invenimus observatum, id est XII anno Severi et CCLI Antiocene urbis.
CCXLVIII Olympias
f Clemens multa et varia conscribit.
3
d Antoninus Caracalla cognominatus propter genus vestis, quod Romae erogaverat, et e contrario Caracallae ex ejus nomine Antoninianae dictae. *
213
g Musanus nostrae philosophiae scriptor agnoscitur.
2230 4
214
CCXLVI Olympias
13
i Clodio Albino, qui se in Gallia Caesarem fecerat, apud Lugdunum interfecto, Severus in Britannos bellum transfert: ubi ut receptas provincias ab incursione barbarica faceret securiores, vallum per CXXXII millia passuum a mari ad mare duxit. (*)
205
5
e Antoninus Romae thermas sui nominis aedificavit. *
215
6
f Antoninus tam impatiens libidinis fuit, ut novercam suam Juliam uxorem duxerit. *
216
14
206
CCXLIX Olympias
7
g Antoninus interficitur inter Edessam et Carras anno aetatis XLIII. (*)
217
15
207
16
k Tertullianus Afer centurionis proconsularis filius omnium Ecclesiarum sermone celebratur. 1 *
208
Romanorum XIX, MACRINUS, regnavit anno uno.
1
h Macrinus praefecturam praetorio gerens, imperator factus. *
218
l Origenes Alexandriae studiis eruditur.
(1) A scholion in 'O' reads: "Tertullian was under the rule of Severus the African, 180 years after the Lord." It is not in the same hand as the main text.
[296/297]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
a Antiochiae X episcopus constituitur Philetus.
Romanorum XXI, ALEXANDER, Mamaeae filius, regnavit annis XIII.
b Circensibus Vulcanaliorum Romae amphitheatrum incensum.
1
a Alexander Xerxem regem Persarum gloriosissime vicit, et disciplinae militaris tam severus corrector fuit, ut quasdam tumultuantes legiones integras exauctoraverit. *
223
c Abgarus 1, vir sanctus, regnavit Edessae, ut vult Africanus.
d Macrinus occiditur in Archelaide.
2240 2
224
Romanorum XX, MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS, regnavit annis IV.
CCLI Olympias
3
b Romanae ecclesiae XVI ordinatur episcopus URBANUS, annis IX.
225
1
e Marcus Aurelius Antonini Caracallae, ut putabatur, filius, et sacerdos Eliogabali templi, adeo impudice in imperio suo vixit, ut nullum genus obscenitatis omiserit. *
219
4
c Ulpianus jurisconsultus, assessor Alexandri insignissimus habetur. *
226
5
d Thermae Alexandrinae Romae aedificatae. *
227
2
f Romanae Ecclesiae episcopatum suscepit XV, CALLISTUS, annis V.
220
6
e Geminus presbyter Antiochenus, et Hippolytus, et Beryllus episcopus Arabiae Bostrenus, clari scriptores habentur.
228
g Eliogabalum templum Romae aedificatum. *
CCL Olympias
CCLII Olympias
3
h In Palaestina Nicopolis, quae prius Emmaus vocabatur, urbs condita est, legationis industriam pro ea suscipiente Julio Africano scriptore Temporum.
221
7
f Antiochiae XI constituitur episcopus Zebennus.
229
8
g Origenes Alexandriae clarus habetur.
230
9
h Alexandrinae ecclesiae XII ordinatur episcopus Heraclas, annis XVI.
231
4
i Antoninus Romae occiditur tumultu militari, cum matre Symiasera. (*)
222
10
i Alexander in matrem Mamaeam unice pius fuit, et ob id omnibus amabilis. *
232
(1) Abgar VIII.
[298/299]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
CCLIII Olympias
3
a Gordianus admodum adolescens, Parthorum natione superata, cum victor reverteretur ad patriam, fraude Philippi praefecti praetorio haud longe a Romano solo interfectus est. (*)
241
11
a Origenes de Alexandria ad Caesaream Palaestinae transit.
233
4
242
2250 12
b Romanae ecclesiae XVII episcopatum suscepit PONTIANUS, annis V.
234
5
243
13
c Alexander occiditur Moguntiaci tumultu militari.
235 2260 6
b Gordiano milites tumulum aedificant, qui Euphrati imminet, ossibus ejus Romam revectis. *
244
Romanorum XXII, MAXIMINUS, regnavit annis III.
Romanorum XXIV, PHILIPPUS, regnavit annis VII.
1
d Maximinus primus ex corpore militari, sine senatus auctoritate, ab exercitu imperator electus est. *
236
CCLVI Olympias
1
c Philippus Philippum filium consortem regni facit, primusque omnium ex Romanis Imperatoribus Christianus fuit. (*)
245
CCLIV Olympias
2 f VI Persecutio. e Maximinus adversum Ecclesiarum sacerdotes persecutionem facit.
237
2
d Regnantibus Philippis millesimus annus Romanae urbis expletus est, ob quam solemnitatem innumerabiles bestiae in circo magno interfectae ludique in campo Martio theatrales, tribus diebus ac noctibus populo pervigilante, celebrati.
246
3
g Maximinus Aquileiae a Pupieno occiditur. (*)
238
Romanorum XXIII, GORDIANUS 1, regnavit annis 6.
1
h Romae XVIII episcopus ordinatur ANTHERUS mense uno, post quem XIX, FABIANUS, annis XIII.
239
3
e Theatrum Pompeii incensum, et Hecatonstylon.
247
2
i Gordiano Romam ingresso, Pupienus et Albinus, qui imperium arripuerant, in palatio occisi. *
240
f Athlamos natali Romanae urbis cucurrit, et agon mille annorum actus. 1
CCLV Olympias
4
g Philippus urbem
248
(1) There were three Gordians, not one.
(2) The manuscripts contain either 'athalmos' or '600'. The reason is clear: the Greek contained the numeral for 600, and Jerome initially misread it as a proper name, 'Athalmos'. Later he realised the mistake, and corrected it, but some manuscripts derive from uncorrected copies of the text
[300/301]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
nominis sui in Thracia construit.
ipse martyrio coronatus est. Exstant ad eum Cypriani octo epistolae. (*)
CCLVII Olympias
5
a Alexandrinam Ecclesiam XXIII episcopus tenuit Dionysius, annis XVII.
249
CCLVIII Olympias
6
250
1
a Pestilens morbus multas totius orbis provincias occupavit, maximeque Alexandriam et Aegyptum, ut scribit Dionysius, et Cypriani de Mortalitate testis est liber. (*)
253
7
b Philippus senior Veronae, Romae junior occiditur. (*)
251
Romanorum XXV, DECIUS, regnavit anno uno, mensibus III.
c Decius e Pannonia inferiore Budaliae natus fuit. *
b Novatus presbyter Cypriani, Romam veniens, Novatianum, et caeteros confessores sibi sociat, eo quod Cornelius paenitentes apostatas recepisset. (*)
1 d VII persecutio d Decius cum Philippos, patrem et filium, interfecisset, ob odium eorum, in Christianos persecutionem movet.
232
c Antiochiae XIII constituitur episcopus Demetrianus.
e Antonius monachus in Aegypto nascitur.
f Romae amphitheatrum incensum.
2270 2
d Romanae Ecclesiae episcopatum tenet XXI LUCIUS, menses VIII. Post quem XXII STEPHANUS, annis III. Exstant ad utrumque Cypriani epistolae. (*)
254
g Alexandro Jerosolymorum episcopo apud Caesaream Palaestinae ob martyrium interfecto, et Antiochiae Babyla, Mazabanus, et Fabius episcopi constituuntur.
e Jubileus juxta maiores nostros.
f Gallus et Volusianus, cum adversum Aemilianum, qui in Moesia res novas moliebatur, ex Urbe profecti essent, in foro Flaminii, sive, ut alii putant, Interamnae interfecti sunt. (*)
h Decius cum filio in Abritto occiditur.
Romanorum XXVI, GALLUS et VOLUSIANUS Galli filius, regnaverunt annis II, mensibus IV.
i Romanae ecclesiae episcopatum, post Fabiani gloriosam mortem, XX suscepit CORNELIUS, annis II, qui et
g Aemilianus tertio mense invasae tyrannidis exstinctus est. *
[302/303]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum XXVII, VALERIANUS et GALLIENUS, regnaverunt annis XV.
Pannonias occupaverunt. *
2280 10
a Germanis Hispanias obtinentibus, Tarracon expugnata est. Parthi Mesopotamiam tenentes, Syriam incursaverunt. *
264
1
a Valerianus in Rhetia ab exercitu Augustus; Gallienus Romae a senatu Caesar appellatus est. *
255
2
256
CCLXI Olympias
CCLIX Olympias
11
b Alexandrinae ecclesiae XIV episcopus ordinatur Maximus, annis XVIII.
265
b Romanae ecclesiae episcopatum tenet XXIII, XYSTUS, annis VIII.
12
c Romae XXIV episcopus constituitur DIONYSIUS, annis XII.
266
3
c Cyprianus primum Rhetor, deinde presbyter, ad extremum Carthaginensis episcopus martyrio coronatur. (*)
257
d Odenatus decurio Palmyrenus collecta agrestium manu ita Persas cecidit, ut ad Ctesiphontem castra poneret. (*)
4
d Valerianus, in Christianos persecutione commota, statim a Sapore Persarum rege capitur, ibique servitute miserabili consenescit. (*)
258
eVIII persecutio
13
e Hierosolymarum episcopatum tenet Hymenaeus.
267
5
f Paulus Samosatenus a cunctorum praedicatione desciscens, Artemonis haeresim suscitavit: in cujus locum Antiochenae Ecclesiae XVI ordinatur episcopus Domnus.
f Sapor, rex Persarum, Syriam, Ciliciam et Cappadociam depopulatur.
14
268
6
g Valeriano in Persas ducto, Gallienus pacem nostris reddidit.
259
g Galliae per Postumum, et Victorinum, et Tetricum receptae. *
CCLX Olympias
7
h Antiochiae XV constituitur episcopus Paulus Samosatenus.
260
CCLXII Olympias
15
h Gallienus Mediolani occiditur.
269
8
i Gallieno in omnem lasciviam dissoluto, Germani Ravennam usque venerunt. *
261
Romanorum XXVIII, CLAUDIUS, regnavit anno uno, mensibus IX.
9
k Alamanni vastatis Galliis, in Italiam transiere. * l Graecia, Macedonia, Pontus, Asia, depopulata per Gothos. Quadi et Sarmatae
262
i In Alexandria Bruchium, quod per multos annos fuerat obsessum, tandem destruitur.
k Claudius Gothos, Illyricum et Macedoniam vastantes,
[304/305]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
superat, ob quae in Curia clipeus ei aureus, et in Capitolio statua aurea collocata est.
postea Lucaniae fuit, et Zenobia in Urbe summo honore consenuit, a qua hodieque Romae 'Zenobia familia' nuncupatur.
2
a Claudius Sirmii moritur.
271
4
a Aurelianus templum Soli aedificat, et Romam firmioribus muris vallat.
275
b Quintilius Claudii frater a senatu Augustus appellatus, decimo septimo imperii sui die Aquileiae occiditur. *
b Primus agon Solis ab Aureliano constitutus.
d IX persecutio c Aurelianus cum adversum nos persecutionem movisset, fulmen juxta eum comitesque ejus ruit, ac non multo post, inter Constantinopolim et Heracleam, in Caeno Frurio viae veteris occiditur. (*)
Romanorum XXIX, AURELIANUS, regnavit annis V, mensibus VI.
5
276
1
c Antiochenae ecclesiae XVII ordinatur episcopus Timaeus.
272
CCLXIII Olympias
CCLXIV Olympias. Romanorum XXX, TACITUS, regnavit menses VI.
d Aurelianus, Tetrico apud Catalaunos prodente exercitum suum, Gallias recepit. (*)
eQuo apud Pontum occiso, obtinuit FLORIANUS imperium diebus LXXXVIII. Hoc quoque apud Tarsum interfecto.
2
273
1
277
e Zenobia apud Immas, haud longe ab Antiochia vincitur; quae, occiso Odenato marito, Orientis tenebat imperium. In qua pugna strenuissime adversum eam dimicavit Pompeianus dux cognomento Francus, cujus familia hodieque apud Antiochiam perseverat, et ex cujus Evagrius carissimus nobis stirpe descendit. (*)
Romanorum XXXI, PROBUS, regnavit annis VI, menses IV.
1
f Romanae Ecclesiae episcopatum XXV suscepit FELIX, annis V.
278
g Probus Gallias a Barbaris occupatas, ingenti virtute restituit. *
h Initium LXXXVI Jubelei secundum Hebreos
2 i Anatolius Laodicenus episcopus, philosophorum disciplinis eruditus, plurimo sermone celebratur.
279
2290 3
f Eusebius Laodicenus episcopus insignis habetur.
274
k Secundo anno Probi juxta Antiochenos CCCXXV annus fuit: juxta Tyrios CDII: juxta Laodicenos CCCXXIV: juxta Edessenos DLXXXVIII, juxta Ascalonitas CCCLXXX.
g Aurelianum Romae triumphantem Tetricus et Zenobia currum praecesserunt; e quibus Tetricus Corrector
3
l Insana Manichaeorum haeresis in commune humani generis malum exorta.
280
[306/307]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
a Probus Gallos et Pannonios vineas habere permisit, Almamque et aureum montem militari manu consitos provincialibus colendos dedit. 1 *
super Tigridem castra ponens, fulmine ictus interiit. (*)
2
a Numerianus cum ob oculorum dolorem lecticula veheretur, insidiis Apri soceri sui occisus est, vix fetore cadaveris, post aliquot dies scelere comperto. (*)
285
CCLXV Olympias
4
b Antiochiae XVIII constituitur episcopus Cyrillus.
281
b Carinus praelio victus apud Margum occiditur. (*)
Romanorum XXXIII, DIOCLETIANUS, regnavit annis XX.
c Saturninus Magister exercitus novam civitatem Antiochiae orsus est condere: qui postea imperium molitus invadere Apamiae, occiditur.
1
c Diocletianus Dalmata, scribae filius, imperator electus statim Aprum in militum concione percussit, jurans sine suo scelere Numerianum interfectum.
286
5
d Romanae Ecclesiae episcopatum suscepit XXVI EUTYCHIANUS, mensibus VIII; post quem XXVII GAIUS, annis XV.
282
2
d Diocletianus in consortium regni Herculium Maximianum assumpsit, qui rusticorum multitudine oppressa, quae factioni suae Bacaudarum nomen indiderat, pacem Galliis reddit. (*)
287
6
e Probus tumultu militari apud Sirmium in turre, quae vocatur Ferrata, occiditur. (*)
283
3
288
f Alexandrinae Ecclesiae XV episcopus praefuit Theonas, annis XIX.
CCLXVII Olympias
4
e Carausius, sumpta purpura, Britannias occupavit, Narsaeus Orienti bellum intulit. *
289
Romanorum XXXII, CARUS cum filiis CARINO et NUMERIANO, annis II.
f Quinquegentiani 2 Africam infestaverunt. *
2300 1
284
g Aegyptum Achilleus obtinuit, ob quae Constantius et Galerius Maximianus Caesares adsumuntur in regnum: quorum Constantius Claudii ex filia nepos fuit, Galerius in Dacia haud longe a Serdica natus. Atque ut eos Diocletianus etiam affinitate conjungeret, Constantius
CCLXVI Olympias
5
290
g Carus Narbonensis, cum omni Parthorum regione vastata Cochem et Ctesiphontem nobilissimas hostium urbes cepisset,
6
291
(1) Eutropii Breviarium Liber Nonus 17: Vineas Gallos et Pannonios habere permisit, opere militari Almam montem apud Sirmium et Aureum apud Moesiam superiorem vineis conseruit et provincialibus colendos dedit.
(2) The Five Tribes.
[308/309]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
privignam Herculii Theodoram accepit, ex qua postea sex liberos Constantini fratres habuit; Galerius filiam Diocletiani Valeriam duxit, ambo uxores, quas habuerant, repudiare compulsi. (*)
episcopus Zabdas.
7
292
a Post decem annos per Asclepiodotum praefectum praetorii Britanniae receptae. *
CCLXX Olympias
CCLXVIII Olympias
b Juxta Lingonas a Constantio Caesare LX millia Alamannorum caesa. *
8
a Busiris et Coptus contra Romanos rebellantes, ad solum usque subversae sunt.
293
2310 9
294
16
c Galerius Maximianus victus a Narseo ante carpentum Diocletiani purpuratus cucurrit. *
301
10
b Carporum et Basternarum gentes in Romanum solum translatae sunt. *
295
d Veturius magister militiae Christianos milites persequitur, paulatim ex illo jam tempore persecutione adversus nos incipiente.
11
c Primus Diocletianus adorari se ut deum jussit, et gemmas vestibus calceamentisque inseri, cum ante eum omnes imperatores in modum judicum salutarentur, et chlamydem tantum purpuream a privato habitu plus haberent. *
296
e X persecutio
17
fGalerius Maximianus, superato Narseo, et uxoribus, ac liberis, sororibusque ejus captis, a Diocletiano ingenti honore suscipitur. *
302
g Thermae Diocletianae Romae factae, et Maximianae Carthagini. *
CCLXIX Olympias
12
d Romanae Ecclesiae XXVIII episcopatum suscepit MARCELIANUS, annis IX.
297
18
h Ecclesiae Jerosolymorum XXXVIII praefuit Hermon.
303
13
e Alexandria cum omni Aegypto per Achilleum ducem a Romana potestate desciscens, octavo obsidionis mense a Diocletiano capta est. Itaque plurimi per totam Aegyptum gravibus proscriptionibus exsiliisque vexati, interfectis his qui perduellionis causa exstiterant. 1 (*)
298
i Antiochiae XIX constituitur episcopus Tyrannus.
2320 19
k Alexandrinae Ecclesiae XXI post Theonam, ordinatur episcopus Petrus, qui postea IX persecutionis anno gloriose martyrium perpetravit.
304
l Jubileum secundum maiores
14
299
m Diocletianus et Maximianus Augusti, insigni pompa Romae triumpharunt, antecedentibus currum eorum
15
f Ecclesiae Jerosolymorum XXVII ordinatur
300
(1) This revolt is that of Domitius Domitianus. Several problems arise regarding this event. First, it is Achilleus who alone receives mention for the revolt; Contemporary papyrological evidence shows Achilleus with the title of corrector. Some scholars have suggested two revolts in Egypt. Domitianus, however, had coinage struck in his name, a logical first step in any rebellion; Achilleus has no coin struck in his name. Connected with this first problem, another suggestion has been made that Domitianus and Achilleus are one and the same. More likely is that Achilleus was a sub-commander for Domitianus, though any certain answer is still unclear. A similar problem involves the dating of of the revolt, though Jerome places it in 297 or after, a date supported by the papyrological and numismatic evidence. A third problem is the reason for the revolt. Renewed trouble between the eastern provinces and Sasanian Persia, may have put extra pressure on Egypt; quite possibly some of Diocletian's reforms did not sit well with the upper-class Egyptians.
[310/311]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
Narsei conjuge, sororibus, liberis, et omni praeda, qua Parthos spoliaverant.
annis XXX, mensibus X. Persecutionis IV *
307
1 a Maxentius Herculii Maximiani filius a praetorianis militibus Romae Augustus appellatur. (*)
2330
a Terraemotu horribili apud Tyrum et Sidonem multa opera conciderunt, et populus innumerabilis oppressus est.
b Severus Caesar a Galerio Maximiano contra Maxentium missus, Ravennae secundo imperii sui anno interficitur.
b Decimo nono anno Diocletiani, mense Martio, in diebus Paschae, ecclesiae subversae sunt. IV autem persecutionis anno Constantinus regnare ortus.
2 c Licinius a Galerio Carnunti imperator factus. 5
308
d Herculius Maximianus a filia Fausta detectus, quod dolum Constantino viro suo pararet, Massiliae fugiens occiditur.
c Secundum Antiochenos annus CCCLI. Persecutionis I
e Quirinus episcopus Siscianus gloriose pro Christo interficitur: nam, manuali mola ad collum ligata, e ponte praecipitatus in flumen, diutissime supernatavit et cum spectantibus collocutus, ne sui terrerentur exemplo, vix orans ut mergeretur, obtinuit.
271st Olympias
2 20 d Secundo anno persecutionis Diocletianus Nicomediae, Maximianus Mediolani purpuram deposuerunt. (*)
305
e Romae XXIX episcopus constituitur EUSEBIUS, mensibus VII; post quem XXX Ecclesiam tenet MILTIADES, annis IV.
272nd Olympias
3 f Galerius Maximianus moritur. 6
309
3
f Maximinus 1 et Severus a Galerio Maximiano Caesares facti.
306
4 g Romanae Ecclesiae XXXI ordinatur episcopus SILVESTER, annis XXII. 7
310
g Constantius XVI imperii anno 2 diem obiit in Britannia Eboraci, post quem filius ejus Constantinus ex concubina Helena procreatus, regnum invadit. (*)
5 h Maximinus, persecutione in Christianos facta, cum jam a Licinio puniendus esset, apud Tarsum moritur. (*) 8
311
i Alexandrinae ecclesiae XVII ordinatur episcopus Achillas.
6 k Maxentius juxta pontem Milvium a Constantino superatus occiditur. 9
312
Romanorum XXXIV, CONSTANTINUS, regnavit
(1) Maximinus Daia.
(2) Constantius I Chlorus.
[312/313]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
273rd Olympias
Homousii oppositione delevit.
7
a Bellum Cibalense adversum Licinium. 10
313
17
a Constantius filius Constantini Caesar factus. 323
2330 8
b Jerosolymarum XXXIX episcopus constituitur Macarius. c Pax nostris a Constantino reddita. 314
b Licinius Thessalonicae contra jus sacramenti, privatus occiditur. *
9
315
10
d Diocletianus haud procul a Salonis in villa sua Spalato moritur, et solus omnium inter deos privatus refertur. (*) 316 2340 18
c Nazarius rhetor insignis habetur. *
324
276th Olympias
19
d Crispus filius Constantini, et Licinius junior Constantiae Constantini sororis et Licinii filius, crudelissime interficiuntur.
325
274th Olympias
11
e Crispus et Constantinus, filii Constantini, et Licinius adolescens Licinii Augusti filius, Constantini ex sorore nepos, Caesares appellantur. Quorum Crispum Lactantius Latinis litteris erudivit, vir omnium suo tempore eloquentissimus; sed adeo in hac vita pauper, ut plerumque etiam necessariis indiguerit.
317
20
e Vicennalia Constantini Nicomediae acta, et sequenti anno Romae edita.
326
12
318
f Huc usque historiam scribit Eusebius Pamphili martyris contubernalis, cui nos ista subiecimus. *
13
319
21
g Arnobius rhetor in Africa clarus habetur, qui cum Siccae ad declamandum iuvenes erudiret et adhuc ethnicus ad credulitatem somniis compelleretur, neque ab episcopo impetraret fidem quam semper inpugnaverat, elucubravit adversum pristinam religionem luculentissimos libros et tandem veluti quibusdam obsidibus pietatis foedus impetravit.
327
14
320
275th Olympias
f Licinius Christianos de palatio suo pellit.
g Basileus Amasiae Ponti episcopus sub Licinio martyrio coronatur.
15
h Alexandrinae ecclesiae XVIII ordinatur episcopus Alexander: a quo Arius presbyter de Ecclesia ejectus, multos suae impietati sociat; ad quorum perfidiam coarguendam synodus 318 episcoporum, in Nicaeam urbem Bithyniae congregata, omnes haereticorum machinas
321
h Drepanam Bithyniae civitatem in honorem martyris Luciani ibi conditi Constantinus instaurans ex vocabulo matris suae Helenopolim nuncupavit.
16
322
i In Antiochia dominicum quod
[314/315]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
vocatur aureum aedificari coeptum.
25
a Romae XXXII episcopus ecclesiam tenuit MARCUS, mensibbus VIII; post quem XXXIII ordinatus est JULIUS, annis XVI, mensibus IV.
331
22
a Constantinus uxorem suam Faustam interficit.
328
b Donatus agnoscitur, a quo per Africam Donatiani.
b Edicto Constantini gentilium templa subversa sunt.
277th Olympias
26
c Romani Gothos in Sarmatarum regione vicerunt.
332
c Antiochiae post Tyrannum XX ordinatur episcopus Vitalis, post quem XXI Filogonius, cui successit XXII Paulinus, post quem XXIII Eustathius, quo in exilium ob fidem truso usque in praesentem diem Ariani ecclesiam obtinuerunt, id est Eulalius Eusebius Euphronius Placillus Stefanus Leontius Eudoxius Meletius Euzoius Dorotheus rursum Meletius, quorum idcirco tempora non digessi quod eos hostes potius Christi quam episcopos iudicem.
278th Olympias
27
d Constans filius Constantini provehitur ad regnum.
333
e Pestilentia et fame innumerabilis multitudo in Syria Ciliciaque perit.
2350 28
f Sarmatae Limigantes dominos suos qui nunc Argaragantes vocantur facta manu in Roraanum solum expulerunt.
334
23
329
g Calocerus in Cypro res nouas molitus opprimitur.
29
h Constantinus cum liberis suis honorificas ad Antonium litteras mittit.
335
d Juvencus presbyter natione Hispanus evangelia heroicis versibus explicat.
i Tricennalibus Constantini Dalmatius Caesar appellatur.
e Porphyrius misso ad Constantinum insigni volumine exilio liberatur.
30
k Pater rhetor Romae gloriosissime docet.
336
24
f Alexandriae XIX ordinatur episcopus Athanasius.
330
l Nazarii rhetoris filia in eloquentia patri coaequatur.
m Tiberianus vir disertus praefectus praetorio Gallias regit.
g Dedicatur Constantinopolis omnium paene urbium nuditate.
n Eustathius Constantinopolitanus presbyter agnoscitur, cuius industria in Hierosolymis
h Metrodorus philosophus agnoscitur.
[316/317]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
martyrium constructum est.
praesidio exiliis carceribus et variis adflictionum modis primum Athanasium deinde omnes non suae partis episcopos persecuta est.
279th Olympias
31
a Constantinus extremo vitae suae tempore ab Eusebio Nicomedensi episcopo baptizatus in Arianum dogma declinat, a quo usque in praesens tempus ecclesiarum rapinae et totius orbis est secuta discordia.
337
3
a Constantinus bellum fratri inferens juxta Aquileiam Alsae occiditur.
340
280th Olympias
b Constantinus, cum bellum pararet in Persas, in Acyrone villa publica iuxta Nicomediam moritur anno aetatis lxvi, post quem tres liberi eius ex Caesaribus Augusti appellantur.
4
b Vario eventu adversum Francos a Constante pugnatur.
341
c Multae orientis urbes terrae motu horribili consederunt.
d Audeus in Syria Coele clarus habetur, a quo haeresis Audiana.
Romanorum XXXV regnavit CONSTANTINUS, CONSTANTIUS et CONSTANS, annis XXIV, mensibus V, diebus XIII.
5
e Franci a Constante perdomiti et pax cum eis facta.
342
1
c Ablabius praefectus praetorio et multi nobilium occisi.
338
f Hermogenes magister militiae Constantinopoli tractus a populo ob episcopum Paulum quem regis imperio et Arnanorum factione pellebat.
d Sapor rex Persarum Mesopotamia vastata duobus ferme mensibus Nisibin obsedit.
e Dalmatius Caesar, quem patruus Constantinus consortem regni filiis dereliquerat, factione Constantii patruelis et tumultu militari interimitur.
g Antiochiae dominicum aureum dedicatur.
h Macedonius artis plumariae in locum Pauli ab Arianis episcopus subrogatur, a quo nunc haeresis Macedoniana.
f Jacobus Nisibenus episcopus agnoscitur, ad cuius preces saepe urbs discrimine liberata est.
i Paulus crudelitate praefecti Philippi, nam fautor Macedonii partium erat, et Arianorum insidiis strangulatur.
2
g Ex hoc loco impictas Ariana Constantii regis fulta
339
[318/319]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
6
a Maximinus Treverorum episcopus clarus habetur, a quo Athanasius Alexandriae episcopus, cum a Constantio quaereretur ad poenam 1, honorifice susceptus est.
343
gravius bellum fuit, nam, ut alia omittam, Nisibis obsessa, Bizabde et Amida captae sunt.
a XL Maximus post Macarium Hierosolymarum episcopus moritur, post quem ecclesiam Ariani invadunt. Id est Cyrillus, Eutychius, rursum Cyrillus, Hireneus, tertio Cyrillus, Hilarius, quarto Cyrillus. Quorum Cyrillus, cum a Maximo fuisset presbyter ordinatus et post mortem eius ita ei ab Acacio episcopo Caesariensi et ceteris Arianis episcopatus promitteretur si ordinationem Maximi repudiasset. Diaconus in ecclesia ministravit. Ob quam impietatem sacerdotii mercede pensatus Heraclium, quem moriens Maximus in suum locum substituerat, varia fraude sollicitans de episcopo in presbyterum regradavit.
2360 7
344
b Sapor Persarum rex Christianos persequitur.
c Neocaesaria in Ponto subversa excepta ecclesia et episcopo ceterisque qui ibidem reperti sunt.
281th Olympias
8
d Titianus vir eloquens praefecturam praetorio apud Gallias administrat.
345
9
e Athanasius ad Constantis litteras Alexandriam regreditur.
346
f Dyrrachium terrae motu corruit et tribus diebus ac noctibus Roma nutavit plurimaeque Campaniae urbes vexatae.
282nd Olympias
g Magnis rei publicae expensis in Seleucia Syriae portus effectus.
12
b Romanae ecclesiae XXXIV ordinatur episcopus LIBERIUS, quo in exilium ob fidem truso omnes clerici juraverunt ut nullum alium susciperent. Verum, cum Felix ab Arianis fuisset in sacerdotium substitutus, plurimi peieraverunt et post annum cum Felice eiecti sunt, quia Liberius taedio victus exilii et in haeretica pravitate subscribens Romam quasi victor intraverat.
349
h Rursum Sapor tribus mensibus obsidet Nisibin.
10
i Eusebius episcopus Emesenus Arianae signifer factionis multa et varia conscribit.
347
k Solis facta defectio. 2
11
l Bellum Persicum nocturnum apud Singaram in quo haut dubiam victoriam militum stoliditate perdidimus neque vero ullum Constantio ex novem gravissimis proeliis contra Persas
348
13
c Magnentio apud Augustodunum arripiente imperium Constans haud longe ab
350
(1) Athanasius.
(2) 346AD, Jun. th
[320/321]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
Hispania in castro cui Helenae nomen est interficitur anno aetatis xxx, quam ob rem turbata re publica Vetranio Mursae Nepotianus Romae imperatores facti.
frater eius, quem ad tuendas Gallias Caesarem miserat, apud Senonas laqueo vitam explet.
a Gennadius forensis orator Romae insignis habetur.
a Romae populus adversum Magnentiacos rebellans ab Heradida senatore proditur.
b Minervius Burdigalensis rhetor Romae florentissime docet.
b Nepotiani caput pilo per urbem circumlatum multaeque proscriptiones nobilium et caedes factae.
2370 17
c Gallus Caesar sollicitatus a Constantio patrueli, cui in suspicionem ob egregiam indolem venerat, Histriae occiditur.
354
14
c Vetranioni apud Naisum a Constantio regium insigne detractum.
351
d Silvanus in Gallia res novas molitus XXVIII die extinctus est.
d Magnentius Mursae victus in quo proelio Romanae vires conciderunt.
e Victorinus rhetor et Donatus grammaticus praeceptor meus Romae insignes habentur, e quibus Victorinus etiam statuam in foro Traiani meruit.
e Gallus Constantii patruelis Caesar factus.
15
f Gallus Judaeos qui interfectis per noctem militibus arma ad rebellandum invaserant oppressit caesis multis hominum milibus usque ad innoxiam aetatem et civitates eorum Diocaesariam Tiberiadem et Diospolim plurimaque oppida igni tradidit.
352
f Paulinus et Rodanius Galliarum episcopi in exilium ob fidem trusi.
18
g Alchimus et Delfidius rhetores in Aquitanica florentissime docent.
355
h Donatus a quo supra Donatianos in Africa dici memorauimus Carthagine pellitur: quidam sectatores eius etiam montenses uocant eo quod ecclesiam Romae primum in monte habere coeperint.
g Non nulli nobilium Antiochiae a Gallo interfecti.
CCLXXXIII Olympias
16 i Jubileus secundum hebraeos h Magnentius Lugduni in palatio propria se manu interficit et Decentius
353
i Eusebius Vercellensis episcopus et Lucifer ac Dionysius Caralitanae et Mediolanensis ecclesiae episcopi, Pancratius
[322/323]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
quoque Romanus presbyter et Hilarus diaconus distantibus inter se ab Arianis et Constantio damnantur exiliis.
Andreae apostoli et Lucae evangelistae a Constantinopolitanis miro favore suscepta.
21
a Nicomedia terrae motu funditus eversa vicinis urbibus ex parte vexatis.
358
a Julianus frater Galli Mediolanii Caesar appellatur.
b Paulinus Triverorum episcopus in Phrygia exulans moritur.
19
b Antonius monachus CV aetatis anno in heremo moritur. Solitus multis ad se venientibus de Paulo quodam Thebaeo mirae beatitudinis viro referre, cuius nos exitum brevi libello explicuimus.
356
c Evantius eruditissimus grammaticorum Constantinopolim diem obiit, in cuius locum ex Africa Chrestus adducitur.
22
d Synodus apud Ariminum et Seleuciam Isauriae facta, in qua antiqua patrum fides decem primum legatorum, dehinc omnium proditione damnata est.
359
10
c Hilarius episcopus Pictavensis, factione Saturnini Arelatensis episcopi reliquorumque qui cum eo erant Arianorum ante triennium in Phrygiam pulsus, libros de nostra religione componit.
e Honoratus ex praefecto praetorio Galliarum primus Constantinopoli praefectus urbi factus.
d Reliquiae apostoli Timothei Constantinopolim invectae.
f Gratianus qui nunc imperator est nascitur.
e Sarmata, Amatas et Macarius discipuli Antonii insignes habentur.
g Hilarius, cum apud Constantinopolim librum pro se Constantio porrexisset, ad Gallias redit.
f Liberius episcopus Romanus in exilium mittitur. 1
g Magnae Alamannorum copiae apud Argentoratum oppidum Galliarum a Caesare Juliano oppressae.
h Macedonius Constantinopoli pellitur.
i Omnes paene toto orbe ecclesiae sub nomine pacis et regis Arianorum consortio polluuntur.
CCLXXXIV Olympias
23
k Constantinopoli ecclesiarum maxima dedicatur.
20
h Saraceni in monasterium beati Antonii inruentes Sarmatam interficiunt.
357
l Meletius Sebastiae Armeniorum episcopus ab Acacio et Georgio episcopis Arianis Antiochiam transfertur et post
i Constantio Romam ingresso ossa
(1) Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus 15.7.6-10.
[324/325]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
non grande temporis interuallum, cum presbyteros qui ab Eudoxio antecessore suo depositi fuerant suscepisset, exilii justissimam causam subita fidei mutatione delusit.
concederet ut Christianus doceret, scholam sponte deservit.
a Aemilianus ob ararum subversionem Dorostori a vicario incenditur.
b Ecclesia Antiochiae clausa et grauissima imminentis persecutionis procella Dei voluntate sopita est. Nam Iulianus in Persas profectus nostrum post victoriam dis sanguinem voverat, ubi a quodam simulato perfuga ad deserta perductus, cum fame et siti apostatam perdidisset exercitum et inconsultius a suorum erraret agminibus, ab obuio forte hostium equite conto ilia perfossus interiit anno aetatis XXXII. Post quem sequenti die Jovianus ex primicerio domesticorum imperator factus est.
a Gallia per Hilarium Ariminensis perfidiae dolos damnat.
CCLXXXV Olympias
23
b Constantius Mopsocrenis inter Ciliciam Cappadociamque moritur anno aetatis XLV.
361
Romanorum XXXVI regnavit JULIANUS, annis I, mensibus VIII
1
c Juliano ad idolorum cultum converso blanda persecutio fuit inliciens magis quam impellens ad sacrificandum, in qua multi ex nostris voluntate propria corruerunt.
362
d Georgio per seditionem populi incenso, qui in locum Athanasii ab Arianis fuerat ordinatus, Athanasius Alexandriam revertitur.
Romanorum XXXVII regnavit Jovianus, mensibus VIII
2380 1
c Jovianus rerum necessitate compulsus Nisibin et magnam Mesopotamiae partem Sapori Persarum regi tradidit.
364
e Eusebius et Lucifer de exilio regrediuntur, e quibus Lucifer adscitis duobus aliis confessoribus Paulinum Eustathii episcopi presbyterura qui se numquam hereticorum communione polluerat, in parte catholica Antiochiae episcopum facit.
d Synodus Antiochiae a Melitio et suis facta, in qua omousio anomoeoque reiecto medium inter haec omoeousion Macedonianum dogma vindicaverunt.
2
f Proheresius sophista Atheniensis lege data ne Christiani liberalium artium doctores essent, cum sibi specialiter Julianus 363
e Jovianus cruditate sive odore prunarum, quas nimias adoleri iusserat, Dadastanae moritur 1
(1) On the border between Bithynia and Galatia.
[326/327]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
anno aetatis xxxiii, post quem Valentinianus tribunus scutariorum e Pannonia Civalensis 1 apud Niceam Augustus appellatus fratrem Valentem Constantinopoli in communionem regni adsumit.
quo Damasianae partis populo confluente crudelissimae interfectiones diversi sexus perpetratae.
a Valens ab Eudoxio Arianorum episcopo baptizatus nostros persequitur.
CCLXXXVI Olympias
3
b Gratianus, Valentiniani filius Ambianis imperator factus.
367
Romanorum XXXVIII, regnavit VALENTINIANUS et VALENS, annis XIV, mensibus V
c Tanta Constantinopoli est orta tempestas ut mirae magnitudinis decidens grando non nullos hominum interfecerit.
1
a Valentinianus egregius alias imperator et Aureliano moribus similis, nisi quod severitatem eius nimiam et parcitatem quidam crudelitatem et avaritiam interpraetabantur.
365
d Apud Atrabatas lana caelo pluviae mixta defluxit.
e Hilarius episcopus Pictauis moritur.
b Apollinaris Laodicenus episcopus multimoda nostrae religionis scripta coraponit.
4
f Nicea, quae saepe ante corruerat, terrae motu funditus eversa.
368
2
c Terrae motu per totum orbem facto mare litus egreditur et Siciliae multarumque insularum urbes innumerabiles populos oppressere.
366
g Libanius Antiochenus rhetor insignis habetur.
CCLXXXVII Olympias
5
h Agon Constantinopoli a Valente redditus.
369
d Procopius, qui apud Constantinopolim tyrannidem invaserat, apud Phrygiam Salutarem extinctus et plurimi Procopianae partis caesi atque proscripti.
i Haitanaricus rex Gothorum in Christianos persecutione commota plurimos interficit et de propriis sedibus in Romanum solum expellit.
k Eusebius Vercellensis episcopus moritur.
e Romanae ecclesiae XXXV, ordinatur episcopus DAMASUS, et post non multum temporis intervallum Ursinus a quibusdam episcopus constitutus Sicininum cum suis inuadit,
6
l Constantinopoli apostolorum martyrium dedicatur.
370
m Magna fames in Phrygia.
(1) Cibale.
[328/329]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
a Lucifer Caralitanus episcopus moritur, qui cum Gregorio episcopo Hispaniarum et Philone Libyae numquam se Arianae miscuit pravitati.
a Burgundionum LXXX ferme milia, quod numquam antea, ad Renum descenderunt.
b Clearchus praefectus urbi Constantinopoli agnoscitur, a quo necessaria et diu expectata votis aqua civitati inducitur.
7 b Maximinus praefectus annonae 1 maleficos ab imperatore inuestigare iussus plurimos Romae nobilium occidit.
371
c Alexandriae XX ordinatur episcopus Petrus, qui post Valentis interitum tam facilis in recipiendis haereticis fuit ut non nullis suspicionem acceptae pecuniae intulerit.
c Valentinus in Britania ante quam tyrannidem invaderet oppressus.
d Presbyter Sirmi iniquissime decollatur quod Octavianum ex pro consule apud se latitantem prodere noluisset.
2390 10 d Melanius nobilissima mulierum Romanarum et Marcellini quondam consulis filia, unico praetore tunc urbano filio derelicto, Hierosolymam navigavit, ubi tanto virtutum praecipueque humilitatis miraculo fuit ut Theclae nomen acceperit. 2
374
8 e Didymus Alexandrinus multa de nostro dogmate per notarios commentatur, qui post quintum nativitatis suae annum luminibus orbatus elementorum quoque ignarus fuit.
372
e Post Auxenti seram mortem Mediolanii Ambrosio episcopo constituto omnis ad fidem rectam Italia convertitur.
f Probus praefectus Illyrici iniquissimis tributorum exactionibus ante provincias quas regebat quam a barbaris vastarentur erasit.
f Aquileienses clerici quasi chorus beatorum habentur.
11 g Quia superiori anno Sarmatae Pannonias vastaverant, idem consules permansere.
375
CCLXXXVIII Olympias
9 g Eunomius discipulus Aeti Constantinopoli agnoscitur, a quo haeresis Eunomiana.
373
h Valentinianus subita sanguinis eruptione quod Graece 'apoplexis' vocatur Brigitione moritur, post quem Gratianus adsumpto in imperium Valentiniano fratre cum patruo Valente regnat.
h Saxones caesi Deusone in regione Francorum.
(1) The grain supply.
(2) Rufinus accused Jerome of deleting this entry from his own copy of the Chronicle after falling out with Melania (the Elder).
[330/331]
Romanorum
AD
Romanorum
AD
a Multi monachorum Nitriae per tribunos et milites caesi.
a Superatis in congressione Romanis Gothi funduntur in Thracia.
b Valens lege data ut monachi militarent nolentes fustibus iussit interfici.
14 b Valens de Antiochia exire compulsus sera paenitentia nostros de exiliis revocat.
378
12
c Theodosius Theodosii postea imperatoris pater et plurimi nobilium occisi.
376
15 c Lacrimabile bellum in Thracia, in quo deserente equitum praesidio Romanae legiones a Gothis cinctae usque ad internecionem caesae sunt: ipse imperator Valens, cum sagitta saucius fugeret et ob dolorem nimium saepe equo laberetur, ad cuiusdam villulae casam deportatus est, quo persequentibus barbaris et incensa domo sepultura quoque caruit.
d Ab urbe condita usque ad extremum huius operis annum fiunt anni MCXXXI. Hoc modo:
sub regibus,
anni CCXL
sub consulibus,
anni CDLXIV
sub augustis cesaribus,
anni CDXXVII 379
d Photinus in Galatia moritur, a quo Photinianorum dogma Judaicum. 1
e Basilius Caesariensis episcopus Cappadociae clarus habetur, qui multa continentiae et ingenii bona uno superbiae malo perdidit..
CCLXXXIX Olympias
13
f Alamannorum XXX circiter milia apud Argentariam oppidum Galliarum ab exercitu Gratiani strata..
377
g Florentinus, Bonosus, et Rufinus insignes monachi habentur, e quibus Florentinus tam misericors in egentes fuit ut vulgo "pater pauperum" nominatus sit.
h Gens Hunorum Gothos vastat, qui a Romanis sine armorum depositione suscepti per avaritiam Maximi ducis fame ad rebellandum coacti sunt. 2
(1) Jerome, like many heresiologists, always associates Photinus with Sabellius, Paul of Samosata and Judaism. He wants to show, by this association, that they're all heretics, but does not particularise each of them. Jerome usually explains that the common heresy of Photinus and Judaism is to think that Jesus was just a man who had been adopted by God as his son. Jerome knows that Photinus is not exactly a Monarchianist, but an Adoptianist. Benoît Jeanjean shows how Jerome presents Photinus, Paulus of Samosate and Sabellius in his book: Benoît Jeanjean, "Saint Jérôme et l'hérésie”, Paris, Etudes Augustiniennes, 1999, p. 168-177.
(2) The original manuscript of 'O' ends at this point. A single leaf (f.145) with a brief summary of events follows, in the same hand as the Tertullian scholion noted earlier. After this, the manuscript contains the Chronicle of Marcellinus.
332
Colliguntur omnes anni usque in consulatum Valentis VI et Valentiniani junioris iterum Augustorum:
a XV Tiberii anno et praedicatione domini nostri Jesu Christi anni
CCCLI
a secundo anno Darii regis Persarum quo tempore templum Hierosolymis instauratum est anni
DCCCXCIX
ab olympiade prima qua aetate apud Hebraeos Isaias prophetabat anni
MCLV
a Solomone et prima aedificatione templi anni
MCDXI
a captivitate Troiae quo tempore Sampson apud Hebraeos erat anni
MDLXI
a Moyse et Cecrope primo rege Atticae anni
MDCCCXC
ab Abraham et regno Nini et Semiramidis anni
MMCCCXCV
Continet omnis canon ab Abraham usque ad tempus supra scriptum annos
MMCCCXCV
a diluvio autem usque ad Abraham supputantur anni
CMXLII
et ab Adam usque ad diluvium anni
MMCCXLII
Id est usque ad consulatum eius 6 et Valentiniani iterum omnes anni
V milia DLXXIX
This text was transcribed by JMB. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_daniel_00_eintro.htm
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958). Preface to the online edition.
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958). Preface to the online edition.
Little need by said by way of introduction to this translation by Gleason L. Archer of Jerome's Commentary on Daniel. I owe my knowledge of the translation to David Braunsberg, who first drew my attention to it in a series of emails relating to the fragments of Porphyry. On writing to the publisher myself, I received the following email:
Dear Roger,
The text of this book is in the public domain. If you post it on your website, please cite the source of the material.
Thank you!
Lynn McBroom Permissions Coordinator Baker Publishing Group
My very sincere thanks to Ms. McBroom and to Baker Book House for their helpfulness in this matter.
There are a couple of points about the formatting of the text which require explanation. Archer has chosen to put his footnotes mainly in the body of the text in square brackets. He also translated the Patrologia Latina text of Jacques-Paul Migne (PL 25, p.491 ff, p.513 ff in the second edition), and added a translation of Migne's notes at the end. He also added the page numbers and the A-D section numbers on each page into the body of his translation. This all seems rather strange, and makes it hard to read. However it is good to have the text available, and a text that cannot fail to be of serious interest to very many people.
Jerome, Commentarii in Danielem is Clavis Patrum Latinorum 588. The critical Latin text of F. GLORIE may be found in Corpus Christianorum 75 (1964).
Postscript: I understand that Dr. Archer has recently died. The following picture and notice come from the Trinity International University site.
Dr. Gleason Archer
May 22, 1916-April 27, 2004
On the evening of April 27, longtime TEDS professor Dr. Gleason Archer passed away. Dr. Archer taught at Trinity as professor of Old Testament and Semitics from 1965 to 1986 and as Professor Emeritus from 1989 to 1991.
Dr. Archer was one of the great men of God raised up in the past century to train biblically grounded leaders for the evangelical church. He spoke more languages than is imaginable (some have said it was more than thirty). Having an active and fertile mind, Dr. Archer was an apologist for the truthfulness of the Bible, a researcher and author, and a faithful teacher and mentor for thousands of ministers of the Gospel all over the world. He wrote several books, including Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties and Survey of Old Testament Literature. He contributed articles to such periodicals as Christianity Today, Westminster Journal, The United Evangelical Action, and Decision. He also served at Fuller Theological Seminary as professor and acting dean and at Tyndale Theological Seminary in the Netherlands as a visiting professor of Old Testament.
Those who know of his scholarship may not know of his deep personal devotion to Christ and the Lord's people. Whenever possible, Dr. Archer was always in chapel at TEDS, always at faculty prayers, and always serving faithfully at his church. This was a man who disciplined his mind to learn the faith revealed in the Scriptures, committed himself to living that faith with integrity, and consistently demonstrated courage to call others to His Lord Jesus Christ.
The wake will be held on Sunday, May 2, from 1:00 to 4:00pm at Kelley & Spalding Funeral Home in Highland Park. Funeral services will be held on Monday, May 3, at 10:00am at North Suburban Evangelical Free Church in Deerfield. Dr. Archer is survived by his five children, Gleason III, Jonathan, Heather, Laurel, and Elizabeth.
I regret that I never knew of his work until late in 2004. It would have been good to tell him that his work was appreciated.
Roger Pearse,
21st February 2005
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_daniel_01_intro.htm
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958) Introduction. pp.1-13
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958) Introduction. pp.1-13
Jerome's
COMMENTARY ON DANIEL
Translated by
GLEASON L. ARCHER, Jr.
BAKER BOOK HOUSE
Grand Rapids 6, Michigan
1958
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 58-59818
Copyright, 1958
by Baker Book House
Printed in the United States of America
Introduction
The most important single work produced by the Church Fathers on any of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, commenting upon the original Hebrew text, and showing a complete mastery of all the literature of the Church on the subjects touched upon to the time of composition, is without question St. Jerome's Commentary on the Book of Daniel. In Origen's work on Daniel (Migne Series of Latin Church Fathers, Vol. XVI, pp. 2765-2928) much of the exegesis is spoiled by the author's allegorical principles of hermeneutics, and the later commentary by Chrysostom (Vol. XVI, pp. 191-246) is more in the nature of a series of homilies than an attempt to wrestle with the problems of Daniel's prophecies. For over eleven hundred years after its publication, all who wrote on Daniel showed themselves more indebted to this work by Jerome than to any other commentary on the Old Testament Scriptures produced in the period of the Church Fathers. It is strange that though we have some sixteen thousand pages in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers, in the three major series of translations of patristic literature issued by Scribners some years ago, the Commentary on Daniel was passed by, as it was in the earlier series of translations undertaken by leaders of the Oxford Movement in the middle of the nineteenth century. The fifth volume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers includes fragments from the commentary on Daniel by Hippolytus, written about A.D. 230 (pp. 177-199) and these fragments contain very important material, especially on the last of the seventy weeks, Antichrist, and the author's amazing identification of the toes of clay and iron of Daniel 2:43 with democracies; yet, the work is quite inferior in learning and insight to that of Jerome. (The doctoral dissertation by John P. O'Connell, "The Eschatology of St. Jerome," Mundelein, Ill., 1948, passes over almost all of the eschatological interpretations of Jerome's commentary on Daniel.)
The translation of no volume of the first six centuries of |6 the Christian Church, appearing for the first time in the twentieth century, has quite the significance, it seems to me, that has this translation by my colleague and friend, Dr. Gleason L. Archer, of Jerome's indispensable and ever-suggestive work on Daniel. Not even in the commentaries of Luther and Calvin on this portion of Scripture do we have anything as worthwhile as this volume of Jerome.
Inasmuch as the life and work of Jerome may not be too well known to many who will be studying this volume, perhaps a brief word concerning his role in the early development of Christian thought will not be out of place. Jerome was born of Christian parents in the year A.D. 347 at Strido, near Aquileia, the capital of Venetia in central Italy. He was educated in the city of Rome, and was baptized there. Before he was twenty years of age, Jerome went to Gaul to carry on research, and returned to live in Aquileia from 370 to 373. In 374 he made an extensive trip through the Near East, including a visit to Jerusalem, and then spent five years in the desert of Chalcis, where he practiced the most intense asceticism, though, says a recent writer, "perpetually haunted by reminiscences of the world and the flesh. He took, however, his classical library with him and comforted himself with Greek and Latin; till one night he dreamed that a judge before whom he was brought punished him for being a Ciceronian and not a Christian; whereupon [in his dream apparently] he vowed to devote his intellect entirely to the Scriptures, and on waking proceeded to learn Hebrew" (Ernest Leigh-Bennett: Handbook of the Early Church Fathers, London, 1920, p. 273).
Jerome's health declined seriously, and in 379 we find him in the great Christian city of Antioch where, much against his will, he was ordained a priest by Paulinus. The following year he visited Constantinople, desiring to hear Gregory of Nazianzus. From 382 to 385 he resided in Rome, and became a close friend of Pope Damasus. Having aroused the bitter opposition of many Roman citizens because of his insistence upon ascetic practices, winning to these a number of noble Roman ladies, in 386 he left for the East and took up residence in Bethlehem, where he continued to live until his death in 420. It was here that most of his writing was done. |7
Jerome is famous in the history of the Christian Church for four things: He made monastic life popular in the Latin Church, though he by no means originated monasticism, of course, and he did not found an order, such as the Benedictine or Franciscan. His letters are certainly the finest gems of autobiography produced by any Christian, at least in the first millennium of the Church. It is to Jerome that we owe the great Vulgate, completed in 404, which became the standard Bible for the Western Church, and remains such. "In that work he produced what must be numbered among the supreme achievements of the Christian mind in any age" (G. Grutzmacher, art., "Jerome," ERE, Vol. VII, p. 500). "Here he created an object lesson on monasticism at the most sacred spot in the world, and he invited the world to come and learn. And the world came, for his hostelry was continually filled with travellers from the West. In consequence there now appear a reverence for the monastic life, a reverence for sacred places, and sacred things, and a habit of pilgrimages" (Leigh-Bennett, p. 279).
The following statement on the Septuagint by a recognized contemporary authority is worth quoting: "St. Jerome was more than a channel for Greek learning. As a Hebrew scholar and humanist he brought the Bible closer to the Latin-speaking world. The Old Latin was an unliterary translation from the Septuagint; the Vulgate was based on the 'Hebrew Truth' as St. Jerome lovingly calls it. The language, 'where the rustic Latin of the first Christian centuries mingles with the Hebraising Latinity of St. Jerome,' was the beginning of a new era, when eastern poetry penetrated into the speech of the western peoples" (Beryl Smalley: The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1941, p. 9).
Well deserved was Jerome's title of Doctor Maximus sacris Scripturis explanandis. Even during Jerome's lifetime, Sulpicius Severus allowed one of the disputants in his Dialogus, written about 405, to say, "I would be surprised if he (Jerome) were not already known to you through his writings, since he is read throughout the whole world." Although they differed on many matters, Augustine confessed to Jerome, "I have not as great a knowledge of the divine Scriptures as you have, nor could I have such knowledge as I see in you." (These two quotations are from |8 the excellent chapter, "St. Jerome as an Exegete," by Louis N. Hartmann, in A Monument to St. Jerome, edited by Francis X. Murphy, New York, 1952, p. 67.)
That he might be as accurate an interpreter of the Old Testament Scriptures as possible, Jerome mastered the Hebrew language, and the claim cannot be denied that "he surpassed all the Fathers in the mastery of Hebrew." He loved the Word of God and counted the hours and days, and years spent in its study the happiest and most profitable of his life. In the Preface to his lost revision of the Old Latin Paralipomenon, written about 389, he says, "For I must admit to you, my dearest Domnion and Rogatian, that, in regard to the divine volumes, I have never trusted in my own ability, nor have I let my opinion be my teacher. Even in those things which I thought I already knew, my custom has been to make inquiries, and I have done so all the more in those matters about which I was uncertain. Hence, when you recently wrote to me and begged me to translate the Book of Paralipomenon into Latin, I procured a former teacher of the Law from Tiberias, who was held in high esteem among the Hebrews, and I conferred with him 'from top to toe,' as they say. Only thus fortified, have I been bold enough to do what you asked of me."
In one of his famous letters to Paula (Ep. 30) Jerome expresses his profound admiration for the Holy Scriptures: "What, pray, can be more sacred than this sacred mystery (of the Scriptures)? What can be more delightful than the pleasure found therein? What food, what honey can be sweeter than to learn of God's wise plan, to enter into His sanctuary and gaze on the mind of the Creator, and to rehearse the words of your Lord, which, though derided by the wise of this world, are really full of spiritual wisdom! Let the others, if they will, have their wealth, and drink from jewelled cups, be clad in silk, and bask in popular applause, as if they could not exhaust their riches in all kinds of pleasures. Our delight shall be to meditate on the Law of the Lord day and night, to knock at His door when it is not open, to receive the bread of the Trinity, and, with our Lord going before us, to walk on the billows of the world."
The one who attempts to give to the Christian Church a dependable translation of Jerome's commentary on the Hebrew |9 text of Daniel must have a thorough mastery of Hebrew and Aramaic to understand the text from which Jerome worked, a comprehensive knowledge of the Greek language (for Jerome also made a careful study of the Septuagint) and must be able to read with unfaltering precision the Latin of that age, for it is in Latin that the work is written. That Dr. Gleason L. Archer, Professor of Biblical Languages in Fuller Theological Seminary, possesses such equipment will be acknowledged by all who give even the briefest consideration to this commentary now offered to the public. I trust that from this superb piece of Biblical scholarship many will be led to a new investigation of the whole, vast area, still not adequately explored, of the eschatological beliefs of the first five centuries of the Christian Church.
This manuscript has recently been awarded one of the most coveted prizes given for notable work in the field of theological and Biblical research, the prize for translation work offered by the Christian Research Foundation.
Wilbur M. Smith
Fuller Theological Seminary
October, 1958 |10
[Blank page] |11
Preface
Jerome's Commentary on Daniel is in many ways one of the most interesting and significant of his expository works on the Biblical prophets. It is safe to say that this commentary has proved its abiding value to be equal to that of any other which he composed in the Biblical field. Because of the wealth of factual information which he includes, the many details concerning obscure phases of ancient history, and the copious quotations from early authors whose works have long since perished, Jerome's Daniel is a work frequently consulted by the learned even to this day. And yet, so far as we know, this particular work of his has never been rendered in English, and thus made available to those Bible students who lack the patience or the training to examine it in the original Latin.
My guiding purpose in translating this commentary has been to combine the ideal of accuracy with that of readability. Every effort has been made to cast the English rendering into a form very similar to that which Jerome himself would have used had he composed his work in our tongue. This has necessitated many minor deviations from the literal sense of the Latin, and in many cases the division of his long, involved sentences into two or more shorter ones, in the interests of idiomatic smoothness. It was felt that the reader would be best served by a diction and style which would divert the least attention possible to itself, and leave him free to enjoy the information which the author had to impart.
The edition used for the purposes of this translation was J. P. Migne's Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, Vol. xxv. This edition contains rather copious footnotes, some of which are notices of textual variants, and others of an expository character. They too, of course, are in Latin, and I have translated them along with Jerome's text, yet consigning them to an appendix for the sake of convenience. The footnotes which appear at the bottom of the text itself are contributed by the translator, |12 as are also the explanatory insertions enclosed in brackets. The translator's contributions have been kept to a minimum, and are for the most part intended to clear up ambiguities which might otherwise annoy and confuse the reader. No systematic effort has been made to indicate every instance in which translation has required emendation of the Migne text itself. The typographical errors therein are quite numerous indeed, noticeably so in the Greek portions, where breathings and accents are frequently inaccurate. In most cases, however, the proper emendations are quite obvious and require but little ingenuity on the part of the translator.
The page numbers which accompany the translation refer to the pagination of the Migné edition itself, Vol xxv. The numbers in parentheses refer to the sections into which Jerome's text has been consecutively divided. These have been given to facilitate comparison between this translation and the original Latin. It so happens that the first section in the Daniel Commentary is no. 617, there having been several commentaries preceding this one. The capital letters in parentheses refer to the translation of the footnotes from the Migné edition which have been made an appendix to this volume. As for the terms in italics, these usually represent Greek words which Jerome uses in the midst of his Latin text. The reader should be careful to observe that except where the context clearly indicates that the Latin Vulgate is referred to, the "Vulgate" readings always signify the Septuagint (i.e. the Theodotion) reading in the Greek text. Of course Jerome's Latin Vulgate had not yet been published when this commentary was written.
At this point I wish to express appreciation for the encouragement received from my good friend and colleague, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith of the Fuller Seminary faculty, who first suggested this project to me and has spared no pains to assist me in bringing it to the light of day. It is our sincere hope that this little volume may render a contribution of some value to the study of this much-discussed and highly influential portion of Holy Scripture.
Gleason L. Archer Jr.
Pasadena, California
March, 1958 |13
Contents
Introduction...................5 Preface.......................11 Prologue......................15 Chapter One...................19 Chapter Two...................24 Chapter Three.................35 Chapter Four..................46 Chapter Five..................55 Chapter Six...................63 Chapter Seven.................71 Chapter Eight.................83 Chapter Nine..................90 Chapter Ten..................111 Chapter Eleven...............118 Chapter Twelve...............145 Chapter Thirteen.............152 Chapter Fourteen.............157 Migne Footnotes..............159
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_daniel_02_text.htm
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958) pp. 15-157
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958). pp. 15-157
[Translated by Gleason L. Archer]
Prologue
(P. 491) (617-618) Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, (A) denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of the Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes. He furthermore alleged that "Daniel" did not foretell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, made a most able reply to these allegations in three volumes, that is, the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth. Appollinarius did likewise, in a single large book, namely his twenty-sixth. (B) Prior to these authors Methodius made a partial reply.
But inasmuch as it is not our purpose to make answer to the false accusations of an adversary, a task requiring lengthy discussion, but rather to treat of the actual content of the prophet's message for the benefit of us who are Christians, I wish to stress in my preface this fact, that none of the prophets has so clearly spoken concerning Christ as has this prophet Daniel. (619-620) For not only did he assert that He would come, a prediction common to the other prophets as well, but also he set forth the very time at which He would come. Moreover he went through the various kings in order, stated the actual number of years involved, and announced beforehand the clearest signs of events to come. And because Porphyry saw that all these things had been fulfilled and could not deny that they had taken place, he overcame this evidence of historical accuracy by taking refuge in this evasion, contending that whatever is foretold concerning Antichrist at the end of the world was actually fulfilled in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, because of certain similarities to things which took place at his time. But this very attack testifies to Daniel's accuracy. For so striking was the reliability |16 of what the prophet foretold, that he could not appear to unbelievers as a predicter of the future, but rather a narrator of things already past. And so wherever occasion arises in the course of explaining this volume, I shall attempt briefly to answer his malicious charge, and to controvert by simple explanation (p. 492) the philosophical skill, or rather the worldly malice, by which he strives to subvert the truth and by specious legerdemain to remove that which is so apparent to our eyes.
I would therefore beseech you, Pammachius, as a foremost lover of learning, and Marcella, as an outstanding examplar of Roman virtue, men who are bound together by faith and blood, to lend aid to my efforts by your prayers, in order that our Lord and Savior might in His own cause and by His mind make answer through my mouth. For it is He who says to the prophet, "Open thy mouth and I will fill it" (Psalm 80:11). For if He admonishes us, when we have been hailed before judges and tribunals, not to ponder what answer we are to give to them (Luke 12), how much more is He able to carry on His own war against blaspheming adversaries and through His servants to vanquish them? For this reason a great number of the Psalms also contain that Hebrew expression, lamanasse1, rendered by the Septuagint as "To the end," but which rather is to be understood as "For victory!" For Aquila construed it as to nikopoio, that is, "To Him who grants the victory." Symmachus renders it as epinikion which properly signifies "Triumph and the palm of victory."
But among other things we should recognize that Porphyry makes this objection to us concerning the Book of Daniel, that it is clearly a forgery not to be considered as belonging to the Hebrew Scriptures but an invention composed in Greek. This he deduces from the fact that in the story of Susanna, where Daniel is speaking to the elders, we find the expressions, "To split from the mastic tree" (apo tou skhinou skhisai) and to saw from the evergreen oak (kai apo tou prinou prisai),2 (D) a wordplay |17 appropriate to Greek rather than to Hebrew. But both Eusebius and Apollinarius have answered him after the same tenor, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew, but rather they constitute a part of the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi. Just as we find in the title of that same story of Bel, according to the Septuagint, "There was a certain priest named Daniel, the son of Abda, an intimate of the King of Babylon." And yet Holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three Hebrew children were of the tribe (p. 493) of Judah. For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew. And in this connection I am surprised to be told that certain fault-finders complain that I have on my own initiative truncated the book. After all, both Origen, Eusebius and Apollinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and that therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture.
I also wish to emphasize to the reader the fact that it was not according to the Septuagint version but according to the version of Theodotion himself that the churches publicly read Daniel. (A) And Theodotion, at any rate, was an unbeliever subsequent to the advent of Christ, although some assert that he was an Ebionite (621-622), which is another variety of Jew. But even Origen in his Vulgate edition (of the Greek Old Testament) placed asterisks around the work of Theodotion, indicating that the material added was missing (in the Septuagint), whereas on the other hand he prefixed obeli (i.e., diacritical marks) to some of the verses, distinguishing thereby whatever was additional material (not contained in the Hebrew). And since all the churches 3 of Christ, whether belonging to the Greek-speaking territory or the Latin, the Syrian or the Egyptian, publicly read this edition with its asterisks and obeli, let the hostile-minded not begrudge my labor, because I wanted our (Latin-speaking) people to have what the Greek-speaking peoples habitually read publicly in the |18 regions of Aquila and Symmachus. And if the Greeks do not for all their wealth of learning despise the scholarly work of Jews, why should poverty-stricken Latins look down upon a man who is a Christian? And if my product seems unsatisfactory, at (p. 494) least my good intentions should be recognized.
But now it is time for us to unfold the words of the prophet himself, not following our usual custom of setting everything forth in detail with an accompanying detailed discussion (the procedure followed in our commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets), but rather employing a certain brevity and inserting at intervals an explanation of only those things which are obscure. In this way we hope to avoid tiring the reader with an innumerable abundance of books. And yet to understand the final portions of Daniel a detailed investigation of Greek history is necessary, that is to say, such authorities as (B) Sutorius, Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius, Theon, and Andronycus surnamed Alipius, historians whom Porphyry claims to have followed, Josephus also and those whom he cites, and especially our own historian, Livy, and Pompeius Trogus, and Justinus. All these men narrate the history involved in Daniel's final vision, carrying it beyond the time of Alexander to the days of Caesar Augustus in their description of the Syrian and Egyptian wars, i.e., those of Seleucus, Antiochus, and the Ptolemies. And if we are compelled from time to time to make mention of profane literature and speak of matters therein contained which we have formerly failed to mention, it is not by personal preference but by stark necessity, so to speak, in order to prove that those things which were foretold by the holy prophets many centuries before are actually contained in the written records of both the Greeks and Romans and of other peoples as well. |19
CHAPTER ONE
Verse 1. (p. 495) (623) "In the third year of the reign of Joacim (Jehoiakim) king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it." Jehoiakim, son of the Josiah in whose thirteenth regnal year Jeremiah began to prophesy, and under whom the woman Hulda prophesied, was the same man as was called by the other name of Eliakim, and reigned over the tribes of Judah and Jerusalem eleven years. His son Jehoiachin [misprinted "Joachim" for "Joachin"; cf. IV Reg. 24:6 in the Vulgate] surnamed Jeconiah, followed him in the kingship, and on the tenth day of the third month of his reign he was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar's generals and brought to Babylon. In his place his paternal uncle Zedekiah, a son of Josiah, was appointed king, and in his eleventh year Jerusalem was captured and destroyed. Let no one therefore imagine that the Jehoiakim in the beginning of Daniel is the same person as the one who is spelled Jehoiachin [Lat. Joachin] in the commencement of Ezekiel. For the latter has "-chin" as its final syllable, whereas the former has "-kim." And it is for this reason that in the Gospel according to Matthew there seems to be a generation missing, because the second group of fourteen, (A) extending to the time of Jehoiakim, ends with a son of Josiah, and the third group begins with Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim. Being ignorant of this factor, Porphyry formulated a slander against the Church which only revealed his own ignorance, as he tried to prove the evangelist Matthew guilty of error.
Verse 2. "And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand." (B) The fact that Jehoiachim is recorded to have been given over shows that it was not a victory for the might of his enemies but rather it was of the will of the Lord. "...and some of the vessels of the house of God, and he brought them to the land of Shinar (C) to the house of his god, and he conveyed them into the treasure house of his god" (Gen. 11). The land of Shinar is a region of Babylon in which the plain of Dura |20 was located, and also the tower which those who had migrated from the East attempted to build up to heaven. From this circumstance and from the confusion of tongues the region received the name Babylon, which, translated into our language, means "confusion." At the same time it ought to be noted, by way of spiritual interpretation [anagogen], that the king of Babylon was not able to transport all of the vessels of God, and place them in the idol-house which he had built himself, but only a part of the vessels (624) of God's house. By these vessels we are to understand the dogmas of truth. For if you go through all of the works of the philosophers, you will necessarily find in them some portion of the vessels of God. For example, you will find in Plato that God is the fashioner of the universe, in Zeno the chief of the Stoics, that there are (p. 496) inhabitants in the infernal regions and that souls are immortal, and that honor is the one (true) good. But because the philosophers combine truth with error and corrupt the good of nature with many evils, for that reason they are recorded to have captured only a portion of the vessels of God's house, and not all of them in their completeness and perfection. Verse 3. "And the king said to Ashpenaz the overseer of his eunuchs, (D) that he should out of the number of the children of Israel and, of the royal seed and (the seed of) the rulers [tyrannorum, Jer.'s rendering of Heb. partemim, "nobles"] bring in some young lads who were free from all blemish." Instead of Ashpenaz ("Asphanez") I found Abriesdri written in the Vulgate [i.e., the LXX] edition. For the word phorlhommin which Theodotion uses, the Septuagint and Aquila translated "the chosen ones," whereas Symmachus rendered "Parthians," understanding it as the name of a nation instead of a common noun. This is in disagreement with the Hebrew edition as it is accurately read; I have translated it as "rulers," especially because it is preceded by the words "of the seed royal." From this passage the Hebrews think that Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were eunuchs, thus fulfilling that prophecy which is spoken by Isaiah regarding Hezekiah: "And they shall take of thy seed and make eunuchs of them in the house of the king (E) of Babylon" (Isa. 37: 7). If however they were of the seed royal, there is no doubt but what they were of the line of David. But perhaps the following words are opposed to this interpretation: "... lads, or youths, who |21 were free from all blemish, in order that he might teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans." Philo supposes that Chaldee is the same thing as the Hebrew language, because Abraham came from the Chaldeans. But if we accept this we must ask how the Hebrew lads could now be bidden to be taught a language which they already knew; unless, perchance, we should say, as some believe, that Abraham was acquainted with two languages.
Verse 7. "And the overseer of the eunuchs imposed names upon them, calling Daniel Belteshazzar (Balthasar), and Hananiah Shadrach, and Mishael Meshach, and Azariah (625) Abednego." It was not only the overseer or master of the eunuchs (as others have rendered it, the "chief-eunuch") who changed the names of saints, but also Pharaoh called Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 41) (F) Somtonphanec [Heb.: Zaphenath-paaneah], for neither of them wished them to have Jewish names in the land of captivity. Wherefore the prophet says in the Psalm: "How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" (Ps. 136:4). Furthermore the Lord Himself changes names benignly, and on the basis of events imposes names of special significance, so as to (p. 497) call Abram Abraham, and Sarai Sarah (Gen. 17). Also in the Gospel, the former Simon received the name of Peter (Mark 3), (A) and the sons of Zebedee are called "sons of thunder"----which is not boanerges, as most people suppose, but is more correctly read benereem [a reading for which there is no manuscript support, but which would be the Hebrew for "sons of thunder"].
Verse 8. "Daniel, however, purposed in his heart that he would not be defiled by food from the king's table, nor by the wine which he drank, and he asked the chief of the eunuchs that he might not be polluted." He who would not eat or drink of the king's food or wine lest he be denied (especially if he should be aware that the wisdom and teaching of the Babylonians is mistaken), would never consent to utter what was wrong. On the contrary they [i.e., the Hebrew youths] speak it forth, not that they may follow it themselves, but in order to pass judgment upon it and refute it. Just as anyone would expose himself to ridicule if he being untrained in mathematics should desire to write in confutation of mathematicians, or, being ignorant of the teachings of philosophers should desire to write in opposition to |22 philosophers. Hence they [i.e., the Hebrew youths] study the teaching of the Chaldeans with the same intention as Moses studied the wisdom (B) of the Egyptians.
Verse 9. "God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the prince of eunuchs.... " He who was taken into captivity on account of the sins of his forebears received an immediate recompense for the magnitude of his own virtues. For he had purposed in his heart that he would not be denied by food from the king's table, and preferred humble fare to royal delicacies; therefore by the bounteous bestowal of the Lord he received favor and compassion in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs. By this we may understand that if ever under pressing circumstances holy men are loved by unbelievers, it is a matter of the mercy of God, not of the goodness of perverted men.
Verse 12. "I beg thee, try us thy servants for ten days, (C) and let pulse be given us to eat and water to drink." His faith was so incredibly great that he not only promised he would be in good flesh by eating the humbler food, but he even set a time-limit. Therefore it was not a matter of temerity but of faith, for the sake of which he despised the sumptuous fare of the king.
Verse 17. "But God gave these lads knowledge and learning in every book and branch of wisdom, and He gave to Daniel besides an understanding of all visions and dreams." Note that God is said to have given the holy lads knowledge and learning in secular literature, in every book and branch of wisdom. Symmachus rendered this by "grammatical art," implying that they understood everything they read, and by the Spirit of God could make a judgment concerning the lore of the Chaldeans. But Daniel had an outstanding gift over and above the three lads, in that he could astutely discern the significance of visions and dreams in which things to come are shown forth by means of certain symbols and mysteries. Therefore that which others saw only in a shadowy appearance he could perceive clearly with the eyes of his understanding.
Verse 18. "Therefore when the days had been completed at the end of which the king had bidden them to be presented to him, the chief of the eunuchs presented them in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar." By the "completed days" |23 understand the period of three years which the king had appointed (p. 498), so that after they had been nourished and trained for three years, they should then stand in the presence of the king.
Verse 20. "And every word of wisdom and understanding the king inquired of them, he found it in them ten times as great as all the soothsayers and magicians put together who were to be found in his entire realm." For "soothsayers" and "magicians" the Vulgate edition [i.e., of the Septuagint] translated "sophists" and "philosophers"----terms to be understood not in the sense of the philosophy and sophistic erudition which Greek learning holds forth, but rather in the sense of the lore of a barbarian people, which the Chaldeans pursue as philosophy even to this day.
"Daniel therefore continued unto the first year of Cyrus the king." In the later discussion we shall explain how it was that Daniel who is here described as having continued till the first year of king Cyrus afterwards held office in the third year of that same Cyrus and is even recorded to have lived in the first year of Darius. |24
CHAPTER TWO
Verse 1. "In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar saw a dream and his spirit was terrified, and his dream fled from him." If the three lads had entered before him at the end of three years, as he himself had commanded, how is it that he is now said to have seen the dream in the second year of his reign? The Hebrews solve the difficulty in this way, that the second year refers here to his reign over all (627) the barbarian nations, not only Judah and the Chaldeans, but also the Assyrians and Egyptians, and the Moabites and the rest of the nations which by the permission of God he had conquered. For this reason Josephus also writes in the tenth book of the Antiquities: After the second year from the devastation of Egypt Nebuchadnezzar beheld a marvelous dream, and "his spirit was terrified and his dream fled from him." The impious king beheld a dream concerning things to come, in order that he might give glory to God after the holy man had interpreted what he had seen, and that great consolation might be afforded the captive (Jews) and those who still served God in their captive state. We read this same thing in the case of Pharaoh, not because Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar deserved to behold visions, but in order that Joseph and Daniel might appear as deserving of preference over all other men because of their gift of interpretation.
Verse 2. "Wherefore the king commanded that the soothsayers, the magi, the charmers, and the Chaldeans show the king his dream. And when they came, they stood in the presence of the king." Those whom we have translated as "soothsayers" (harioli) others have rendered as epaoidoi, that is, "enchanters." Well then, it seems to me that enchanters are people who perform a thing by means of words; magi are those who pursue individual lines (D) of philosophic enquiry; charmers are those who employ blood and animal sacrifices and often have contact with corpses. Furthermore the term "astrologers" [or nativity-casters, genethlialogoi] among the Chaldeans signifies, |25 I believe, what the common people call mathematicians. But common usage and ordinary conversation understands the term magi as wicked enchanters (E). Yet they were regarded differently among their own nation, inasmuch as they were the philosophers of the Chaldeans, and even the kings and princes of this same nation do all they can to acquire a knowledge of this science. Wherefore (p. 499) also it was they who first at the nativity of our Lord and Savior learned of his birth, and who came to holy Bethlehem and adored the child, under the guidance of the star which shone above them (Matt. 2).
Verse 3. "And the king said to them, 'I have seen a dream, and from the confusion of my mind I do not know what I have seen.' " There remained in the king's heart only a shadow, so to speak, or a mere echo or trace of the dream, with the result that if others should retell it to him (628), he would be able to recall what he had seen, and they would certainly not be deceiving him with lies.
Verse 4. "The Chaldeans replied to the king in Syriac." (A) Up to this point what we have read has been recounted in Hebrew. From this point on until the vision of the third year of King Balthasar [Belshazzar] which Daniel saw in Susa, the account is written in Hebrew characters, to be sure, but in the Chaldee language, which he here calls Syriac.
Verse 5. "If you do not show me the vision and its interpretation, ye shall perish and your homes shall be confiscated...." He threatened punishment and offered rewards, in order that if they should be able to tell him the dream, he might therefore believe also that which was uncertain, namely the meaning of the dream. But if they should be unable to tell the king what he in his mental confusion could not recall, they would also lose claim to trustworthiness in the interpretation they might give. At last there follows the statement:
Verses 9, 10. "Therefore tell me the dream, that I may be certain that ye are giving me its true interpretation. (B) The Chaldeans therefore made this reply in the king's presence: 'There is no man on earth who would be able to fulfil what thou hast spoken, O king!'" The magi confess, along with the soothsayers----and all secular learning concurs----that foreknowledge of |26 the future lies not in man's province but in God's. By this test it is proved that the prophets who proclaimed things to come spoke by the Spirit of God.
Verses 12, 13. "And when he had heard this, the king in a furious rage gave orders that all the wise men of Babylon should be slam. And when the decree went forth, the wise men were being slaughtered...." (C) The Hebrews raise the question of why Daniel and the three lads did not enter before the king along with the other wise men, and why they were ordered to be slain with the rest when the decree was issued. They have explained the difficulty in this way, by saying that at that time, when the king was promising rewards and gifts and great honor, they did not care to go before him, lest they should appear to be shamelessly grasping after the wealth and honor of the Chaldeans. Or else it was undoubtedly true that the Chaldeans themselves, being envious of the Jews' reputation and learning, entered alone before the king, as if to obtain the rewards by themselves. Afterwards they were perfectly willing to have those whom they had denied any hope of glory to share in a common peril.
Verse 15. "And he inquired of him who had received authority from the king as to why so cruel a decree had gone forth from the presence of the king." Knowing that Daniel and the three youths possessed a knowledge and intelligence tenfold as great as that of all the soothsayers of Chaldea (p. 500) put together, the Chaldeans concealed from them the king's inquiry, lest they should receive preference over them in the matter of interpreting the dream. On this account Daniel inquired concerning the cruelty of the decree, being ignorant of the cause of his own peril.
Verses 16, 17. "Therefore (D) when Arioch had explained the matter to Daniel, Daniel entered in and asked the king to grant him some time for the disclosure of the solution to the king. And he entered his home and disclosed the affair to his comrades, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah...." Daniel requested time, not that he might investigate secret things by the clever application of his intellect, but that he might beseech the Lord of Secrets. And for that reason he engaged Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to join with him in supplication, to avoid the appearance of presuming upon his own merit alone, and to the end |27 that those involved in a common danger might engage in common prayer.
Verse 19. "And Daniel blessed the God of heaven, and spoke, saying,...." In contrast to those who occupy themselves with this world and delude the earthly minded with demonic arts and illusions, Daniel blessed the God of heaven. For the gods who did not create heaven and earth will pass away.
Verse 21. "And it is He who changes times and seasons, who transfers kingdoms and establishes kingdoms." Let us not marvel, therefore, whenever we see kings and empires succeed one another, for it is by the will of God that they are governed, altered, and terminated. And the cases of individuals are well known to Him who founded all things. He often permits wicked kings to arise in order that they may in their wickedness punish the wicked. At the same time by indirect suggestion and general discussion he prepares the reader for the fact that the dream Nebuchadnezzar saw was concerned with the change and succession of empires. "He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who acquire learning." This accords with the scripture: "The wise man will hear and increase his wisdom" (Prov. 1:5). "For he who has, to him it shall be given" (Matt. 25:29). A soul which cherishes an ardent love of wisdom is freely infilled by the Spirit of God. But wisdom will never penetrate a perverse soul (Wisdom 3).
Verse 22. "It is He who reveals deep and hidden things, and He knows what is placed in the darkness, and with Him is the light." A man to whom God makes profound revelations and who can say, "O the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God!" (Rom. 11:33), (p. 501) he it is who by the indwelling Spirit probes even into the deep things of God, and digs the deepest of wells in the depths of his soul. He is a man who has stirred up the whole earth, which is wont to conceal the deep waters, and he observes the command of God, saying: "Drink water from thy vessels and from the spring of thy wells" (Prov. 5:15). As for the words which follow, "He knows what is placed in the darkness, and with Him is the light," the darkness signifies ignorance, and the light signifies knowledge and learning. Therefore as wrong cannot hide God away, so right encompasses and surrounds Him. Or else we should interpret the words to |28 mean all the dark mysteries and deep things (concerning God), according to what we read in Proverbs: "He understands also the parable and the dark saying." This in turn is equivalent to what we read in the Psalms: "Dark waters in the clouds of the sky" (Ps. 17:12). For one who ascends to the heights and forsakes the things of earth, and like the birds themselves seeks after the most rarified atmosphere and everything ethereal, he becomes like a cloud to which the truth of God penetrates and which habitually showers rain upon the saints. Replete with a plenitude of knowledge, he contains in his breast many dark waters enveloped with deep darkness, a darkness which only Moses can penetrate (Ex. 23) and speak with God face to face, of Whom the Scripture says: "He hath made darkness His hiding-place" (Ps. 17:12).
Verse 23. "I confess Thee, O god of my fathers (A), and I praise Thee because Thou hast granted me wisdom and strength." Lest it should seem to be an achievement of his own deserving, Daniel assigns it to the righteousness of his forefathers and to the faithfulness of God, Who takes pity upon their posterity even in exile.
"And now Thou hast shown me that for which we petitioned Thee...." That which the four of them had asked for is disclosed to (631) the one, for the twofold purpose that he might escape any temptation to pride, on the ground of having obtained the request by himself, and also that he might render thanksgiving because he alone heard the secret of the dream.
Verse 24. "Destroy not the wise men of Babylon. Take me in before the king and I will set forth the explanation to the king...." He follows the example of the clemency of God, who intercedes in behalf of his persecutors, and is unwilling that those men should perish on whose account he himself had been threatened with death.
Verse 25. "I have found a man who belongs to the children of the captivity of Judah and who will set forth the explanation to the king." He credits his own diligence with what God's grace has bestowed, and he claims that he himself has done the finding, when actually Daniel had applied to him of his own volition that he might be presented to the king. This instance manifests the habitual (B) reaction of messengers, for when they |29 have good news to report, they wish it to appear their own doing. But the man who undertakes the explanation of the dream is certainly going to relate the dream beforehand. And note that Daniel is said to be of the children of Judah, rather than being a priest as the latter part of the story of Bel relates.
Verse 26. "Dost thou truly believe that thou canst show me the dream I have seen...." In framing his inquiry he adheres to logical sequence, so that he (p. 502) first asks for the dream, of which the magi had replied they were ignorant, and afterwards he asks for the interpretation of the dream. The implication is that after he has heard the dream, then he would believe also in the correctness of what was susceptible of varying interpretations.
Verse 27. "As for the secret for which the king is asking, neither the wise men nor the magi nor the soothsayers nor the diviners are able to declare it to the king." In place of diviners (haruspices), as we have rendered it, the Hebrew [sic!] text has Gazareni [actually the Aramaic word is gazerin], which only Symmachus has rendered as (C) sacrificers [thutai], a. class of people whom the Greeks usually call liver-diviners (epatoskopoi), and who inspect the inwards in order to make predictions from them concerning the future. By terming a mystery the category of a revealed dream, Daniel shows that whatever is hidden and unknown by men can still be called a "mystery." Moreover he obviates any evil suspicion on the king's part, lest he should imagine that human cleverness can discover something which is reserved to the knowledge of God alone.
Verse 28. "But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries." Therefore it is only in vain that thou inquirest (other MSS have: "that he inquire") of men as to something which is known only to God in heaven. Also, by indirectly drawing Nebuchadnezzar away from the worship of many gods, Daniel directs him to the knowledge of the one (true) God.
(632) "Who hath shown thee, King Nebuchadnezzar, what is going to take place (the Vulg. reads: "the things which are going to take place") in the last times." Avoiding the blemish of adulation but cleaving to the truth, he courteously suggests that it is to the king [God has shown these things], |30 for it was to him that God had revealed secrets concerning what was to occur in the last times. Now either these "last days" are to be reckoned from the time when the dream was revealed to Daniel until the end of the world, or else at least this inference is to be drawn, that the over-all interpretation of the dream applies to that final end when the image (D) and statue beheld [in the dream] is to be ground to powder.
"Thy dream and the visions of thy head upon thy bed were as follows." He does not say, "The visions of thine eyes," lest we should think it was something physical, but rather: "of thy head." "For the eyes of a wise man are in his head" (Eccl. 2:14), that is to say in the princely organ of the heart, just as we read in the Gospel: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they are ones who shall see God" (Matt. 5:8). Again: "What (E) are ye meditating in your hearts?" (Matt. 9:4). To be sure, other authorities in treating of this chapter [i.e., Matt. 9], conjecture that the authoritative part of the soul (to hegemonikon) lies not in the heart but, as Plato says, in the brain.
Verse 29. "Thou, O king, didst begin to meditate upon thy bed as to what should come to pass hereafter." Instead of the true reading the Septuagint alone inserts the translation "in the last days" after the "hereafter." But if it be read thus, we must inquire quite carefully as to where "last days" have been written; and we would refute those who think the world will never be destroyed. For never would any days be called "the last days" if the world were everlasting. And as for the statement, "Thou, O king, didst begin to meditate," (p. 503) this would indicate the [psychological] motives behind the dream; for it was for this reason that God revealed to him the secrets of the future, because the king himself wished to know what was going to happen. Also, in order that Nebuchadnezzar might marvel at the gracious gift of divine inspiration, he sets forth not only (A) what the king had beheld in the dream, but also what he had thought to himself (beforehand).
"...and He who reveals secrets has shown thee what is to come to pass." The statement which we read in the Gospel, "Who maketh His sun to rise upon the wicked and the good" (Matt. 5:45), we realize to have been fulfilled in the case of Nebuchadnezzar also. For so great was God's mercy that He |31 even revealed to Nebuchadnezzar secrets as to His own mode of government whereby (633) he rules the world. Let us ask those who assert that men's characters belong to one extreme or the other, which character do they understand Nebuchadnezzar to have possessed, the good or the evil? If the good, why is he called an impious man? If the evil (which was certainly the case), why did God show forth His holy secrets to one who was evil and earthly, that is to say, earthen?
Verse 30. "Moreover this holy secret has not been revealed to me in virtue of any wisdom which inheres in me more than in all living men, but rather that the interpretation might be manifested to the king, and that thou mayest know the thoughts of thine own mind." The king had imagined that cleverness of the human intellect could embrace a knowledge of the future, and for that reason he had ordered the wise men of Babylon to be slain. Daniel therefore makes excuse for those who were unable to speak, and himself avoids the envy of others, lest any should imagine that he had said any of the things he was going to say by virtue of his personal wisdom. But the cause of the prophetic revelation was the earnest desire of the king, who wished to know the future. Consequently he does honor to the king, because he states that it was for the sake of the king's knowledge that the secrets have been revealed by God. And this fact should be pondered, that dreams in which any coming events are signified and in which truth is shown forth, as it were, through a cloud, are not manifest to the conjectures or dominion of the human mind but to the knowledge of God alone.
Verse 31. "Thou sawest, O king, and behold there was, as it were, a large statue." (B) Instead of "statue," that is a sculptured effigy, the only rendering used by Symmachus, others have translated it as "image," intending by this term to indicate a resemblance to future events. Let us go through the prophetic interpretation, and as we translate Daniel's words (C), let us explain at some length the matters which he briefly states.
"Now thou art the head of gold." "The head of gold," he says "is thou, O king." By this statement it is clear that the first empire, the Babylonian, is compared to the most precious metal, gold. |32
Verse 39. "And after thee there shall arise another empire inferior to thee, made of silver." (The Vulgate LXX does not include "made of silver.") That is to say, the empire of the Medes and Persians, which bears a resemblance to silver, being inferior to the preceding empire, and superior to that which is to follow.
"And a third empire of bronze (the Vulgate LXX has "made of copper"), which shall rule over the entire earth." This signifies the Alexandrian empire, and that of (p. 504) the Macedonians, and of Alexander's successors. Now this is properly termed brazen, for among all the metals bronze possesses an outstanding resonance and a clear ring, and the blast of a brazen trumpet is heard far and wide, (634) so that it signifies not only the fame and power of the empire but also the eloquence of the Greek language.
Verse 40. "And there shall be a fourth empire like unto iron. Just as iron breaks to pieces and overcomes all else, so it shall break to pieces and shatter all these preceding empires...." Now the fourth empire, which clearly refers to the Romans, is the iron empire which breaks in pieces and overcomes all others. But its feet and toes are partly of iron and partly of earthenware, a fact most clearly demonstrated at the present time. For just as there was at the first nothing stronger or hardier than the Roman realm, so also in these last days there is nothing more feeble (D), since we require the assistance of barbarian tribes both in our civil wars and against foreign nations. However, at the final period of all these empires of gold and silver and bronze and iron, a rock (namely, the Lord and Savior) was cut off without hands, that is, without copulation or human seed and by birth from a virgin's womb; and after all the empires had been crushed, He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This last the Jews and the impious Porphyry apply to the people of Israel, who they insist will be the strongest power at the end of the ages, and will crush all realms and will rule forever.
Verse 45. "The great God has shown to the king the events which shall hereafter come to pass, and the dream is true and its interpretation is reliable." Daniel again asserts that the revelation of the dream is not a matter of personal merit, but has |33 been granted for the purpose of making the interpretation manifest to the king and of teaching the king that God alone is to be worshipped.
Verse 47. "Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and worshipped Daniel, and ordered sacrifices and incense to be offered up to him. (E) Therefore the king spoke and said to Daniel." Porphyry falsely impugns this passage on the ground that a very proud king would never worship a mere captive, as if, forsooth, the Lycaonians had not been willing to offer blood sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas on account of the mighty miracles they had wrought. And so there is no need to impute to the Scripture the error of the Gentiles who deem everything above themselves [i.e., superhuman] to be gods, for the Scripture simply is narrating everything as it actually happened. However we can make this further assertion, that the king himself set forth the reasons for his worship and offering of blood-sacrifices when he said to Daniel:
(635) "Truly thy God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since thou hast been able to disclose this holy secret." And so it was not so much that he was worshipping Daniel as that he was through Daniel worshipping the God who had revealed the holy secrets (F). This is the same thing that we read Alexander the Great, King of the Macedonians, did in the high priesthood of Joaida [i.e., Jaddua]. Or, if this (p. 505) explanation seem unsatisfactory, we shall have to say that Nebuchadnezzar, overwhelmed by the amazing greatness of the miracles, did not realize what he was doing, but coming to know the true God and Lord of kings he both worshipped His servant and offered him incense.
Verse 48. "Then the king elevated Daniel to a high position, and gave him many great gifts (A) and set him up as governor over all the provinces of Babylon...." In this matter also the slanderous critic of the Church has ventured to castigate the prophet because he did not reject the gifts and because he willingly accepted honor of the Babylonians. He fails to consider the fact that it was for this very purpose that the king had beheld the dream and that the secrets of its interpretation were revealed by a mere lad, that Daniel might increase in importance and that in the place of captivity he might become ruler over all the |34 Chaldeans, to the end that the omnipotence of God might be made known. We read that this same thing happened in the case of Joseph at the court of Pharaoh and in Egypt (Gen. 41), and also in the case of Mordecai at the court of Ahasuerus (Esth. 8). The purpose was that the Jews, as captives and (B) sojourners in each of these nations, might receive encouragement as they beheld men of their own nation constituted as governors over the Egyptians or the Chaldeans, as the case might be.
Verse 49. "Moreover Daniel made request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the public works of the province of Babylon. But Daniel himself was in the king's gate." Daniel does not forget those men with whom he had made intercession to the Lord, and who had shared his peril with him. And so he makes them judges over the province, while he himself does not leave (a variant reading is: "did not leave") the king's side. |35
CHAPTER THREE
Verse 1. "Nebuchadnezzar the king made a golden statue seventy cubits in height and six cubits in breadth." How soon he forgot the truth, when he had just been worshipping a servant of God as if he had been God Himself, but now commanded a statue to be made for himself in order that he personally might be worshipped in the statuel Now if this statue was of gold (636) (C), and was of incalculable weight, it was intended to arouse amazement in the beholders and to be worshipped as God even though a mere inanimate object, whilst everyone would be consecrating his own avarice to it. On the other hand an opportunity of salvation was afforded to the barbarian nations through the opportune presence of the captive Jews (Col. iii), with the result that after they had first come to know the power of the one true God through Daniel's revelation of the dream, they might then learn from the brave example of the three youths to despise death [variant: might learn that death ought to be despised], and to eschew the worship of idols.
"And he set it up in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon." Instead of "Dura" Theodotion has "Deira," and Symmachus has (D) "Durau," whereas the Septuagint renders it as the common noun peribolon, a word which we might render as "game-preserve" or "enclosure."
Verse 2. "Nebuchadnezzar sent therefore to the satraps, magistrates and judges, the dukes and potentates, and the prefects and (E) all the princes of the various districts that they should gather themselves together." It is the higher ranks which stand in the greater peril, and those who occupy the loftier position are the more sudden in their fall. The princes are assembled to worship the statue in order that through their princes the nations also might be attracted into error, (p. 506) For those who possess riches and power are all the more easily overthrown because of their apprehension of being bereft of them. |36 But after the magistrates are led astray, the subject populace perish through the evil example of their superiors.
Verses 4, 5. "And a herald proclaimed with mighty voice: 'To us the order is given, both peoples and tribes and languages, at what hour ye hear the sound of the trumpet....'" Not that the entire population of all the nations could have gathered on the plain of Dura and adored the golden statue, but rather, in the person of their leaders, all the tribes and peoples were supposed to have performed the act of worship. Now as I mentally run through all the Holy Scripture, I nowhere find (unless my memory fails me) a passage stating that any of the saints worshipped God Himself by falling prostrate [actually there are many instances; cf. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, 1005]; but only someone worshipping idols or demons or forbidden objects is said to have worshipped by falling prostrate. So also in this present instance that kind of worship is performed not once but several times as well. Moreover in the Gospel the devil says to the Lord, "All these things will I give Thee, if Thou fallest down and worshippest me" (Matt. 4:9). But this comment should also be made, that all heretics who devise a false doctrine with the brilliance of worldly eloquence, fashion thereby a golden statue, and (637) to the best of their ability constrain men by their persuasiveness to fall down and adore the idol of deceit.
Verse 7. "After these things the people, therefore, as soon as they heard the sound of the trumpet and pipe...." We are to take this statement in the same sense as above, so that we understand that all the peoples were represented by their leaders. For of course it was impossible for all the nations to attend at one time.
Verse 8. "And straightway at that time there came certain Chaldeans and accused the Jews...." They were envious of these Jews because they had been in charge of the king's business in Babylon, and also they were offended by their foreign religion and aversion towards idols. They therefore find a pretext for accusing them to the king. The final consequence ensues.
Verse 12. "Now then, there are certain Jews whom thou hast appointed over the affairs of the district of Babylon, namely Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who have despised |37 thy decree" (the Vulgate reads: "those men of thine have despised the decree, O king"). To a certain extent their statement amounts to this: "Those captives and slaves whom thou hast preferred before us and hast made to be governors have lifted themselves up in pride and despise thine orders, not serving thy gods, and not worshipping the golden statue thou hast set up." The assertion we made at the commencement of the commentary on the vision is more abundantly proved in this passage, namely that the gods of Nebuchadnezzar were not to be identified with the golden statue which he had ordered to be erected for the worship of himself, for in what follows the king himself says:
Verse 14. "Do ye not serve my gods, and do you not worship the golden statue which I have set up?..." Other authorities assert that it is the custom of Holy Scripture to speak of the one and same idol in the plural, just like the verse in Exodus concerning the calf: "These are thy gods, O Israel, who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt" (Ex. 22:4). Also in the Book of Kings, where Jeroboam is establishing the golden (p. 507) calf in Bethel, he is said to have fashioned idols (I Kings 12). On the other hand a plurality of demons are addressed in the singular number, as in Isaiah: "He bows himself down and worships it, and as he makes his vow he says, 'Thou art my God!'" (Isa. 44:17).
Verse 15. "Prostrate yourselves and worship the statue I have made." Although he had up to this point given the youths his orders in angry fashion, yet he gives them room for a change of heart, so that their previous guilt might be pardoned if only they should fall down and worship. But if they should not deign to offer worship, the punishment of the fiery furnace lay at hand.
"And what God is there who shall rescue you from my hand?..." Why naturally, that same God whose servant thou didst just recently worship and Whom thou didst assert to be truly God of gods and Lord of kings.
Verse 16 (638). "King Nebuchadnezzar, we ought not to render thee answer concerning this matter." In the Hebrew [i.e., Chaldee] original there is no vocative "King" (A) as there is in the Septuagint, lest they should seem to address the ungodly man with servile flattery or to term him a king who was |38 trying to force them to wickedness. But if it be contended that the reading, "O king!" should be included, then we may say that the youths were not impudently challenging the king to shed their blood but rendering him due honor so as to avoid injury to the true religion of God. But as for their statement. "We ought not to render thee answer concerning this matter," the meaning is: "Thou hast no need to hear words from men whose bravery and firmness thou wilt presently test by actual deeds."
Verse 17. "For behold, our God whom we serve is able to rescue us from the furnace of burning fire and to free us from thy hands, O king!" Where he had imagined he was frightening mere youths, he perceives in them a nature of manly courage. Nor do they speak of deliverance as delayed to the distant future, but rather they promise themselves immediate succor, asserting, "For behold, our God whom we serve is the One who is able to free us both from the fearsome flames thou threatenest and from thy hands."
Verse 18. "But if He does not will to do so"----a phrasing which admirably avoids the idea, "If He is not able," which would be inconsistent with what they had just asserted, "He is able to deliver us" ---- but rather they say, "If He does not will to do so." Thereby they indicate that it will not be a matter of God's inability but rather of His sovereign will if they do perish.
"Be it known to thee, O king, that we do not serve thy gods and do not worship the golden statue which thou hast set up." Whether we wish to read "statue" as Symmachus does, or "golden image" as the other authorities have rendered it, those who reverence God are not to worship it. Therefore let judges and princes who worship the statues of emperors or idols realize that they are doing precisely the thing which the three youths refused to do and thereby pleased God. And we should observe the proper significance of the issue involved: they assert that worshipping the mere image is equivalent to serving the false gods themselves, neither of which things is befitting to the servants of God.
Verse 19 (p. 508). "Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with rage, and (B) the aspect of his countenance was wholly altered." In certain Psalms the titles contain the notation; "On |39 behalf of those who are to be wholly altered." [This is a literal rendering of the Septuagint's erroneous translation of the Hebrew title 'al shoshanni'm, which occurs in Psalm 45 and Psalm 69, and signifies: "Upon anemonies."] And so the expression "wholly altered" is ambiguous, comprising both the idea of change for the worse or change for the better. Now of course the alteration of Nebuchadnezzar's visage cannot be reconciled with a favorable sense. And after all there are some authorities who refer even the Psalm-titles to a change for the worse, on the ground that those who by nature have known God have been changed by the vexation and fury of their mind to a position of hostility towards Christ and His saints.
Verse 20. "And he gave orders that the furnace be fired to sevenfold intensity beyond its usual temperature, (C) and he commanded the strongest men in his army to bind the legs of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and cast them into the furnace of flaming fire." Just as if the usual fire without multiplied intensity could not have consumed the youths' bodies! But a fury and rage which borders on madness can observe no bounds. Also he wished by the threat of intensified punishment to terrify those who seemed prepared for death.
Verse 21. "And straightway those men, bound up (D) in their trousers and turbans and footgear and garments, were cast into the midst of the furnace of flaming fire...." Instead of sarbal, "trousers" [actually this word probably meant "mantle" in the Aramaic] interpreted by Symmachus as anaxy-rides ("trousers"), Aquila and Theodotion read simply saraballa rather than the corrupt reading (E) sarabara. Now the shanks and shin-bones are called saraballa in the language of the Chaldeans [apparently erroneous information; the lexicons give only "trousers" or, preferably, "mantle"], and by extension of the same word it is applied to those articles of clothing which cover the shanks and shins, as if they were to be called "shankies" and "shinnies" (crurales et tibiales). "Turban," however, is a Greek word, tiara [actually the Aramaic is karbela, "cap"] which has by usage become a Latin word also, and Virgil says of it (Aeneid, VII):
"Both scepter and sacred tiara."
[Since tiara does not appear in the Aramaic original at all, the |40 comment upon it seems quite misleading to a public not having access to the original. Two other comments ought to be made about Jerome's treatment of this verse: a) he puts "turbans" before "footgear" (pattish) instead of after it as the original does; b) he has nevertheless consulted the original carefully, since he avoids the variant reading of the LXX, which latter substitutes "upon their heads" for the word "footgear."] It was, however, a kind of skull-cap used by the Persian and Chaldean races.
Verse 22. "Then those same men who had cast Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were slain by the fiery flame." Of course this meant the same men of whom it was said above, "And he commanded the strongest men in his army to bind the legs of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and cast them into the burning furnace of fire (another reading: into the furnace of flaming fire)." And so they were not any chance servants of his whom Nebuchadnezzar destroyed, but men who of all his army were strong and most ready for war. Not only was it intended that the miracle should strike terror but also that his own army might experience injury.
Verse 23. "But these three men, (here the Vulgate inserts: "that is,") Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell fettered into the midst of the furnace of flaming fire. And they were walking about in the midst of the flames praising God and blessing the Lord. (p. 509) And Azariah stood and prayed after this fashion, opening his mouth in the midst of the fire and saying...." It was a great miracle for men to be cast into a furnace bound and to fall headlong into the midst of the fire, only to have the bonds burn up by which they were bound, the bodies of the fettered withal remaining untouched by the timid flames. The Hebrew text goes only up to this point and the intervening passage which now follows as far as the end of the Song of the Three Youths is not contained in the Hebrew [i.e. the Aramaic]. Lest we seem to pass over it altogether, we must make a few observations.
Verse 26. "Blessed art Thou, O Lord God of our fathers, and Thy name is to be praised and glorified forever, for Thou art just in all that Thou hast done to us" (the Vulgate adds: "in our case"). (A) Whenever we are oppressed by various anxieties, let us lovingly speak forth this sentiment with our |41 whole heart, and whatever may have befallen us, let us confess that it is only right for us to endure it, that the scripture may be fulfilled in us: "The daughters of Judah have exulted and rejoiced in all Thy judgments, O Lord" (Ps. 96:8).
Verse 29. "For we have sinned and acted wickedly in departing from Thee, and we have forsaken Thee in all things." Now of course the three youths had not sinned, nor were they old enough when brought to Babylon to warrant being punished for their own faults. Consequently they were speaking as representatives of their people, in the same manner as the Apostle had to state: "For what I wish to do, that I do not; but what I do not want, that I carry into effect" (Rom 7:19), and so on with the rest of that same passage.
Verse 37. "Forasmuch, O Lord, as we have been diminished more than all the other races and abased in all the world this day because of our sins, and have at the present time neither prince nor prophet nor leader..." (B). These verses are to be used whenever the churches suffer want (because of the sins of the people) of holy men, and of magistrates who are most learned in the law of God, and also whenever in times of persecution no sacrifice or oblation is offered up. Some authorities relate this passage to the heavenly (p. 510) Jerusalem, on the ground that the souls have been plunged to the earthly plane and find themselves in a place of tears and utter distress, and bewail the sins of by-gone years and the other things included in the prophetic discourse. But the Church of God has not accepted this view.
Verse 39. (641) "But in a contrite heart and humble spirit let us be accepted, like as in the burnt offerings of rams and bullocks...." (cf. Ps. 51:19). On the basis of the passage before us and also on the basis of what follows: "Bless the Lord, ye spirits and souls of the righteous," and also in view of the passage in Psalms: "The sacrifice for God is an anguished spirit, a contrite and abased heart God does not despise," certain authorities (C) would have it that there resides in man a spirit, distinct from the Holy Spirit and different from the soul itself. But they will have to work out the difficulty of how there can be said to be two substances and two inner selves in one and the same man, |42 entirely apart from the body and from the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Verse 46. "And the king's servants who had cast them in did not cease to make the furnace hot with naphtha and pitch." Sallust (D) in his histories writes that naphtha is a kind of tinder in use among the Persians which furnishes the utmost encouragement to fires. Others are of the opinion that naphtha is the name applied to olive-pits which are thrown away when the dregs of the oil have dried up. In the same way, they assert, the Greek term pyrine is derived from its property of nourishing pyr, that is, "fire".
Verse 49. "But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace with Azariah and his companions, and he smote the flame of the fire out of the furnace...." When the soul is oppressed with tribulation and taken up with various vexations, having lost hope of human aid and turned with its whole heart to God, an angel of the Lord descends to it. That is to say, the supernatural being descends to the aid of the servant and dashes aside the fierce heat of the violent flames, that the fiery shafts of the enemy utterly fail to pierce the inner citadel of our heart and we escape being shut up in his fiery furnace.
Verses 57, 58. "All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord; laud Him and highly exalt Him forever. Praise (p. 511) Him, ye angels of the Lord; laud Him and highly exalt Him...." Having prefaced with general terms of praise, to the effect that every creature ought to praise the Lord, he addresses his exhortation in what follows to the various individual orders of creation: (642) to the angels, the heavens, the waters and nature-forces, the sun and the moon, the rain-cloud and the dew, the wind, the fire and the billow, the cold and the heat, and all the rest too lengthy to include, so that he summons springs also and the seas, the sea-monsters and the birds, the beasts and flocks, to the praise of the Lord. He summons also the sons of men, and after the human race in general he specifies the race of Israel in particular, and of the Israelites themselves the priests and servants of the Lord, and the spirits and souls of the righteous, and those who are holy and of humble heart. And at the very last he specifies Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, who are summoned to praise the Lord for His present kindness. But all creation praises God not in word |43 but in deed, inasmuch as the Creator is logically apprehended on the basis of His creatures, and in the various works and affections [unless affectibus be a misprint for effectibus: "operations"] the grandeur of God is made manifest.
Verse 87. "Bless Him, ye saints and humble of heart...." We are taught to have humbleness of heart both by this present verse and also by the statement in the Gospel: "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Matt. 11:29). But this humbleness of heart is the same thing as is elsewhere called poverty in spirit, so that we are not to be lifted up in pride or seek after glory by a pretended humility, but rather that we abase ourselves with our whole heart. Up to this point we have mentioned but briefly a few things from Theodotion's edition, since the confession and the praises of the three youths are passages not contained in the Hebrew. But from this point on we shall follow the authentic Hebrew itself.
Verses 91, 92 (=24, 25). "Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astounded and hastily arose and said to his nobles: 'Did we not cast three men in shackles into the midst of the fire?'" [When figures are given in parentheses they indicate the versification in the KJV.] After the princes have been punished, the king is rebuked, in order that he may glorify God while still alive. But he questions his nobles, by whose accusation and plot he had cast the three youths into the fiery furnace, so that when they reply that they had cast three youths into the furnace, he might announce and show forth to them (what had happened) (A).
(643) "And they said to the king in reply, 'Truly, O king!' The king answered (the Vulgate omits "the king"): 'Behold, I see four men unbound and walking about in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt, and the appearance of the fourth man (B) is the likeness of a son of God.' " Let me say again, how wise was the fire and how indescribable the power of God! Their bodies had been bound with chains; those chains were burnt up, whereas the bodies themselves were not burnt. As for the appearance of the fourth man, which he asserts to be like that of a son of God, either we must take him to be an angel, as the Septuagint has rendered it, or indeed, as the majority think, the Lord our Savior. Yet I do not know how an ungodly king could have merited a vision of the Son of God. On that |44 reasoning one should follow Symmachus, who has thus interpreted it: "But the appearance of the fourth is like unto the sons," not unto the sons of God but unto gods themselves. We are to think of angels here, who after all are very frequently called gods as well as sons of God. So much for the story itself. But as for its typical significance, this angel or son of God foreshadows our Lord Jesus (p. 512) Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell, in which the souls of both sinners and of the righteous were imprisoned, in order that He might without suffering any scorching by fire or injury to His person deliver those who were held imprisoned by chains of death.
Verse 93 (=26). "Then Nebuchadnezzar approached unto the mouth of the burning fiery furnace and said: 'Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come forth and draw near!' And straightway Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came forth from the midst of the fire." Being terrified with fear, the king does not address his request to the youths through any messengers, but himself calls upon them by name, addressing them as servants of the Most High God, and begging these very men to come forth whom he himself had cast bound into the furnace.
Verse 95 (=28). " 'Blessed be God (the Vulgate has "their God, namely") of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, Who hath sent His angel and rescued His servants who believed in Him....' " The person whom he had previously called a son of God he here calls an angel, even though he had in the preceding passage described him as similar to a son of God rather than to God Himself. A second time, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar resumes a confession of faith in God, and as he condemns idols he praises the three youths who refused to serve or worship any god but their own God. Moreover he marvels that the fire was unable to affect the saints of God, for he says:
Verse 96 (=29). "'I have therefore determined upon this decree (the Vulgate says: "have appointed this decree"): that any people, tribe or tongue which utters blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (644) shall utterly perish and his house shall be laid waste. For there is no other God who can save after such a fashion.' " Some authorities very wrongly apply this to the devil himself, asserting that in the |45 consummation at the end of the world even the devil himself will receive a knowledge of God and will exhort all men to repent. These persons would have it that this is the king of Nineveh who finally descends from his proud throne and attains to the rewards of humility.
Verse 97 (=30). "Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to honor in the province of Babylon." Those commentators who say that the three youths were previously not judges set over the provinces but mere overseers of individual government agencies in Babylon, would have it that they were now appointed as judges over the provinces. |46
CHAPTER FOUR
Verse 98ff. (= ff.) [The Hebrew Bible continues chap. III up through what is IV:3 in the English Bible] "Nebuchadnezzar the king unto all the peoples, nations and languages who dwell upon the whole earth: peace be multiplied unto you. The Most High God hath performed signs and wonders towards me. Therefore I have thought it well to declare His signs, for they are great, and His marvels, for they are mighty, and His kingdom, because it is (the Vulgate omits "because it is") an eternal kingdom, and His dominion is from generation to generation." The epistle of Nebuchadnezzar was inserted in the volume of the prophet, in order that the book might not afterwards be thought to have been manufactured by some other author, as the accuser (Porphyry) falsely asserts, but the product of Daniel himself.
Verse 1 (=4). "I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace." The narrative is clear indeed and requires but little interpretation. Because he displeased God, Nebuchadnezzar was turned into a madman and dwelt for seven years amongst the brute beasts and was fed upon the roots of herbs, (p. 513) Afterwards by the mercy of God he was restored to his throne, and praised and glorified the King of heaven, on the ground that all His works are truth and His ways are justice and He is able to abase those who walk in pride. But there are some who claim to understand by the figure of Nebuchadnezzar the hostile power which the Lord speaks of in the Gospel, saying: "I beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Likewise John in Revelation, in the passage where the dragon falls upon the earth drawing a third of the stars with him (Rev. 12). Likewise Isaiah: "How hath the morning star fallen, which used to rise early in the morning" (Isa. 14:22). These authorities assert that it was absolutely impossible for a man who was reared in luxury to subsist on hay for seven years and to dwell among wild beasts for seven years without being at all mangled by them. Also they ask how the imperial |47 authority (645) could have been kept waiting for a mere madman, and how so mighty a kingdom could have gone without a king for so long a period. If, on the other hand, anyone had succeeded him on the throne, how foolish he would have to be thought to surrender an imperial authority which he had possessed for so long. Such a thing would be especially incredible since the historical records of the Chaldeans contain no such record, and since they recorded matters of far less import, it is impossible that they should have left things of major importance unmentioned. And so they pose all of these questions (A) and offer as their own reply the proposition that since the episode does not stand up as genuine history, the figure of Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil. To this position we make not the slightest concession; otherwise everything we read in Scripture may appear to be imperfect representations and mere fables. For once men have lost their reason, who would not perceive them to lead their existence like brutish animals in the open fields and forest regions? And to pass over all other considerations, since Greek and Roman history offer episodes far more incredible, such as Scylla and the Chimaera, the Hydra and the Centaurs, and the birds and wild beasts and flowers and trees, the stars and the stones into which men are related to have been transformed, what is so remarkable about the execution of such a divine judgment as this for the manifestation of God's power and the humbling of the pride of kings? Nebuchadnezzar says, " 'I was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace....' " or as Theodo-tion renders it "upon my throne." Now those who follow the interpretation we are opposing understand by the devil's home this world of ours. Concerning the world Satan himself in the Gospel says to the Savior: "All these things have been given over to me" (Matt. 4:9). Likewise the Apostle says: "The world lieth in the Wicked One" (I John 5).
Verse 2 (=5). "'I beheld a dream which terrified me, and my thoughts while upon my bed....'" Let our opponents answer what kind of a dream the hostile power [i.e., Satan] would have seen, unless perhaps everything he appears to possess in this world is a mere shadowy dream.
" 'And the visions of my head greatly disturbed me.' " Note (p. 514) how Nebuchadnezzar realized that his visions |48 were not those of his eyes and heart, but rather of his head, because it was for the glory of God's future servants that these secrets were being revealed to him.
Verse 6 (=8). " 'Then at last my associate, Daniel, (B) whose name according to the name of my god is Belteshazzar, entered before my presence.'" With the exception of the Septuagint translators (who for some reason or other have omitted this whole passage [i.e., vv. 6-9]), the other three translators [Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion] have translated the word [i.e. 'oh°rdn, a dubious word generally rendered as "at last" by modern translations, but here probably to be construed as "another"] as "associate" (collega). Consequently by the judgment of the teachers of the Church, the Septuagint edition has been rejected in the case of this book, and it is the translation of Theodotion which is commonly read, since it agrees with the Hebrew as well as with the other translators (C). Wherefore also Origen asserts in the ninth book of the Stromata that he is discussing the text from this point on in the prophecy of Daniel, not as it appears in the Septuagint, which greatly differs from the Hebrew original, but rather as it appears in Theodotion's edition.
" '...(Daniel) who has within him the spirit of the holy gods; and I related the dream unto him....'" Corresponding to the rendering here given, "of the holy god," we read in Chaldee (in which Daniel was composed) the words elain cadisin ('-l-h-y-n q-d-y-sh-y-n) [vocalized this would be 'elahin qaddishin], which means "holy gods" and not "holy God," as Theodotion rendered it. Nor is it surprising if Nebuchadnezzar made such a mistake, and supposed that any force he perceived to be higher than himself were gods, rather than God. Lastly he states also in his following words: " 'Belteshazzar, thou chief of the soothsayers, whom I know to possess within thee the spirit of the holy gods.' " Belteshazzar was chief of the soothsayers or enchanters, as others have rendered it. It is not surprising if he had been appointed chief over all the soothsayers since he had at the king's order been taught the wisdom of the Chaldeans, and had besides been found ten times wiser than all the rest. Let us ask of those who do not concede any historical basis for this vision, what Nebuchadnezzar it was who saw the dream, and who the Daniel was who |49 declared his dream and foretold things to come. And how did it come to pass that this same Daniel (whose fortitude was, at least according to them, to be understood as divine in origin) was appointed chief of the soothsayers by Nebuchadnezzar, and called his companion?
Verse 7 (=10). "'I saw, and behold there was a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was very great....' " It was not only of Nebuchadnezzar, King of the Chaldeans, but also of all impious men that the prophet says: "I beheld the impious man highly exalted and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon" (Ps. 36:35). [This is Ps. 37:35 in the English Bible, and preserves a different reading, taken over from the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew reading: "... and spreading himself like a green tree in its native soil."] Such men are lifted up, not by the greatness of their virtues, but by their own pride; and for that reason they are cut down and fall into ruin. (647) Therefore it is good to follow the teaching of our Lord in the Gospel: "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matt. 11:29). But as for the fact that, according to Theodotion (p. 515), he mentions his kutos or height ---- or else his kureia (A), as he himself later renders it, that is to say, his dominion (a word we have translated as "his appearance") ---- those same detractors of the historicity of this passage slanderously assert that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion never possessed the entire world. He did not rule over the Greeks or barbarians, or over all of the nations in the north and west, but only over the provinces of the East; that is to say, over Asia, not over Europe or Libya. Consequently all these slanders require to be understood as attributable to the devil, for actually we ourselves should accept all this as spoken by way of hyperbole, having in view the arrogance of the impious king, who in Isaiah (chap. 14) makes as great a boast as this, claiming that he possesses the very heaven itself, and the whole earth besides, as if it were a nest full of birds' eggs.
Verses 10, 11 (=13, 14). "'And behold, a watchman and a holy one descended from heaven, and he cried out with a loud voice and spoke as follows: 'Cut down the tree and chop off its branches....'" Instead of "watchman" Theodotion uses the Chaldee word itself, hir, which is written with the three letters 'ayin, yodh, and resh. But it signifies the angels, because |50 they ever keep watch and are prepared to carry out God's command. And so we too follow the example of the angels in their duties when we engage in frequent night-long vigils. Also it is said of the Lord: "He who keepeth Israel will neither slumber nor sleep" (Ps. 120:4, i.e. Ps. 121:4). Lastly, we read a little later: "In the decision of the watchmen, i.e., the angels, lies the decree and the speech and the petition of the holy ones." Moreover it is both Greek and (B) Latin usage to call the rainbow iris, because it is said to descend to earth in a multicolored arch.
Verse 16 (=19). "Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, began quietly to meditate by himself for about an hour, and his meditations greatly troubled him. And the king answered and said, 'Belteshazzar, let not the dream or its interpretation disturb you.' Belteshazzar answered and said...." Daniel silently understood that the dream was directed against the king, and the pallor of his countenance showed forth the fear in his heart, and he felt sorry for the man who had conferred upon him the greatest of honor. (648) And to avoid all appearance of taunting the king or glorying over him as an enemy, he only told him what he understood of the matter after he had begged to be excused.
" 'My lord, (C) may this dream apply to those who hate thee, and its interpretation to thy foes.'" And so Nebuchadnezzar, seeing that Daniel was afraid of appearing to speak something of ill omen and against the king's interest, urged him to speak out plainly and truly what he understood of the matter without any apprehension.
Verse 17 (=20). " 'The lofty and vigorous tree which thou sawest, the height of which reached the heavens....' " He explains the truth without insulting the king, (p. 516) so as to avoid appearing to charge the king with sinful pride, but rather with overweening greatness.
Verse 20 (=23). " 'Let him be bound with iron and with brass in the grass out of doors, and let him be sprinkled with dew of heaven, and let his feeding be with the wild beasts, until seven times pass over him.'" It was also written to the same effect above. And so those who object to the historicity of the narrative ask us how Nebuchadnezzar would have been bound |51 with chains of iron and brass, or who would have bound him or tied him up with fetters. Yet it is very clear that all maniacs are bound with chains to keep them from destroying themselves or attacking others with weapons.
Verses 21, 22 (=24, 25). " 'This is the interpretation of the sentence of the Most High which has come upon my lord the king. They shall cast thee forth from among men and thy habitation shall be with cattle and wild beasts....'" Daniel moderates the severity of the sentence by complimentary language, so that (variant: and) after he has first set forth the harsher aspects, he may moderate the king's alarm by assurances of the kindlier treatment to follow. He draws the final inference:
Verse 23 (=26). " 'Thy kingdom shall remain unto thee, after thou shalt have acknowledged that power belongs to Heaven.'" Those who contest the historicity of this incident and would have it that the devil's original position of honor will be restored to him, make capital of this passage, on the ground that after Nebuchadnezzar has during the seven-year cycle endured torments and bestialization, feeding upon grass and hay, he makes a confession of the Lord and becomes the person he was before. But they are bound to answer the question how it can be consistent for the angels who have never fallen to have someone rule over them once more who has only through repentance been restored to favor.
Verse 24 (=27). " 'Wherefore, O king, let my counsel meet with thy favor, and make up for thy sins by deeds of charity, (649) and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Perhaps God will forgive thy transgressions.'" Since he had previously pronounced the sentence of God, which of course cannot be altered, how could he exhort the king to deeds of charity and acts of mercy towards the poor? This difficulty is easily solved by reference to the example of King Hezekiah, who Isaiah had said was going to die; and again, to the example of the Ninevites, to whom it was said: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed" (Jonah 3). And yet the sentence of God was changed in response to the prayers of Hezekiah and the city of Nineveh, not by any means because of the ineffectualness of the judgment itself but because of the conversion of those who merited pardon. Morever in Jeremiah God states that He threatens |52 evil for the nation (Jer. 23), but if it does that which is good, He will alter His threats to bestow mercy. Again, He affirms that He directs His promises to the man who does good; and if the same man thereafter works evil, He says that He changes His decision, not with regard to the men themselves, but with regard to their works which have thus changed in character. For after all, God is not angered at men but at their sins; and when no sins inhere in a man, God by no means inflicts a punishment which has been commuted. In other words, let us say that Nebuchadnezzar performed deeds of mercy toward the poor (p. 517) in accordance with Daniel's advice, and for that reason the sentence against him was delayed of execution for twelve months. But because he afterwards while walking about in his palace at Babylon said boastingly: "Is this not the great Babylon (A) which I myself have built up as a home for the king by the might of my power and the glory of my name?" therefore he lost the virtue of his charitableness by reason of the wickedness of his pride.
"It may be that God will forgive thy sins." In view of the fact that the blessed Daniel, foreknowing the future as he did, had doubts concerning God's decision, it is very rash on the part of those who boldly promise pardon to sinners. And yet it should be recognized that indulgence was promised to Nebuchadnezzar in return, as long as he wrought good works. Much more, then, is it promised to other men who have committed less grievous sins than he. We read in Jeremiah also of God's direction to the people of the Jews, that they should pray for the Babylonians, inasmuch as the peace of the captives was bound up with the peace of the captors themselves.
Verses 28, 29 (=31, 32). "While the saying was yet in the king's mouth, a voice from heaven assailed him: 'King Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken, thy kingdom shall pass away (variant reading: is passing away) from thee and they shall cast thee forth from among mankind.'" His arrogant boasting is immediately punished by the Lord. For this reason the execution of the sentence is not delayed, lest mercy towards the poor seem to have profited him not at all. But as soon as he has spoken in pride, he straightway loses the kingdom which (650) had been reserved for him on account of his works of charity.
"...until thou dost recognize that the Most High |53 reigns in the kingdom of men." In misery it comes as a great consolation to know, when one is in a painful situation, that a more favorable future will ensue. Yet Nebuchadnezzar's fury and madness were so pronounced that in time of affliction he would not have remembered the blessings which God had promised him.
Verse 31 (=34). " 'I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted mine eyes toward heaven, and my intelligence returned to me.' " Had he not raised his eyes towards heaven, he would not have regained his former intelligence. Moreover, when he says that his intelligence returned to him, he shows that he had lost not his outward appearance but only his mind.
"'And His kingdom is from generation to generation.' " If we accept this expression in the Scriptures, "From generation to generation," as simply for what it is, then it unquestionably means "for all time to come." But if, on the other hand, "generation and generation" signifies (as we have often asserted) two generations, that of the Law and that of the Gospel, the question comes up as to how Nebuchadnezzar would have known of the unrevealed secrets ("sacraments") of God. [The original for "from generation to generation" is " 'im dar wedar," i.e., "with generation and generation," which Jerome renders as "in generatione et generatione" or "in generation and generation." Undoubtedly the idea of the original is distributive or successive: "unto each successive generation." Jerome's explanation of this characteristic Semitic phrase as an occult reference to the two dispensations of the Old and New Testaments seems very farfetched.] But perhaps we might say this, that after he raised his eyes towards heaven and received back his former estate and exalted and blessed the ever-living God, he would not have failed to know this secret also.
Verse 32 (=35). " 'For He does according to His will, just as (B) among the powers of heaven, so also among the inhabitants of the earth....' " (p. 518) This too Nebuchadnezzar expresses like a worldling. For God does not simply do what He wishes, but rather God wishes only that which is good. Nebuchadnezzar, however, expressed himself in this way, in order that even while he declared God's power, he might appear to impugn God's justice, on the ground that he had suffered unmerited punishment. |54
Verse 33 (=36). "'And my nobles and officers sought me out and I was restored to my kingdom, and all the greater magnificence accrued to me.' " Well then, according to those who argue against the historical character of this account, all the angelic powers are going to seek out the devil again, and he will increase to such a degree of might, that the very one who formerly exalted himself against God is going to be greater than he was before his sin.
Verse 34 (=37). " 'Now therefore 1, Nebuchadnezzar, do praise, magnify and glorify the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways are judgment, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.' " Nebuchadnezzar understood the reason why he had suffered in seven years' punishment, and for that reason (651) he humbled himself, since he had exalted himself against God. |55
CHAPTER FIVE
Verse 1. "Belshazzar the king made a great feast for his one thousand nobles; and each one drank in the order of his age." It should be known that this man was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as readers commonly imagine; but according to (C) Berosus, who wrote the history of the Chaldeans, and also Josephus, who follows Berosus, after Nebuchadnezzar's reign of forty-three years, a son named Evilmerodach succeeded to his throne. It was concerning this king that Jeremiah wrote that in the first year of his reign he raised the head of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, and took him out of his prison (Jer. 52). Josephus likewise reports that after the death of Evilmerodach, his son [actually his brother-in-law] Neriglissar succeeded to his father's throne; after whom in turn came his son (D) Labosordach, [the cuneiform spelling is Labashi-Marduk]. Upon the latter's death, his son, Belshazzar [note that Jerome is not aware of Belshazzar's father, Nabonidus], obtained the kingdom, and it is of him that the Scripture now makes mention. After he had been killed by Darius, King of the Medes, who was the maternal uncle of Cyrus, King of the Persians, the empire of the Chaldeans was destroyed by Cyrus the Persian. It was these two kingdoms [the Median and the Persian] which Isaiah in chap. 21 addresses as a charioteer of a vehicle drawn by a camel and an ass. Indeed Xenophon also writes the same thing in connection with the childhood of Cyrus the Great; likewise Pompeius Trogus and many others who have written up the history of the barbarians. Some authorities think that this Darius was the Astyages mentioned in the Greek writings, while others think it was Astyages' son, and that he was called by the other name among the barbarians. "And each one of the princes who had been invited drank in the order of his own age." Or else, as other translators have rendered it: "The king himself was drinking in the presence of all the princes whom he had invited." [The latter rendering seems to be the only one justified by the Aramaic original.] |56
Verse 2. "Being now drunken, he therefore gave order that (p. 519) the golden and silver vessels be brought in which his father, Nebuchadnezzar, had taken away from the temple which was in Jerusalem, in order that the king might drink from them...." The Hebrews hand down some such story as this: that up until the seventieth year, on which Jeremiah had said that the captivity of the Jewish people would be released (652) (a matter of which Zechariah also speaks in the first part o£ his book), Belshazzar had esteemed God's promise to be of none effect; therefore he turned the failure of the promise into an occasion of joy and arranged a great banquet, scoffing somewhat at the expectation of the Jews and at the vessels of the Temple of God. Punishment, however, immediately ensued. And as to the fact that the author calls Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, he does not make any mistake in the eyes of those who are acquainted with the Holy Scripture's manner of speaking, for in the Scripture all progenitors and ancestors are called fathers. This factor also should be borne in mind, that he was not sober when he did these things, but rather when he was intoxicated and forgetful of the punishment which had come upon his progenitor, Nebuchadnezzar.
Verse 4. "They were drinking wine and praising their gods of gold, of silver, of bronze, of iron, of wood, and of stone." How great was their folly! As they drank from golden vessels, they were praising gods of wood and of stone. As long as the vessels had been in the idol-temple of Babylon, God was not moved to wrath, for they had evidently consecrated the property of God to divine worship, even though they did so in accordance with their own depraved views of religion. But after they defiled holy things for the use of men, their punishment followed upon the heels of their sacrilege. Moreover they were praising their own gods and scoffing at the God of the Jews, on the ground that they were drinking from His vessels because of the victory their own gods had bestowed upon them. Applying this figuratively, we should have to say that it applies to all the heretics or to any doctrine which is contrary to truth but which appropriates the words of the Biblical prophets and misuses the testimony of Scripture to suit its own inclination. It furnishes liquor to those whom it deceives and with whom it has committed fornication. |57 It carries off the vessels of God's Temple and waxes drunken by quaffing them; and it does not give the praise to the God whose vessels they are, but to gods of gold and silver, of bronze, of iron, of wood, and of stone. I think that the golden ones (A) are those which consist of earthly reason. The silver gods are those which possess the charm of eloquence and are fashioned by rhetoric. But those which bring in the fables of the poets and employ ancient traditions containing marked divergences from one another in respect to good taste or folly, (653) such are described as bronze and iron. And those who set forth sheer absurdities are called wooden or stone. The Book of Deuteronomy divides these all into two classes, saying: "Cursed is the man who fashions a graven image and a molten image, the work of the hands of an artificer, and sets it up in a secret place" (Deut. 32:15). For all heretics operate secretly and disguise their fallacious teachings, in order that they may from concealment shoot their arrows against those who are upright in heart.
Verse 5. "At that same hour some fingers appeared as if they were of a human hand, writing something over against the lampstand upon the surface of the wall of the king's palace. And the king watched the joints of the hand as it wrote." He puts it nicely when he says, "At that same hour," just as we earlier read concerning Nebuchadnezzar, "While the saying was yet in the king's mouth." This was in order that the offender might recognize that his punishment was not inflicted upon him for any other reason but his blasphemy.
(p. 520) But as for the circumstance that the fingers seemed to be writing on the wall over against the lampstand, this was to avoid having the hand and the written matter appear at too great a distance from the light (to be clearly visible). And the fingers wrote upon the wall of the royal palace in order that the king might understand that the inscription concerned himself.
Verse 6. "Then the king's expression was altered...." Here too it is to be observed concerning those Psalms entitled: "For those who will suffer alterations (or vicissitudes)," that the alteration of fortune is not only the lot of the saint but also of the sinner. ["For those who will suffer alteration" is a remarkable interpretation of the Hebrew (al-shoshannim)----"according to lilies" (RSV)----rendered in the Authorized Version as |58 "upon Shoshannim." The Vulgate rendering, following that of the Septuagint, is based upon a very implausible vowel pointing: 'al-sheshonim.'] For we read in this connection: "King Belshazzar was considerably disturbed and his countenance was altered."
Verse 7. The king therefore cried out vehemently that the magicians should be brought in, and the Chaldeans and the soothsayers...." Forgetting about the experiences of Nebuchadnezzar, he was following after the ancient and ingrained error of his family, so that instead of summoning a prophet of God he summons the magicians and Chaldeans and soothsayers.
"...he shall be clothed in purple and he shall have a golden necklace about his neck." It is, of course, ridiculous of me to argue about matters of gender in a commentary on the prophets; but inasmuch as an ignorant but ostentatious critic has rebuked me for changing "necklace" (torquis) from feminine to masculine, I will make the brief observation that while Cicero (B) and Vergil use "necklace" in the feminine, Livy uses it in the masculine.
"...and he shall be the third man in my kingdom...." That means either that he is to be third in rank after the king, or else one of the three princes of the realm----for we elsewhere read of the tristatai. [A tristates is one who stands next in rank to the king and queen, i.e., a vizier.]
Verse 10. "Now the queen, by reason of what had happened to the king and his nobles, entered into the banquet-hall...." Josephus says she was Belshazzar's grandmother, whereas Origen says she was his mother. She therefore knew about previous events of which the king was ignorant. So much for Porphyry's far-fetched objection [lit.: "Therefore let Porphyry stay awake nights"----evigilet], who fancies that she was the king's wife, and makes fun of the fact that she knows more than her husband does.
Verse 10 (=11). "'There is a man in thy kingdom who possesses within him the spirit of the holy gods.'" All the authorities except Symmachus, who adheres to the Chaldee original, render: "the spirit of God."
"'... and in the days of thy father, wisdom, and knowledge were found in him....' " She calls Nebuchadnezzar his father, according to the custom of the Scriptures, even though, |59 as we remarked before, he was actually his great-grandfather. But Daniel's godly manner of life even amongst the barbarians is worthy of our imitation, for the very grandmother or mother of the king extolled him with such words of praise because of the greatness of his virtues.
Verse 11 (sic!) (=17). "To this Daniel made answer before the king, saying: 'Thy gifts be unto thyself, and bestow the presents of thy house upon someone else....'" We should follow the example of a man like Daniel, who despised the honor and gifts of a king, and who without any reward even in that early day followed the Gospel injunction: "Freely have ye received, freely give." And besides, when one is announcing sad tidings, it is unbecoming for him willingly to accept gifts.
Verse 19. "'He slew whomever he would and smote to death whomever he wished to; those whom he wished he set on high, and brought low whomever he would.' " Thus he sets forth the example of the king's great-grandfather (p. 521), in order to teach him the justice of God and make it clear that his great-grandson too was to suffer similar treatment because of his pride. Now if Nebuchadnezzar slew whomever he would and smote to death whomever he wished to; if he set on high those whom he would and brought low whomever he wished to, there is certainly no Divine providence or Scriptural injunction behind these honors and slayings, these acts of promotion and humiliation. But rather, such things ensue from the will [reading voluntate for the erroneous voluntas of the text] of the men themselves who do the slaying and promoting to honor, and all the rest. If this be the case, the question arises as to how we are to understand the Scripture: "The heart of a king reposes in the hand of God; He will incline it in whatever direction He wishes" (Prov. 21:1). Perhaps we might say that every saint is a king (655), for sin does not reign in his mortal body, and his heart therefore is kept safe, for he is in God's hand (Rom. 6). And whatever has once come into the hand of God the Father, according to the Gospel, no man is able to take it away. And whoever is taken away, it is understood that he never was in God's hand at all.
Verses 22, 23. " 'Thou too, his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, even though thou knewest all these things, but hast lifted thyself up against the ruler of heaven....'" |60 Because thy great-grandfather, she says, lifted up his heart and hardened his spirit in pride, he therefore was put down from his royal throne and his glory was taken away, and so on (Jer. 4). Therefore in thy case also, because thou knewest these things about thy relative and didst understand that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble, thou shouldest not have lifted up thy heart against the ruler of heaven and scoffed at His majesty and perpetrated the deeds which thou hast. Some authorities apply this passage to Antichrist, on the ground that he has imitated the pride of his father, the Devil, and has raised himself up against God. But they must deal with the question of whom Daniel represents, and who is to be understood as interpreting the inscription of God, and who these Medes and Persians are who put Antichrist to death and succeed to his royal power. For there is no doubt but what it is the saints who are to rule after the Antichrist.
Verses 25-28. "This is the inscription which has been set up: MANE, THECEL, PHARES. And this is the interpretation of the sentence: 'MANE' means that God has numbered thy kingdom and brought it to an end. 'THECEL' means it has been weighed in the scales and has been found deficient (Vulg.: thou hast been weighed and hast been found....). 'PHARES' means that thy kingdom has been removed and given to the Medes and Persians." The inscription (A) of these three words on the wall simply meant: "Mane, Thecel, Phares"; the first of which sounds forth the idea of "number," and the second "a weighing out," and the third "removal." And so there was a need not only for reading the inscription but also for interpreting what had been read, in order that it might be understood what these words were announcing. That is to say, that God had numbered his kingdom and brought it to an end, and that He had seized hold upon him to weigh him in His judgment-scales, and the sword would slay him before he should meet a natural death; and that his empire would be divided among the Medes and Persians. For Cyrus, the king of the Persians, as we have already mentioned, overthrew the Chaldean Empire in alliance with Darius, his maternal uncle.
Verse 29. (p. 522) (656) "Then at the kings order Daniel was clothed with purple and a golden chain was placed |61 around his neck, and he was proclaimed to have authority as third ruler in the kingdom." Or else, it might be construed as having authority over a third part of the kingdom. At any rate he received the royal insignia of necklace and purple, with the result that he appeared more notable to Darius, who was to be the successor in the royal power, and all the more honorable because of his notability. Nor was it strange that Belshazzar should have paid the promised reward upon hearing sad tidings. For either he supposed that his predictions would take place in the distant future, or else he hoped he would obtain mercy by honoring the prophet of God. And if he did not obtain this boon, it was because his sacrilege toward God outweighed the honor he accorded to man.
Verses 30, 31. "On that same night Belshazzar, King of the Chaldeans, was slain, and Darius the Mede succeeded to his kingdom at the age of sixty-two." Josephus writes in his tenth book of the Jewish Antiquities that when Babylon had been laid under siege by the Medes and Persians, that is, by Darius and Cyrus, Belshazzar, King of Babylon, fell into such forgetfulness of his own situation as to put on his celebrated banquet and drink from the vessels of the Temple, and even while he was besieged he found leisure for banqueting. From this circumstance the historical account could arise, that he was captured and slaughtered on the same night, while everyone was either terrified by fear of the vision and its interpretation, or else taken up with festivity and drunken banqueting. As for the fact that while Cyrus, King of the Persians, was the victor, and Darius was only King of the Medes, it was Darius who was recorded to have succeeded to the throne of Babylon, this was an arrangement occasioned by factors of age, family relationship, and the territory ruled over. By this I mean that Darius was sixty-two years old, and that, according to what we read, the kingdom of the Medes was more sizable than that of the Persians, and being Cyrus's uncle, he naturally had a prior claim, and ought to have been accounted as successor to the rule of Babylon. Therefore also in a vision of Isaiah which was recited against Babylon, after many other matters too lengthy to mention, an account is given of these things which are to take place: "Behold I Myself will rouse up against them the Medes, a people who do not seek after silver nor desire gold, but who |62 slay the very children with their arrows and have no compassion upon women who suckle their young" (B) (Isa. 13:7). And Jeremiah says: "Sanctify nations against her, even the kings of Media, and the governors thereof and all the magistrates thereof and all the land under the power thereof" (Jer. 51:28). Then follow the words: "The daughter of Babylon is like a threshing-floor during the time of its treading; yet a little while, and the time of its harvesting will come" (Jer. 51:33). And in testimony of the fact that Babylon was captured (657) during a banquet, Isaiah clearly exhorts her to battle when he writes: "Babylon, my beloved, has become a strange spectacle unto me [this rendering differs from the Hebrew original and the Septuagint, and seems altogether unjustified]: set thou the table and behold in the mirrors [the Hebrew says: "set the watch"] those who eat and drink; rise up, ye princes, and snatch up your shields!" (Isa. 21:4, 5). |63
CHAPTER SIX
Verses 1 ff. "It pleased Darius to appoint over his kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, that they might be throughout his whole kingdom; and over them there were three princes, of which Daniel was one." Josephus, of whom we made mention above, in writing an account of this passage, put it this way: Now Darius (C), who destroyed the empire of the (p. 523) Babylonians in cooperation with his relative, Cyrus, ---- for they carried on the war as allies ---- was sixty-two years of age at the time he captured Babylon. He was the son of Astyages, and was known to the Greeks by another name. Moreover he took away the prophet Daniel with him and took him to Media, and made him one of the three princes who were in charge of his whole kingdom. Hence we see that when Babylon was overthrown, Darius returned to his own kingdom in Media, and brought Daniel along with him in the same honorable capacity to which he had been promoted by Belshazzar. There is no doubt but what Darius had heard of the sign and portent which had come to Belshazzar, and also of the interpretation which Daniel had set forth, and how he had foretold the rule of the Medes and the Persians. And so no one should be troubled by the fact that Daniel is said in one place to have lived in Darius's reign, and in another place in the reign of Cyrus. The Septuagint rendered Darius by the name Artaxerxes. But as for the fact that a non-chronological order is followed, so that some history is narrated in the reign of Darius before material is given for Belshazzar's reign [cf. 7:1 and 8:1, which of course follow chap. 6], whereas we are subsequently to read that he was put to death by Darius, it seems to me that the anachronism results from the fact that the author has brought all the historical portions together in immediate sequence. Therefore it is at the close of the earlier vision that he had stated: "And Darius the Mede succeeded to the realm at the age of sixty-two." And so it was under this Darius who put |64 Belshazzar to death that the events took place of which we are about to speak.
"Moreover the king was planning to set Daniel over the whole realm. Consequently the princes and satraps sought an opportunity to find out something against Daniel as touching the king...." Instead of "princes" (658) ----the rendering used by Symmachus ---- Theodotion translated it as taktikoi ["military tacticians"], and Aquila as synektikoi ["liaison officers?"]. And when I inquired as to who these tacticians or liaison princes might be, I read it more clearly specified in the Septuagint, which renders: "...and the two men whom the king had appointed with Daniel, and also the one hundred twenty satraps." And so it was the fact that the king was planning to appoint Daniel as chief ruler even over the two princes who had been associated with him in a triumvirate that gave rise to the envy and intrigue. (A) They sought an opportunity to find out something against Daniel as touching the king [literally: "from the side of the king," representing the Aramaic "missad malkuta'" ----"from the side of the kingdom"]. And in this passage the Jews have ventured some such deduction as this: the side of the king is tantamount to the queen or his concubines and other wives who slept at his side. And so they were seeking for a pretext in things of this sort, to see whether they could accuse Daniel of wrong in his speech or touch or movements of his head or any of his sensory organs. But, say the Jews, they could find no cause for suspicion whatsoever. Since he was a eunuch, they could not even accuse him on the score of lewdness. This interpretation was made by those [Jews], who make a practice of fabricating long tales on the pretext of a single word. I myself would simply interpret this as meaning that they were unable to discover any pretext of accusation against him in any matter in which he had injured the king, for the simple reason that (p. 524) he was a faithful man and no suspicion of blame was discoverable in him. Instead of "suspicion" Theodotion and Aquila have rendered "offense" (amblakema), which is essaitha in the Chaldee (B). And when I asked a Jew for the meaning of this word, he replied that the basic significance of it was "snare," and we may render it as a "lure" or sphalma, that is, a "mistake." Furthermore Euripides in his |65 "Medea" equates the word amplakiai ["offenses"] (spelling it with a p instead of a b) to hamartiai, that is to say, "sins."
Verse 5. "Therefore those men said: 'We will not find any pretext against Daniel, except perhaps in the law of his God.'" Blessed indeed is a life so led that even enemies can find no cause for accusation, except perhaps in matter pertaining to God's law.
Verse 6. "Then the princes and satraps privily withdrew to the king and thus spoke to him." It was well said that they privily withdrew [or "went surreptitiously"] for they did not come right out with what they were aiming at, but contrived their plot against a private enemy on the pretext of honoring the king.
Verse 8. "Now therefore, O king, confirm the measure and write the decree so that it may not be altered, (659) according to the custom established by the Medes and Persians." It is perfectly evident, as we have remarked above, that there was only one kingdom of the Medes and Persians both, under the rule of Darius and Cyrus.
Verse 10. "Now when Daniel learned of it, that is, of the law which had been enacted, he entered his house, and with the windows in his upper room opened up in the direction of Jerusalem, he continued to bow his knees three times a day and worshipped, and made confession before his God just as he was previously accustomed to do." We must quickly draw from our memory and bring together from all of Holy Scripture all the passages where we have read of domata, which mean in Latin either "walled enclosures" (menia) (C) or "beds" or "sun-terraces," and also the references to anogaia (D), that is, "upper rooms." For after all, our Lord celebrated the passover in an upper room (Matt. 14), and in the Acts of the Apostles the Holy Spirit came upon the one hundred and twenty souls of believers while they were in an upper room (Acts 2). And so Daniel in this case, despising the king's commands and reposing his confidence in God, does not offer his prayers in some obscure spot, but in a lofty place, and opens up his windows towards Jerusalem, from whence he looked for the peace [of God]. He prays, moreover, according to God's behest, and also according to what Solomon had said when he admonished the people that they should pray in the |66 direction of the Temple. Furthermore, there are three times in the day when we should bow our knees unto God, and the tradition of the Church understands them to be the third hour, the sixth hour, and the ninth hour [i.e., 9:00 A.M., 12:00 M., and 3:00 P.M.]. Lastly, it was at the third hour that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles (Acts 3) [misprint for Acts 2:15]. It was at the sixth hour that Peter, purposing to eat, ascended to the upper room for prayer (Acts 10). It was at the ninth hour that Peter and John were on their way to the Temple (Acts 3).
Verse 11. "Those men, therefore, conducted an inquisitive search and discovered Daniel in prayer and making supplication unto his (p. 525) God." From this passage we learn that we are not to expose ourselves rashly to danger, but so far as it lies in our power, we are to avoid the plots of our enemies. And so in Daniel's case, he did not contravene the king's authority in a public square or out in the street, but rather in a private place, in order that he might not neglect the commands of the one true God Almighty.
Verse 12. " 'Hast thou not ordained, O king, that any man who makes a request of any other person besides thee, whether god or man, shall be thrown into the lion-pit?' The king answered them, saying...." They do not mention Daniel's name, so that when the king has made a general answer as to the order he gave, he may then be bound by his own word, and not deal with Daniel in any other fashion than he has stated.
" 'What you have said is true, according to the decree of the Medes and Persians, which it is not lawful to violate.' " We repeatedly take note of every passage which speaks of the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, so that we may dispose of the knotty problem of why Daniel speaks of the kingdom in one place as being under Darius, and in another as being under Cyrus.
Verse 13. "Then they answered before the king and said, 'Daniel, who is of the captivity of Judah, has paid no heed to thy law....'" In order to magnify (A) the dishonor involved in this contempt, they speak of the man who showed this contempt for the king's commands as a mere captive.
Verse 14. "And when the king heard this |67 statement, he became quite grieved and applied himself on Daniel's behalf that he might deliver him." He realized that he had been tripped up by his own reply to their question, and also that envy was the motive of their plot. And so to avoid the appearance of acting against his own law, he wanted to deliver Daniel from danger by ingenuity and strategy rather than by exerting his royal authority. And so earnestly did he labor and strive that he would not accept any food, absolute monarch though he was, even until sunset. And as for the plotters, so firmly did they persist in their evil purpose that no consideration of the king's personal desire or of the damage he would sustain had any effect upon them.
Verse 15. "But those men, understanding the king's intent, said to him: 'Be it known to thee, O king, that no law of the Medes and Persians, nor any decree which the king has enacted, is capable of alteration.' " Just as the king understood that the princes were making their accusation out of motives of envy, so also they for their part understood what the king's purpose was, namely that he wished to rescue Daniel from imminent death. And so they allege that according to the law of the Medes and Persians, the commands of a king cannot be nullified.
Verse 16. "Then the king gave order, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the pit of lions. And the king said to Daniel: 'Thy God whom thou dost ever serve will Himself deliver thee.'" He gives way to the crowd and dares not to withhold from his plotting adversaries the death of his friend, and he commits to the power of God the purpose which he himself was unable to attain. Nor does he use the language of doubt, so as to say, "If He be able to deliver thee"; but rather he speaks with boldness and confidence and says, "The God whom thou dost ever serve shall Himself deliver thee." He had heard, of course, that three youths who were of a lower rank than Daniel himself had triumphed over the flames of Babylon. He had heard that many secrets had been revealed to Daniel, and therefore regarded him highly, (p. 526) and held him, captive though he was, in the greatest honor.
Verse 17. "A single stone was brought and placed over the opening of the pit, and the king sealed it with his ring...." He sealed with his ring the rock by which the |68 opening of the pit was shut up, so that the enemies of Daniel might not make any attempt to harm him. For he had entrusted him to the power of God, and although not worried about lions, he was fearful of men. He also sealed it with the ring of his nobles, in order to avoid all ground for suspicion so far as they were concerned.
Verse 18. "And the king departed to his own house, and went to bed without partaking of supper...." How sincere was the king's good will, when he would not touch food night or day or grant his eyelids sleep, but as long as the prophet was in danger he himself remained in a state of sympathetic suspense. But if a king who knew not God did such a thing for another man whose deliverance he desired, how much more ought we to implore God's mercy for our own sins with fastings and watchings.
Verse 19. "Then the king arose at the break of dawn and proceeded with haste to the pit of lions." The term "pit" (lacus) implies a really deep depression, or dry cistern, in which the lions were fed. And so he proceeded hastily to the pit at the break of dawn, believing that Daniel was alive. But in Latin the word lacus is applied to a body of fresh water, such as Lake Benacus [the modern Garda] and Lake Larius [now Lake Como], and the rest of them. The Greeks call it limne, that is, "a body of standing water" (stagnum).
Verse 20. "And approaching the pit, he called out to Daniel with a tear-choked voice and addressed him." By his tears he showed his inner emotion, and forgetting his royal dignity, the conqueror ran to his captive, the master to his servant.
Verse 20b. " 'O Daniel, servant of the living God....'" He calls Him the living God in order to distinguish Him from the gods of the Gentiles, who are but effigies of the dead.
" 'Dost thou deem that thy God, whom thou ever servest, has been able to deliver thee from the lions?' " It was not that he had any doubts about the power of the God of whom he had previously affirmed, "Thy God, whom thou ever servest, will Himself deliver thee." But he phrased the sentence doubtfully in order that when Daniel [reading "Daniel" instead of the |69 meaningless ablative "Daniele"] made his appearance unharmed, the king's anger at the princes might seem the more justified, in proportion to the incredibility of the event.
Verse 21. "'O king, live forever!'" Daniel honors the one who accords honor to him, and prays for him eternal life.
Verse 22. (662) " 'My God sent His angel and shut up the lions' mouths, and they did me no harm....'" The fierceness of the lions was not altered, but their gaping jaws were closed by the angel, and also their voracious hunger, and that too for the reason that the prophet's good works had gone before him. And so his deliverance was not so much a matter of grace as of reward for his unrightness. And these words might be uttered by every saint, for he has been snatched from the mouths of lions unseen and from the infernal pit, because he has trusted in his God.
Verses 25-27. "Then king Darius wrote unto all the peoples, tribes and language-groups who dwelt in all (p. 527) the earth, saying: (A) 'Your peace be multiplied! I have enacted a decree that in all my empire and kingdom men are to dread and tremble before the God of Daniel. For it is He who is the living God and the One who abides forever, and His rule shall not be overthown, and His power shall eternally endure. It is He who is the Deliverer and Savior, who performs signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, and who has delivered Daniel from the pit of lions.'" Just as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar's writing unto the language-groups and nations one authority has interpreted them to signify hostile powers, so also this same man interprets the action of Darius, on the ground that he summons them all to repentance. And he poses the question as to whether this will take place in this world or in the other world, or even after other worlds have intervened. We deem these speculations to be absurd and account them as empty fables, and make this single observation: that the reason why signs are performed amid barbarian peoples through the agency of God's servants is that the worship and religion of the only God may be proclaimed.
Verse 28. "Thereafter Daniel lived on until the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian." And so the statement which we read above at the end of the first vision, "And Daniel lived until the first year of King Cyrus," is not to be |70 understood as defining the span of his life. In view of the fact that we read in the last vision: "In the third year of Cyrus, King of the Persians, a word was revealed to Daniel, whose surname was Belteshazzar"; this is what is meant, that up to the first year of King Cyrus, who destroyed the empire of the Chaldeans, Daniel continued in power in Chaldea, but was afterwards transferred to Media by Darius. |71
CHAPTER SEVEN
Verse 1. "In the first year of Belshazzar, King [reading regis for regias] of Babylon, Daniel beheld a dream. And a vision of his head [came to him] upon his bed. And when he wrote the dream down, he comprehended it in a few words and gave a brief summary of it, saying...." This section (663) which we now undertake to explain, and also the subsequent section which we are going to discuss, is historically prior to the two previous sections [i.e., chap. 5 and chap. 6]. For this present section and that which follows it are recorded to have taken place in the first and third years of the reign of King Belshazzar (Jer. 39). [Jerome's citation of Jer. 39 seems quite pointless in this connection.] But the section which we read previously to the one just preceding this [i.e., chap. 5], is recorded to have taken place in the last year, indeed on the final day, of Belshaz-zar's reign. And we meet this phenomenon not only in Daniel but also in Jeremiah [cf. Jer. 35 and Jer. 34] and Ezekiel (Ezek. 17), as we shall be able to show, if life spares us that long. But in the earlier portion of the book, the historical order has been followed, namely the events which occurred in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar, and Darius or Cyrus. But in the passages now before us an account is given of various visions which were beheld on particular occasions and of which only the prophet himself was aware, and which therefore lacked any importance as signs or revelations so far as the barbarian nations were concerned. But they were written down only that a record of the things beheld might be preserved for posterity.
Verses 2, 3. "And during the night I saw in my vision, and behold, the four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea, and four great beasts were coming up out of the sea, differing from one another." The four winds of heaven I suppose to have been angelic powers to whom the principalities have been (p. 528) committed, in accordance with what we read in |72 Deuteronomy: "When the Most High divided the nations and when He separated the children of Adam, He established the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the angels. [Jerome here follows uncritically the Septuagint, which read benev 'el ("sons of God") instead of the Massoretic beney Yisra'el ("sons of Israel"). Since in his own Vulgate translation Jerome followed the Massoretic text and rendered filiorum Israel, he must have written this Commentary before he translated the Pentateuch.] For the Lord's portion is His people; Jacob is the line of His inheritance (B) (Deut. 32:8). But the sea signifies this world and the present age, overwhelmed with salty and bitter waves, in accordance with the Lord's own interpretation of the dragnet cast into the sea (Matt. 13). Hence also the sovereign of all creatures that inhabit the waters is described as a dragon, and his heads, according to David, are smitten in the sea (Ps. 73). And in Amos we read: "If he descends to the very depth of the sea, there will I give him over to the dragon and he shall bite him" (Amos 9:3). But as for the four beasts who came up out of the sea and were differentiated from one another, we may identify them from the angel's discourse. "These four great beasts," he says, "are four kingdoms which shall rise up from the earth." And as for the four winds which strove in the great sea, they are called winds of heaven because each one of the angels does for his realm the duty entrusted to him. This too should be noted, that the fierceness and (664) cruelty of the kingdoms concerned are indicated by the term "beasts."
Verse 4. "The first beast was like a lioness and possessed the wings of an eagle. I beheld until her wings were torn away, and she was raised upright from the ground and stood on her feet like a human being, and she was given a human heart." The kingdom of the Babylonians was not called a lion but a lioness, on account of its brutality and cruelty, or else because of its luxurious, lust-serving manner of life. [Actually Jerome errs in rendering 'aryeh as lioness, for it is the regular masculine form for "lion" in Aramaic, "lioness" being 'aryuta'. Perhaps Jerome mistook the he in the unpointed text before him as the common feminine ending----ah. Or else he simply relied uncritically upon the Septuagint, which commits the same error.] For writers upon the natural history of beasts assert that lionesses are fiercer than |73 lions, especially if they are nursing their cubs, and constantly are passionate in their desire for sexual relations. And as for the fact that she possessed eagle's wings, this indicates the pride of the all-powerful kingdom, the ruler of which declares in Isaiah: "Above the stars of heaven will I place my throne, and I shall be like unto the Most High" (Isa. 14). Therefore he is told: "Though thou be borne on high like an eagle, thence will I drag thee down" (Obad.). Moreover, just as the lion occupies kingly rank among beasts, so also the eagle among the birds. But it should also be said that the eagle enjoys a long span of life, and that the kingdom of Assyrians had held sway for many generations. And as for the fact that the wings of the lioness or eagle were torn away, this signifies the other kingdoms over which it had ruled and soared about in the world. "And she was raised up," he says, "from the ground"; which means, of course (C), that the Chaldean empire was overthrown. And as for what follows, "And she stood upon her feet like a human being, and she was given a human heart," if we understand this as applying to Nebuchadnezzar, it is very evident that after he lost his kingdom and his power had been taken away from him, and after he was once more restored to his original state, he not only learned to be a man instead of a lioness but he also received back the heart which he had lost. But if on the other hand this is to be understood as applying in a general way to the kingdom of the Chaldeans, then it signifies that after Belshazzar was slain [reading interfecto for the impossible inperfecto of the text], and the Medes and Persians succeeded to imperial power, then the men of Babylon realized that theirs was a frail and lowly nature after all. Note the order followed here: the lioness is equivalent to the golden head of the image [in chap. 2] (p. 529).
Verse 5. "And behold another beast like a bear stood up on one side; and there were three rows in his mouth and in his teeth; and they said to him: 'Arise up and devour flesh in abundance.' " The second beast resembling a bear is the same as that of which we read in the vision of the statue (2:32): "His chest and arms were of silver." In the former case the comparison was based on the hardness of the metal, in this case on the ferocity of the bear. For the Persian kingdom followed a rigorous and frugal manner of life (665) after the manner of the Spartans, and |74 that too to such an extent that they used to use salt and nasturtium-cress in their relish. Let us consult the record of the childhood of Cyrus the Great (i.e., "The Education or Training" of Cyrus) [Jerome refers here to Xenophon's "Cyropaideia"]. And as for the fact that the bear is said to have "stood up on one side," the Hebrews interpret it by saying that the Persians never perpetrated any cruelty against Israel. Hence they are described in the Prophecy of Zechariah also as white horses (Zech. 1). But as for the three rows or ranks that were in his mouth and between his teeth, one authority has interpreted this to mean that allusion was made to the fact that the Persian kingdom was divided up among three princes, just as we read in the sections dealing with Belshazzar and with Darius that there were three princes who were in charge of the one hundred and twenty satraps. But other commentators affirm that these were three kings of the Persians who were subsequent to Cyrus, and yet they fail to mention them by name (A). But we know that after Cyrus's reign of thirty years his son Cambyses ruled among the Persians, and his brothers the magi [the plural seems unwarranted, since there was but one brother involved, namely, Smerdis], and then Darius, in the second year of whose reign the rebuilding of the Temple was commenced at Jerusalem. The fifth king was Xerxes, the son of Darius; the sixth was Artabanus [actually only the assassin of Xerxes; he never became king]; the seventh, Artaxerxes who was surnamed Makrokheir, that is Longimanus ("Long-handed"); the eighth, (B) Xerxes; the ninth, Sogdianus [the reigns of the last two totaled no more than eight months]; the tenth, Darius surnamed Nothos ("Bastard"); the eleventh, the Artaxerxes called Mnemon, that is, "The Rememberer"; the twelfth, the other Artaxerxes, who himself received the surname of Ochus; the thirteenth, Arses, the son of Ochus; and the fourteenth, Darius the son of Arsamus, who was conquered by Alexander, the king of the Macedonians. How then can we say that these were three kings of the Persians? Of course we could select some who were especially cruel, but we cannot ascertain them on the basis of the historical accounts. Therefore the three rows in the mouth of the Persian kingdom and between its teeth we must take to be the three kingdoms of the Babylonians, the Medes, and the Persians, all of which were reduced to a single realm. And as for |75 the information, "And thus they spake to him: 'Devour flesh in abundance,' " this refers to the time when in the reign of the Ahasuerus whom the Septuagint calls Artaxerxes, the order was given, at the suggestion of Haman the Agagite, that all the Jews be slaughtered on a single day (Esth. 3). And very properly, instead of saying, "He was devouring them" the account specifies, "Thus they spake unto him...." This shows that the matter was only attempted, and was by no means ever carried out.
Verse 6. "After this I beheld, and lo, there was another beast (C) like unto a leopard, and it had jour wings of a bird (666) all its own [?the per se here is obscure], and there were four heads to the beast, and power was given to it." The third kingdom was that of the Macedonians, of which we read in connection with the image, "The belly and thighs were of bronze." It is compared to a leopard because it is very swift and hormetikos [impetuous], and it charges headlong to shed blood, and with a single bound rushes (p. 530) to its death. "And it had four wings...." There was never, after all, any victory won more quickly than Alexander's, for he traversed all the way from Illyricum and the Adriatic Sea to the Indian Ocean and the Ganges River, not merely fighting battles but winning decisive victories; and in six years he subjugated to his rule a portion of Europe and all of Asia. And by the four heads reference is made to his generals who subsequently rose up as successors to his royal power, namely Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip [i.e., Philip Arrhidaeus, an illegitimate brother of Alexander, who was proclaimed king upon Alexander's death, but never exercised genuine power, and died after seven years], and Antigonus [the precursor of Seleucus in the rule of the Asiatic portion of Alexander's empire]. "And power was given to it" shows that the empire did not result from Alexander's bravery but from the will of God.
Verse 7. "After this, I beheld in the night-vision, and behold, there was a fourth beast, terrible and wonderful and exceedingly strong. He had large iron teeth, devouring and crushing, and everything that was left he stamped to pieces under his feet." The fourth empire is the Roman Empire, which now occupies the entire world, and concerning which it was said in connection with the image, "Its lower legs were of iron, and part of its feet were of iron, and part of clay." And yet from the iron |76 portion itself Daniel calls to mind that its teeth were iron, and solemnly avers that they were large in size. I find it strange that although he had set forth a lioness, a bear and a leopard in the case of the three previous kingdoms, he did not compare the Roman realm to any sort of beast. Perhaps it was in order to render the beast fearsome indeed that he gave it no name, intending thereby that we should understand the Romans to partake of all the more ferocious characteristics we might think of in connection with beasts. The Hebrews believe that the beast which is here not named is the one spoken of in the Psalms: "A boar from the forest laid her waste, and a strange wild animal consumed her" (Ps. 79:14). [This is the citation according to the Septuagint and Vulgate, whose translation of the Septuagint is here quoted; but the citation in the Hebrew text is Ps. 80:14, and in the English Version, 80:13.] Instead of this the Hebrew reads: "All the beasts of the field have torn her." [A more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be: "...and the moving creatures (or "swarms") of the field do feed upon her."] While they are all included in the one Empire of the Romans, we recognize at the same time those kingdoms which were previously separate. And as for the next statement, "...devouring and crushing, and pounding all the rest to pieces under his feet," this signifies that all nations have either been slain by the Romans or else have been subjected to tribute and servitude.
"...But it did not resemble the other beasts which I had previously seen" (Vulgate: "...which I had seen before it"). In the earlier beasts he had seen various symbols of fright-fulness, but they were all concentrated in this one.
"...and it had ten horns." Porphyry assigned the last two beasts, that of the Macedonians and that of the Romans, to the one realm of the Macedonians and divided them up as follows. He claimed that the leopard was Alexander himself, and that the beast which was dissimilar to the others represented the four successors of Alexander, and then he enumerates ten kings up to the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, and who were very cruel. And he did not assign the kings themselves to separate kingdoms, for example Macedon, Syria, Asia, or Egypt, but rather he made out the various kingdoms a single realm consisting of a series. This he did of course in order that the words |77 which were written: "...a mouth uttering overweening boasts" [in the last part of verse 8] might be considered as spoken about Antiochus instead of about Antichrist.
Verse 8. "I was looking at the horns, and behold, another small horn rose up out of the midst of them, and three of the earlier horns were torn away before it. And behold, there were in that horn eyes like unto human eyes, and a mouth uttering overweening boasts." Porphyry vainly surmises that the little (p. 531) horn which rose up after the ten horns is Antiochus Epiphanes, and that the three uprooted horns out of the ten are (A) Ptolemy VI (surnamed Philometer), Ptolemy VII (Euergetes), and Artaraxias, King of Armenia. The first two of these kings died long before Antiochus was born. Against Artarxias, to be sure, we know that Antiochus indeed waged war, but also we know that Artarxias remained in possession of his original kingly authority. We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings, that is, the king of Egypt, the king of [North] Africa, and the king of Ethiopia, as we shall show more clearly in our later discussion. Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings also will bow their necks to the victor. "And behold," he continues, "there were eyes like unto human eyes in that horn." Let us not follow the opinion of some commentators and suppose him to be either the Devil or some demon, but rather, one of the human race, in whom Satan will wholly take up his residence in bodily form. "...and a mouth uttering overweening boasts..." (cf. II Thess. 2). For this is the man of sin, the son (668) of perdition, and that too to such a degree that he dares to sit in the temple of God, making himself out to be like God.
Verse 9. "I beheld until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of days took His seat. His garment was as white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was composed of fiery flames and its wheels were set on fire. From before His presence there issued forth a rushing, fiery stream." We read something similar in John's Apocalypse: (Rev. 4:2 ff.) |78 "After these things I was immediately in the Spirit, and lo, a throne was set up in heaven, and one was seated upon the throne; and He who sat upon it had the likeness of jasper and sardine stone, and there was a rainbow round about the throne like the appearance of emerald. Around the throne there were twenty-four other thrones, and upon the twenty-four thrones there sat twenty-four elders, clothed in shining garments; upon their heads was a golden crown (B), and lightning flashes issued from the throne, and voices and thunder. And in front of the throne there were seven torches of burning fire, which were the seven spirits of God. And in front of the throne lay a glassy sea like unto crystal." And so the many thrones which Daniel saw seem to me to be what John called the twenty-four thrones. And the Ancient (C) of days is the One who, according to John (p. 532) sits alone upon His throne. Likewise the Son of man, who came unto the Ancient of days, is the same as He who, according to John, is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5), the Root of David, and the titles of that sort. I imagine that these thrones are the ones of which the Apostle Paul says, "Whether thrones or dominions..." (Col. 1:16). And in the Gospel we read, "Ye yourselves shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 10:28). And God is called the One who sits and who is the Ancient of days, in order that His character as eternal Judge might be indicated. His garment is shining white like the snow, and the hair of His head is like pure wool. The Savior also, when He was transfigured on the mount and assumed the glory of His divine majesty, appeared in shining white garments (Matt. 17). And as for the fact that His hair is compared to perfectly pure wool, the even-handedness and uprightness of His judgment is shown forth, a judgment which shows no partiality in its exercise. Moreover He is described as an elderly man, in order that the ripeness of His judgment may be established. His throne consists of fiery flames, in order that sinners may tremble before the severity of the (669) torments [of hell], and also that the just may be saved, but so as by fire. The wheels of the throne are set aflame, or else it is the wheels of His chariot which are aflame. In Ezekiel also God is ushered on the scene seated in a four-horse chariot (Ez. 1), and everything pertaining to God is of a fiery consistency. In another place also a statement is made on this subject: "God |79 is a consuming fire" (Deut. 4:24), that we might know that wood, hay and stubble are going to burn up in the day of judgment. And in the Psalms we read: "Fire goeth before Him, and He shall set aflame all His enemies round about Him" (Ps. 96:3). A rushing, fiery stream proceeded from before Him in order that it might carry sinners to hell (Gehenna).
Verse 10. "There were millions ministering unto Him, and a billion stood by His side." [The Aramaic original is more conservative: "A million were ministering unto Him, and a hundred million were standing (in His presence)."] This was not intended to be a specific number for the servants of God, but only indicates a multitude too great for human computation. These are the thousands and tens of thousands of which we read in the Psalms: "The chariot of God is attended by ten thousands; thousands of them that rejoice. The Lord is among them" (Ps. 67:18). And in another place: "He who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming fire" (Ps. 103:4). [The Protestant reader should always add one to the Vulgate Psalm-number in order to arrive at the Psalm-number of the Hebrew Bible or the English Version.] Now the duty of angels is twofold: the duty of one group is to bestow rewards upon just men; the duty of the other is to have charge over individual calamities [i.e., calamities in the lives of individuals? The original is: qui singulis praesunt cruciatibus]. (D)
"... The court was in session, and the books were opened." The consciences of men, and the deeds of individuals which partake of either character, whether good or bad, are disclosed to all. One of the books is the good book of which we (p. 533) often read, namely the book of the living. The other is the evil book which is held in the hand of the accuser, who is the fiend and avenger of whom we read in Revelation: "The accuser of our brethren" (Rev. 12:10). This is the earthly book of which the prophet says: "Let them be written on earth" (Jer. 17:13).
Verse 11. "I looked on because of the sound of the lofty words which that horn was uttering." The judgment of God descends for the humbling of pride. Hence the Roman Empire also will be destroyed, because [it is] the horn [which] was uttering the lofty words.
"...And I saw that the beast was slain and its body |80 perished." In the one empire of the Romans, all the kingdoms at once are to be destroyed, because of the blasphemy of the Antichrist. (670) And the [succeeding] empire shall not be an earthly empire at all, but it is simply the abode of the saints which is spoken of here, and the advent of the conquering Son of God.
Verses 13, 14. "And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man." He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven" (Acts 1:11).
"...And He arrived unto the Ancient of days, and they brought Him before His presence, and He gave unto Him authority and honor and royal power." All that is said here concerning His being brought before Almighty God and receiving authority and honor and royal power is to be understood in the light of the Apostle's statement: "Who, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and was found in His condition to be as a man: He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:6-8). And if the sect of the Arians were willing to give heed to all this Scripture with a reverent mind, they would never direct against the Son of God the calumny that He is not on an equality with God.
"...And He is the one whom all the peoples, tribes, and language-groups shall serve. His authority is an eternal authority which shall not be removed, and His kingdom shall be one that shall never be destroyed...." Let Porphyry answer the query of whom out of all mankind this language might apply to, or who this person might be who was so powerful as to break and smash to pieces the little horn, whom he interprets to be Antiochus? If he replies that the princes of Antiochus were defeated |81 by Judas Maccabaeus, then he must explain how Judas could be said to come with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man, and to be brought unto the Ancient of days, and how it could be said that authority and royal power was bestowed upon him, and that all (671) peoples and tribes and language-groups served him, and that his power is eternal and not terminated by any conclusion (p. 534).
Verses 17, 18. "These four great beasts are the four kingdoms which shall arise from the earth. But the saints of the Most High God shall take the kingdom." The four kingdoms of which we have spoken above were earthly in character. "For everything which is of the earth shall return to earth" (Eccl. 3:20). But the saints shall never possess an earthly kingdom, but only a heavenly. Away, then, with the fable about a millennium! [Cesset ergo mille annorum fabula.]
"...And they shall possess the kingdom unto eternity, even forever and ever...." If this be taken to refer to the Maccabees, the advocate of this position should explain how the kingdom of the Maccabees is of a perpetual character.
Verse 25. "And he shall utter (variant: "he utters") speeches against the Lofty One." Or else, as Symmachus has rendered it: "He utters speeches like God," so that one who assumes the authority of God will also arrogate to himself the words of divine majesty.
"...And he shall crush the saints of the Most High, and will suppose himself to be able to alter times and laws." The Antichrist will wage war against the saints and will overcome them; and he shall exalt himself to such a height of arrogance (A) as to attempt changing the very laws of God and the sacred rites as well. He will also lift himself up against all that is called God, subjecting all religion to his own authority.
"...And they shall be delivered into his hand for a time, and times, and half a time." "Time" is equivalent to "year." The word "times," according to the idiom of the Hebrews (who also possess the dual number) represents "two years." [The Aramaic original here, according to the Massoretic vowel pointing, has the plural ending ----iyn, not the dual ending ----ayin. To be sure, the consonantal text could also be pointed as dual.] The half a year signifies "six months." During this period the saints |82 are to be given over to the power of the Antichrist, in order that those Jews might be condemned who did not believe the truth but supported a lie. The Savior also speaks of this period in the Gospel, saying: "Unless those days had been cut short, no flesh would be saved" (Matt. 24:22). In the final vision we shall assert the inappropriateness of this period to Antiochus.
Verse 26. "And the court will sit in judgment, that (Antichrist's) power may be taken away and be crushed in pieces and utterly perish even unto the end." This refers to Antichrist, that is, to the little horn which uttered the lofty words, for his kingdom is to be permanently destroyed. (672)
Verse 27. "But kingdom and power and a vast realm comprising all that is under heaven shall be conferred upon the nation of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an eternal kingdom, and whom all kings shall serve and obey." Here the reference is to Christ's empire, which is eternal.
Verse 28. "Thus far is the end of the word." That is, "the end of that word and discourse which the Lord revealed to me in this present vision."
"...I, Daniel, was much troubled with my thoughts (B), and my countenance was altered within me; but I preserved the word in my heart." Up to this point the Book of Daniel was written in the Chaldee and Syriac language. All the rest that follows up to the very end of the volume we read in Hebrew. |83
CHAPTER EIGHT
Verse 1. (p. 535) "In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar, a vision appeared to me. I, Daniel, after what I had seen at the first...." This vision came two years after the previous revelation, for the latter was beheld in the first year of Belshazzar, whereas this was beheld in the third year. And so he informs us: "...after that which I had seen at the first."
Verse 2. "I saw in my vision while I was in the castle of Susa, which is in the region of Elam" (Vulgate: "city of Elam"). Or else we may render, as Symmachus has translated it, "...in the city of Elam," from which of course the region took its name, just as the Babylonians were named from Babylon. So also the Elamites were thus named from Elam, in consequence of which the Septuagint translates it: "the region of Elamais." And Susis [that is, "Susa"] is the chief city of the region of the Elamites, and there, according to Josephus' account (A), Daniel erected a lofty tower fashioned of square blocks of marble, and of such outstanding beauty that it seems newly built even up to the present day. There also the remains of the kings of the Persians and Medes lie buried, and the custodian or sacristan and priest of that locality is a Jew. "While I was in the castle at Susa...." Not that the city itself is a castle, for as we have stated, it is a chief city of great power; but rather that the city is so solidly built that it looks like a castle.
"And I saw in the vision that I was over the gate of Ulai." Instead of this Aquila translated:"...over the Ubal of Ulai"; Theodotion rendered: "above Ubal"; Symmachus: "above the swamp of Ulai"; the Septuagint: (B) "above the gate of Ulai." But it should be understood that Ulai is the name of a place, or else of a gate, just as there was in Troy a gate called the Skaia ["Western"], and among the Romans there is one called Carmentalis. In each case the name has originated from special circumstances. [Actually the Hebrew word " 'uwbal" is a common noun |84 meaning "canal"; the proper translation would be: "I was by the Ulai Canal."]
Verse 3. "And I lifted up my eyes and saw." Yet of course one only sees in dreams things which appear as shadowy representations, naturally, and as mere likenesses, rather than our being able to behold the reality of the objects themselves (C).
"And behold, a ram stood in front of the swamp (or: in front of the gate ---- the word being UBAL in the Hebrew), having lofty horns, one of which was higher than the other and growing yet larger." He calls Darius, Cyrus's uncle, a ram. He reigned over the Medes after his father, Astyages. And the one horn which was higher than the other, and growing still larger, signified Cyrus himself, who succeeded his maternal grandfather, Astyages, and reigned over the Medes and Persians along with his uncle, Darius, whom the Greeks called Cyaxeres.
Verse 4. "After this I saw the ram pushing with its horns westward (D) and northward and southward...." Not that he saw the ram itself, that is, the ram of Cyrus or Darius, but rather the ram of the same kingdom as theirs, that is, the second Darius, who was the last king of the Persian power, and who was overcome by the king of the Macedonians, Alexander the son of Philip. And as to the fact that Darius was a very powerful and wealthy king, both the Greek and the Latin and the barbarian historical accounts so relate.
Verse 5. "And I myself understood...." On the basis of the previous visions which had symbolized the second kingdom by the ram and the he-goat, Daniel now also understood that he was looking at the empire of the Medes and Persians.
"And behold, there was a he-goat which was coming from the West above the surface of the whole earth, and yet without touching the ground...." So that no one will think that I am attaching a private interpretation to this, let us simply repeat the words of Gabriel as he explained the prophet's vision. He said, "The ram whom thou sawest to possess two horns is the king of the Medes and Persians." This was, of course, Darius the son of Arsames, in whose reign the kingdom of the Medes and Persians was destroyed. "There was in addition a he-goat, who was coming from the west," and because of his extraordinary |85 speed he appeared not to touch the ground. This was Alexander, the king of the Greeks, who after the overthrow of Thebes took up arms against the Persians. Commencing the conflict at the Granicus River, he conquered the generals of Darius and finally smashed against (674) the ram himself and broke in pieces his two horns, the Medes and the Persians. Casting him beneath his feet, he subjected both horns to his own authority.
"And (he had) a large horn...." refers to the first king, Alexander himself. When he died in Babylon at the age of thirty-two, his four generals rose up in his place and divided his empire among themselves. For Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, seized Egypt; the Philip who was also called Aridaeus (var.: Arius), the (half-) brother of Alexander took over Macedonia; Seleucus Nicanor took over Syria, Babylonia, and all the kingdoms of the East; and Antigonus ruled over Asia Minor. "But (they shall not rise up) with his power" (chap. 8:22), since no one was able to equal the greatness of Alexander himself. "And a long time afterward" there shall arise "a king of Syria who shall be of shameless countenance and shall understand (evil) counsels," even Antiochus Epiphanes, the son of the Seleucus who was also called Philopator.
Verse 9. After he had been a hostage to Rome, and had without the knowledge of the Senate obtained rule by treachery, Antiochus fought with Ptolemy Philometor, that is, "against the South" and against Egypt; and then again "against the East," and against those who were fomenting revolution in Persia. At the last he fought against the Jews and captured Judea, entering into Jerusalem and setting up in the Temple of God the statue of Jupiter Olympius. "...and against the power of heaven," that is, against the children of Israel, who were protected by the assistance of angels. He pushed his arrogance to such an extreme that he subjected the majority of the saints to the worship of idols, as if he would tread the very stars beneath his feet. And thus it came to pass that he held the South and the East, that is, Egypt and Persia, under his sway.
Verses 11, 12. And as for the statement, "And he glorified himself even against the Prince of Power," this means that he lifted himself up against God and persecuted His saints. He even took away the endelekhismos or "continual offering" |86 which was customarily sacrificed in the morning and at even, and he prevailed to the casting down of the "place of His sanctuary." And he did not do this by his own prowess, but only "on account of the sins of the people." And thus it came to pass that truth was prostrated upon the ground, and as the worship of idols flourished, the religion of God suffered an eclipse.
Verse 13. "And I heard one of the saints speaking, and one saint said to another saint (I do not know which one), who was conversing with him." Instead of "another one which one I do not know" ---- the rendering of Symmachus (p. 537) (A) (tini pote) which I too have followed ---- Aquila and (675) Theodotion, and the Septuagint as well, have simply put the Hebrew word (p-l-m-n-y) phelmoni (B) itself. Without specifying the angel's name, I should say that the author indicated some one of the angels or other in a general way.
" 'How long shall be the vision concerning the continual sacrifice and the sin of the desolation that is made, and the sanctuary and the strength be trodden under foot?'" One angel asks another angel for how long a period the Temple is by the judgment of God to be desolated under the rule of Antiochus, King of Syria, and how long the image of Jupiter is to stand in God's Temple (according to his additional statement: "... and the sanctuary and the strength be trodden under foot?").
Verse 14. And he answered him, " 'Until the evening and the morning, until two thousand three hundred days (C); and then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.' " If we read the Books of Maccabees and the history of Josephus, we shall find it there recorded that in the one hundred and forty-third year after the Seleucus who first reigned in Syria after the decease of Alexander, Antiochus entered Jerusalem, and after wreaking a general devastation he returned again in the third year and set up the statue of Jupiter in the Temple. Up until the time of Judas Macca-baeus, that is, up until the one hundred and eighth year, Jerusalem lay waste over a period of six years, and for three [of those] years the Temple lay defiled; making up a total of two thousand three hundred days plus three months. [At least that is what the text seems to say, following the present word-order. Actually the three months should be added to the six years in order to come out to a total of approximately 2300 days.] At the end of the |87 period the Temple was purged. Some authorities read two hundred instead of two thousand three hundred, in order to avoid the apparent excess involved in six years and three months. [Actually, however, 2200 days would come out to only six years and nine days; the reasoning here seems obscure.] Most of our commentators refer this passage to the Antichrist, and hold that that which occurred under Antiochus was only by way of a type which shall be fulfilled under Antichrist. And as for the statement, "The sanctuary shall be cleansed," this refers to the time of Judas Maccabaeus, who came from the village of Modin, and who being aided by the efforts of his brothers (D) and relatives and many of the Jewish people [defeated?] [the verb is left out] the generals of Antiochus not far above Emmaus (which is now called Nicopolis). And hearing of this, Antiochus, who had risen up against the Prince of princes, that is, against the Lord of lords and King of kings, was earnestly desirous of despoiling the temple of Diana which was located in Elimais, in the Persian district, because it possessed valuable votive offerings. And when he there lost his army, he was destroyed without hands, that is to say, he died of grief. As for the mention of evening and morning [in that fourteenth verse], this signifies the succession of day and night.
Verse 15. "And it came to pass that when I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it." He beheld the vision by way of a picture or likeness, and he failed to understand it. Consequently, not everyone who sees comprehends what he has seen; it is just as if we read the Holy Scripture with our eyes and do not understand it with our heart, (p. 538)
"...And behold, one stood before me who resembled the appearance of a man." Angels, after all, are not actually men by nature, but they resemble men in appearance. For example, three persons appeared as men to Abraham at the oak of Mamre (Gen. 18), and yet they certainly were not men, for one of them was worshipped as the Lord. And so the Savior also stated in the Gospel: "Abraham beheld My day; he beheld it and rejoiced" (John 8:56).
Verses 16, 17. "And I heard the voice of a man in the midst of the Ulai, and he cried out and said: 'Gabriel, make this vision intelligible (Vulgate: make this man to understand |88 the vision).' And he came and stood near to where I was standing." The Jews claim that this man who directed Gabriel to explain the vision to Daniel was Michael [himself]. Quite appropriately it was Gabriel, who has been put in charge of battles, to whom this duty was assigned, inasmuch as the vision had to do with battles and contests between kings and even between kingdoms themselves. For Gabriel is translated into our language as "the strength of, or the mighty one of, God." And so at that time also when the Lord was about to be born and to declare war against the demons and to triumph over the world, Gabriel came to Zacharias and to Mary (Luke 1). And then we read in the Psalms concerning the Lord in His triumph: "Who is this king of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle; He is the King of glory" (Ps. 23:8=24:8). [The point of this quotation seems to be that the Hebrew word for "mighty" is gibbowr, from the root of which comes the gabri- of Gabriel.] But whenever it is medicine or healing that is needed, it is Raphael who is sent, for his name is rendered as "the healing of," or "the medicine of God" (E)---- that is, if one cares to accept the authority of the Book of Tobias. And then, when favorable promises are made to the people, and hilasmos, which we might render as "propitiation" or (677) "expiation," is the thing required (F), then it is Michael who is directed to go, for his name means, "Who is like God?" Of course the significance of the name indicates the fact that the only true remedy is to be found in God.
"And he said to me: 'Son of man, understand that in the time of the end the vision shall be fulfilled.'" Inasmuch as Ezekiel and Daniel and Zechariah behold themselves to be often in the company of angels, they were reminded of their frailty, lest they should be lifted up in pride and imagine themselves to partake of the nature or dignity of angels. Therefore they are addressed as sons of men, in order that they might realize that they are but human beings.
Verses 18, 19. "And he touched me and stood me upon my feet, and said to me...." Overcome with terror, the prophet was lying on the ground face downward upon his hands and knees, but at the angel's touch he was raised up to a standing |89 position in order that he might without perturbation attend to and understand what was spoken.
Verse 26. "Thou therefore seal up the vision, because it shall come to pass after many days." Having explained the vision which we have examined (p. 539) above to the best of our ability, the angel Gabriel adds at the end: "Thou therefore seal up the vision, because it shall come to pass after many days." By the mention of a seal, he showed that the things spoken were of a hidden character and not accessible to the ears of the multitude, or susceptible of comprehension prior to their actual fulfilment by the events themselves.
Verse 27. "And I, Daniel, languished and was sick for some days. And when I rose from my bed, I performed the king's tasks." This is the same thing as we read in Genesis about Abraham, for after he had heard the Lord speaking to him, he averred that he was but dust and ashes (Gen. 18). And so Daniel states that he languished as a reaction to the horror of the vision, and suffered illness. And after he had risen from his sick-bed, he says he performed the tasks assigned to him by the king, rendering to all men all that was due them and bearing in mind the gospel principle: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:25).
"And I was amazed at the vision, and there was no one who could interpret it." If there was no one who could interpret it, how was it that the angel interpreted it in the previous passage? What he means is that he had heard mention of kings and did not know what their names were; he learned of things to come, but he was tossed about with uncertainty as to what time they would come to pass. And so he did the only thing he could do: he marveled at the vision, and resigned everything to God's omniscience. |90
CHAPTER NINE
Verses 1, 2. "In the first year of the Darius who was the son of Ahasuerus of the race of the Medes and who reigned over (678) the kingdom of the Chaldeans, in the first year of his reign...." This is the Darius who in cooperation with Cyrus conquered the Chaldeans and Babylonians. We are not to think of that other Darius in the second year of whose reign the Temple was built (as Porphyry supposes in making out a late date for Daniel); nor are we to think of the Darius who was vanquished by Alexander, the king of the Macedonians. He therefore adds the name of his father and also refers to his victory, inasmuch as he was the first of the race of the Medes to overthrow the kingdom of the Chaldeans. He does this to avoid any mistake in the reading which might arise from the similarity of the name.
Verse 2. "I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of the Lord had come to the prophet Jeremiah, that seventy years would be accomplished for the desolation of Jerusalem." Jeremiah had predicted seventy years for the desolation of the Temple (Jer. 52:29), at the end of which the people would again return to Judaea and build the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. But this fact did not render Daniel careless, but rather encouraged him to pray that God might through his supplications fulfil that which He had graciously promised. Thus he avoided the danger that carelessness might result in pride, and pride cause offense to the Lord. Accordingly we read in Genesis (chap. 9) [sic!] that prior to the Deluge one hundred and twenty years were appointed for men to come to repentance; and inasmuch as they refused to repent even within so long an interval of time as a hundred years, God did not wait for the remaining twenty years to be fulfilled, but brought on the punishment earlier which He had threatened for a later time. [This deduction seems to have been based upon the fact that Gen. 5:32 mentions that Noah was five hundred years old when he had begotten Ham, Shem, and Japheth, and therefore |91 was still the same age when God appointed the one hundred twenty years in Gen. 6:3. Since the Flood dried up in the six hundred and first year of Noah (8:13), therefore the waiting period could not have been more than a hundred years. Yet it could also have been that the age given in Gen. 5:32 was the age when, within the one hundred twenty year period, Noah's family was complete, the youngest son being born within that period, and being old enough to be married by the time the Flood itself actually occurred.] So also Jeremiah is told, on account of the hardness of the heart of the Jewish people: "Pray not for this people, for I will not hearken unto thee" (Jer. 7:16). Samuel also was told: "How long wilt thou mourn over Saul? I also have rejected him" (I Sam. 16:1). (p. 540) And so it was with sackcloth and ashes that Daniel besought the Lord to fulfil what He had promised, not that Daniel lacked faith concerning the future, but rather he would avoid the danger that a feeling of security might produce carelessness, and carelessness produce an offense to God.
Verse 4. "'I beseech Thee, O Lord God, who art mighty and terrible....'" That is, Thou art terrible towards those who despise Thine injunctions.
"'...Who keepest covenant and mercy towards those who love Thee and keep Thy commandments.' " It is not therefore the case that what God promises will come to pass without further ado, but rather, He fulfils His promises towards those who keep His commandments.
Verse 5. " 'We have sinned, we have behaved wickedly (A) and impiously, and we have departed....'" He reviews the sins of the people as if he were personally guilty, on the ground of his being (679) one of the people, just as we read the Apostle does also in his Epistle to the Romans.
Verse 7. " 'Justice belongeth unto Thee, O Lord, but for us there is only confusion of face....'" It is of course just that we suffer what we deserve.
Verse 8. " 'Unto Thee belongeth mercy, O Lord our God, and also propitiation....' " Concerning the same God of Whom he had previously said, "To Thee, O Lord, belongeth justice," he now says (since the Lord is not only just but also merciful): "To Thee belongeth mercy." He says this in order |92 that he might call upon the Judge to show mercy, after His sentence has been imposed.
Verse 11. "'And (the curse) has come upon us drop by drop.'" That is, Thou hast not poured out upon us all of Thy wrath, for we should not have been able to bear it, but Thou hast poured forth a mere droplet of Thy fury, in order that we might return unto Thee once we have been immeshed in Thy snare.
" 'The malediction and the curse which were written in the book of Moses, the servant of God....' " In Deuteronomy we read the curses and blessings of the Lord (Deut. 27), which were afterwards uttered in Mount Gerizim and Ebal upon the righteous and upon the sinners.
Verse 13. "'All this evil has come upon us, and we have not entreated Thy face, O Lord our God, that we might turn back from our iniquities and consider Thy truth.'" Their obduracy was so great that even in the midst of their toils they would not entreat God, and even if they had entreated Him, it would not have been a genuine entreaty, because they had not turned back from their iniquities. Yet to consider the truth of God is equivalent to turning back from iniquity.
Verse 14. " 'And the Lord hath kept watch over the evil and hath brought it upon us....'" Whenever we are rebuked because of our sins, God is keeping watch over us and visiting us with chastenment. But whenever we are left alone by God and we do not suffer judgment but are unworthy of the Lord's rebuke, then He is said to slumber. And so we read in the Psalms as well: "The Lord has risen up as one (B) who was slumbering or as a man out of a drunken sleep" (Ps. 77=78). For our wickedness and iniquity inflames God with wine, and whenever it is rebuked in our case, God is said to be keeping careful watch and to be rising up out of His drunken sleep, in order that we who are drunken with sin may be made to pay careful heed unto righteousness.
Verse 15. "'And now, O Lord our God....'" Daniel remembers God's ancient kindness in order that he may appeal to Him for a similar act of clemency.
Verse 17. "'And show Thy face upon Thy |93 sanctuary, which lies desolate.'" By deed fulfil that which Thou (p. 541) hast promised in word, for the approximate period of desolation has elapsed.
Verse 18. "For Thine own sake, O my God, incline Thine ear and hear; open Thine eyes and behold our desolation...." This appeal is couched (680) in anthropomorphic language (anthropopathos), with the implication that whenever our prayers are heard, God seems to incline His ear; and whenever God deigns to have regard to us, He appears to open His eyes; but whenever He turns His face away, we appear to be unworthy of attention either from His eyes or His ears.
Verse 20. "Now while I was yet speaking and praying and confessing my sins and the sins of my people, Israel, so as to present (Vulg.: and was presenting) my petitions in the presence of my God on behalf of the holy mountain of my God...." And so, as we have pointed out above, he not only thought upon the sins of the people but also upon his own sins, as being one of the people. Or else it was by way of humility, although he had not personally committed sin; his purpose being to obtain pardon by reason of his humility. Observe what he said here: "I was confessing my sins." For there are many passages in Scripture where confession does not imply an expression of repentance so much as an expression of praise to God.
Verse 21. "While I was still speaking in my prayer, behold the man Gabriel, whom I had seen (A) at the beginning of the vision." He calls the previous vision preceding this one the beginning. The effect of his prayer was considerable, and the promise of God was fulfilled which says, "While thou art yet speaking, lo, I am at hand" (Isa. 58:9). And Gabriel appears not as an angel or archangel, but as a man (vir), a term used to indicate the quality of virtue rather than specifying his sex.
"...he quickly flew to me and touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice." It is stated that he flew, because he had made his appearance as a man. It is said that it was at the time of the evening sacrifice, in order to show that the prophet's prayer had persisted from the morning sacrifice even unto the evening sacrifice, and that God for that reason directed His mercy towards him.
Verse 22. "And He instructed me and spoke to me, |94 saying...." The vision was so obscure that the prophet needed the angel's teaching.
" '...Now, 0 Daniel, I have come forth that I may instruct thee and that thou mayest understand.'" That is, I have been sent to thee and have come (B) forth, not from the presence of God in the sense of departing from Him, but only in the sense of coming unto thee.
Verse 23. " 'From the very beginning of thy prayers the word went forth and I myself have come to show it to thee, because thou art a man of desires.'" That is, at the time when thou didst begin to ask God, thou didst straightway obtain His mercy, and His decision was put forth. I have therefore been sent to explain to thee the things of which thou art ignorant, inasmuch as thou art a man of desires, that is to say a lovable man, worthy of God's love ---- even as Solomon was called Idida (var: Jedida) or "man of desires." I have been sent because thou art worthy, in recompense for thine affection for God, to be told the secret counsels of God and to have a knowledge of things to come (681).
" 'Thou therefore pay heed to the word and understand the vision.' " Thus [reading sic instead of si] Daniel is told, "Pay diligent heed, in order that thou mayest hear and understand what thou seest." We too should do (p. 542) this, for our eyes have been blinded by the shadows of ignorance and the darkness of sins.
Verses 24----27. " 'Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people and upon thy holy city, (C) that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished, and everlasting justice may be brought to bear, and that the vision and prophecy may be fulfilled that the Holy One of the saints may be anointed. Know therefore and take note that from the going forth of the word to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ the prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and the street shall be built again, and the walls, in distressing times. And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain, and ((D) the people that shall deny Him) shall not be His. And a people, with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end thereof shall be devastation, and after the end of the war there shall be the appointed desolation. And he shall confirm the covenant with many in one xveek; and in the middle of the week |95 both victim and sacrifice shall fail. And there shall be in the Temple the abomination of desolation, and the desolation shall continue even unto the consummation and the end.' " Because the prophet had said, "Thou didst lead forth Thy people, and Thy name was pronounced upon Thy city and upon Thy people," Gabriel therefore, as the mouthpiece of God, says by implication: "By no means are they God's people, but only thy people; nor is Jerusalem the holy city of God, but it is only a holy city unto thee, as thou sayest." This is similar to what we read in Exodus also, when God says to Moses, "Descend, for thy people have committed sin" (Ex. 32:7). That is to say, they are not My people, for they have forsaken Me. And so, because thou dost supplicate for Jerusalem and prayest for the people of the Jews, hearken unto that which shall befall thy people in seventy weeks of years, and those things which will happen to thy city.
I realize that this question has been argued over in various ways by men of greatest learning, and that each of them has expressed his views according to the capacity of his own genius. And so, because it is unsafe to pass judgment upon the opinions of the great teachers of the Church and to set one above another, I shall simply repeat the view of each, and leave it to the reader's judgment as to whose explanation ought to be followed. In the fifth volume of his Tempora ["Chronology"], Africanus has this to say concerning the seventy weeks (682) (and I quote him verbatim): "The chapter (E) which we read in Daniel concerning the seventy weeks contains many remarkable details, which require too lengthy a discussion at this point; and so we must discuss only what pertains to our present task, namely that which concerns chronology. There is no doubt but what it constitutes a prediction of Christ's advent, for He appeared to the world at the end of seventy weeks. After Him the crimes were consummated and sin reached its end and iniquity was destroyed. An eternal righteousness also was proclaimed which overcame the mere righteousness of the law; and the vision and the prophecy were fulfilled, inasmuch as the Law and the Prophets endured until the time of (F) John the Baptist (Luke 16), and then the Saint of saints was anointed. And all these things were the objects of hope, prior to Christ's incarnation, rather (p. 543) than the objects of actual possession. Now the angel himself specified |96 seventy weeks of years, that is to say, four hundred and ninety years from the issuing of the word that the petition be granted and that Jerusalem be rebuilt. The specified interval began in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, King of the Persians; for it was his cupbearer, Nehemiah (Neh. 1), who, as we read in the book of Ezra [the Vulgate reckons Nehemiah as II Esdras], petitioned the king and obtained his request that Jerusalem be rebuilt. And this was the word, or decree, which granted permission for the construction of the city and its encompassment with walls; for up until that time it had lain open to the incursions of the surrounding nations. But if one points to the command of King Cyrus, who granted to all who desired it permission to return to Jerusalem, the fact of the matter is that the high priest Jesus [Jeshua] and Zerubbabel, and later on the priest Ezra, together with the others who had been willing to set forth from Babylon with them, only made an abortive attempt to construct the Temple and the city with its walls, but were prevented by the surrounding nations from completing the task, on the pretext that the king had not so ordered. And thus the work remained incomplete until Nehemiah's time and the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes. Hence the captivity lasted for seventy years prior to the Persian rule. [This last sentence is bracketed by the editor.] At this period in the Persian Empire a hundred and fifteen years had elapsed since its inception, but it was the one hundred and eighty-fifth year from the captivity of Jerusalem when Artaxerxes first gave orders for the walls of Jerusalem to be built. [Actually only 141 years, the interval between 587 B.C. and 446 B.C.] Nehemiah was in charge of this undertaking, and the street was built and the surrounding walls were erected. Now if you compute (683) seventy weeks of years from that date, you can come out to the time of Christ. But if we wish to take any other date (A) as the starting point for these weeks, then the dates will show a discrepancy and we shall encounter many difficulties. For if the seventy weeks are computed from the time of Cyrus and his decree of indulgence which effectuated the release of the Jewish captives, then we shall encounter a deficit of a hundred years and more short of the stated number of seventy weeks [only seventy-eight years, by more recent computation, for Cyrus's decree was given in 538 B.C.]. If we reckon from the day when the angel spoke |97 to Daniel, the deficit would be much greater [actually not more than a few months or a year]. An even greater number of years is added, if you wish to put the beginning of the weeks at the commencement of the captivity. For the kingdom of the Persians endured for two hundred and thirty years until the rise of the Macedonian kingdom; then the Macedonians themselves reigned for three hundred years. From that date until the sixteenth (i.e., the fifteenth) year of Tiberius Caesar, when Christ suffered death, is an interval of sixty [sic!] years [reckoning from the death of Cleopatra, the last of the Macedonian Ptolemies]. All of these years added together come to the number of five hundred and ninety, with the result that a hundred years remain to be accounted for. On the other hand, the interval from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the time of Christ completes the figure of seventy weeks, if we reckon according to the lunar computation of the Hebrews, who did not number their months according to the movement of the sun, but rather according to the moon. For the interval from the one hundred fiftieth year of the Persian Empire, when Artaxerxes, as king thereof, attained the twentieth year of his reign (and this was the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad), up until the two hundred and second Olympiad (for it was the second year of that Olympiad which was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar) comes out to be the grand total of four hundred seventy-five years. This would result in four hundred ninety Hebrew years, reckoning according to the lunar months as we have suggested. For according to their (p. 544) computation, these years can be made up of months of twenty-nine (variant: twenty-eight) and a half days each. This means that the sun, during a period of four hundred ninety years, completes its revolution in three hundred sixty-five days and a quarter, and this amounts to twelve lunar months for each individual year, with eleven and a fourth days left over to spare. Consequently the Greeks and Jews over a period of eight years insert three intercalary months (embolimoi). (684) For if you will multiply eleven and a quarter days by eight, you will come out to ninety days, which equal three months. Now if you divide the eight-year periods into four hundred seventy-five years, your quotient will be fifty-nine plus three months. These fifty-nine plus eight-year periods produce enough intercalary months to make up fifteen |98 years, more or less; and if you will add these fifteen years to the four hundred seventy-five years, you will come out to seventy weeks of years, that is, a total of four hundred and ninety years."
Africanus has expressed his views in these very words which we have copied out. Let us pass on to Eusebius Pamphili [the famous church historian, who assumed the cognomen Pamphili in honor of his beloved mentor, Bishop Pamphilus], who in the eighth book of his Euangelike Apodeixis [the full title was Euangelikes Apodeixeos Proparaskeue or "Preparation for the Demonstration of the Gospel"; the Latin title is Praeparatio Evangelica] ventures some such conjecture as this: "It does not seem to me that the seventy weeks have been divided up without purpose, in that seven is mentioned first, and then sixty-two, and then a last week is added, which in turn is itself divided into two parts. For it is written: 'Thou shalt know and understand that from the issuing of the word (command) that the petition be granted and Jerusalem be built until Christ the Prince there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.' And after the rest which he relates in the intervening section, he states at the end: 'He shall confirm a testimony (covenant) with many during one week.' It is clear that the angel did not detail these things in his reply to no purpose or apart from the inspiration of God. This observation seems to require some cautious and careful reasoning, so that the reader may pay diligent attention and inquire into the cause for this division (variant: vision). But if we must express our own opinion, in conformity with the rest of the interpretation which concerns this present context, in the angel's statement: 'From the issuing of the word that the petition be granted and that Jerusalem be built, until the time of Christ the Prince,' we are only to think of other princes who had charge of the Jewish people subsequent to this prophecy and subsequent to the return from Babylon. That is to say, we are to think of the arkhiereis [high priests] and pontiffs to whom the Scripture attaches the title of christs, by reason of the fact that they have been anointed. The first of these was Jesus [Jeshua] the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and then the rest who had that office up until the time of the advent of our Lord and Savior. And it is these who are intended by the prophet's prediction when it states: 'From the issuing of the word that the petition be granted and Jerusalem be built even unto |99 Christ the Prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks.' (685) That is to say, the purpose is that seven weeks be counted off, and then afterward sixty-two weeks, which come to a total of four hundred and eighty-three years after the time of Cyrus. And lest we appear to be putting forth a mere conjecture too rashly and without testing the truth of our statements, let us reckon up those who bore office as christs over the people from the time of Jeshua, the son of Jehozadak, until the advent of the Lord; that is to say, those who were anointed for the high priesthood. First, then, as we have already stated, subsequent to Daniel's prophecy, which occurred in the reign of Cyrus, and subsequent to the return of (p. 545) the people from Babylon, Jeshua the son of Jehozadak was the high priest, and together with Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, they laid the foundations of the temple. And because the undertaking was hindered by the Samaritans and the other surrounding nations, seven weeks of years elapsed (that is to say, forty-nine years), during which the work on the temple remained unfinished. These weeks are separated by the prophecy from the remaining sixty-two weeks. And lastly, the Jews also followed this view when they said to the Lord in the Gospel-narrative: 'This temple was built over a period of forty-six years, and shalt thou raise it up in three days' (John 2:20). For this was the number of years which elapsed between the first year of Cyrus, who granted to those Jews who so desired the permission to return to their fatherland, and the sixth year of King Darius, in whose reign the entire work upon the temple was finished. [Actually the two dates involved are 538 B.C. and 516 B.C., an interval of only twenty-two years.] Furthermore Josephus added on three more years, during which the periboloi (precincts) and certain other construction left undone were brought to completion; and when these are added to the forty-six years, they come out to forty-nine years, or seven weeks of years. And the remaining sixty-two weeks are computed from the seventh year of Darius. At that time Jeshua the son of Jehozadak, and Zerubbabel (who had already reached his majority) were in charge of the people, and it was in their time that Haggai and Zechariah prophesied. After them came Ezra and Nehemiah from Babylon and constructed the walls of the city during the high priesthood of Joiakim, son of Jeshua, who had the surname of Jehozadak. After him Eliashib succeeded |100 to the priesthood, then Joiada and Johanan after him. Following him there was Jaddua, in whose lifetime Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, founded Alexandria, (686) as (A) Josephus relates in his books of the Antiquities, and actually came to Jerusalem and offered blood-sacrifices in the Temple. Now Alexander died in the one hundred and thirteenth Olympiad, in the two hundred thirty-sixth year of the Persian Empire, which in turn had begun in the first year of the fifty-fifth Olympiad. That was the date when Cyrus, King of the Persians, conquered the Babylonians and Chaldeans. After the death of the priest Jaddua, who had been in charge of the temple in Alexander's reign, Onias received the high priesthood. It was at this period that Seleucus, after the conquest of Babylon, placed upon his own head the crown of all Syria and Asia, in the twelfth year after Alexander's death. Up to that time the years which had elapsed since the rule of Cyrus, when computed together, were two hundred and forty-eight. From that date the Scripture of the Maccabees computes the kingdom of the Greeks. Following Onias, the high priest Eleazar became head of the Jews. That was the period when the Seventy translators (Septuaginta interpretes) are said to have translated the Holy Scriptures into Greek at Alexandria. After him came Onias II, who was followed by Simon, who ruled over the people when Jesus the son of Sirach wrote the book which bears the Greek title of Panaretos ("A Completely Virtuous Man"), and which is by most people falsely attributed to Solomon. Another Onias followed him in the high priesthood, and that was the period when Antiochus was trying to force the Jews to sacrifice to the gods of the Gentiles. After the death of Onias, Judas Maccabaeus cleansed the Temple and smashed to bits the statues of the idols. His brother Jonathan followed him, (p. 546) and after Jonathan their brother Simon governed the people. By his death the two hundred and seventy-seventh year of the Syrian kingdom had elapsed, and the First Book of Maccabees contains a record of events up to that time. And so the total number of years from the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, until the end of the First Book of Maccabees and the death of the high priest Simon is four hundred twenty-five. After him John [Hyrcanus] occupied the high priesthood for twenty-nine years, and upon his death Aristobulus became head of the people for a year and was the first |101 man after the return from Babylon to associate with the dignity of high priesthood the authority of kingship. His successor was Alexander, who likewise was high priest and king, and who governed the people for twenty-seven years. Up to this point, the number of years from the first year of Cyrus and the return of the captives who desired to come back to Judaea is to be computed at four hundred and eighty-three. This total is made up of the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks, or sixty-nine weeks altogether. And during this whole period high priests ruled over the Jewish people, and I now believe that they are those referred to as christ-princes. And when the last of them, Alexander, had died, the Jewish nation was rent in this direction and that into various factions, and was harrassed by internal seditions in its leaderless condition; and that too to such an extent that Alexandra, who was also called Salina, and who was the wife of the same Alexander, seized power and kept the high priesthood for her son, Hyrcanus. But she passed on the royal power to her other son, Aristobulus, and he exercised it for ten years. But when the brothers fought with each other in civil war and the Jewish nation was drawn into various factions, then Gnaeus Pompey, the general of the Roman army, came upon the scene. Having captured Jerusalem, he penetrated even to the shrine in the temple which was called the Holy of holies. He sent Aristobulus back to Rome in chains, keeping him for his triumphal procession, and then he gave the high priesthood to his brother, Hyrcanus. Then for the first time the Jewish nation became tributary to the Romans. Succeeding him, Herod, the son of Antipater, received the royal authority over the Jews by senatorial decree, after Hyrcanus had been killed; and so he was the first foreigner to become governor of the Jews. Moreover when his parents had died, he handed over the high priesthood to his children, even though they were non-Jews, utterly contrary to the law of Moses. Nor did he entrust the office to them for long, (B) except upon their granting him favors and bribes, for he despised the commands of God's law."
The same Eusebius offered another explanation also, and if we wanted to translate it into Latin, we should greatly expand the size of this book. And so the sense of his interpretation is this, that the number of years from the sixth year of Darius, who |102 reigned after Cyrus and his son, Cambyses, ---- and this was the date when the work on the temple was completed ---- until the time of Herod and Caesar Augustus is reckoned to be seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks, which make a total of four hundred eighty-three years. (688) That was the date when the christ, that is to say, Hyrcanus, being the last high priest of the Maccabaean line, was murdered by Herod, and the succession of high priests came to an end, so far as the law of God was concerned. It was then also that a Roman army (p. 547) under the leadership of a Roman general devastated both the city and the sanctuary itself. Or else it was Herod himself who committed the devastation, after he had through the Romans appropriated to himself a governmental authority to which he had no right. And as for the angel's statement, "For he shall establish a compact with many for one week (variant: "a compact for many weeks"), and in the midst of the week the sacrifice and offering shall cease," it is to be understood in this way, that Christ was born while Herod was reigning in Judaea and Augustus in Rome, and He preached the Gospel for three years and six months, according to John the Evangelist. And he established the worship of the true God with many people, undoubtedly meaning the Apostles and believers generally. And then, after our Lord's passion, the sacrifice and offering ceased in the middle of the week. For whatever took place in the Temple after that date was not a valid sacrifice to God but a mere worship of the devil, while they all cried out together, "His blood be upon us and upon our children" (Matt. 27:25); and again, "We have no king but Caesar." Any reader who is interested may look up this passage in the Chronicle of this same Eusebius, for I translated it into Latin many years ago. But as for his statement that the number of years to be reckoned from the completion of the temple to the tenth year of the Emperor Augustus, that is, when Hyrcanus was slain and Herod obtained Judaea, amounts to a total of seven plus sixty-two weeks, or four hundred eighty-three years, we may check it in the following fashion. The building of the temple was finished in the seventy-sixth (here and in the other place read: "sixty-seventh" ---- Migne) Olympiad, which was the sixth year of Darius. In the third year of the one hundred and eighty-sixth Olympiad, that is, the tenth year of Augustus, Herod seized the rule over the Jews. This makes the interval four hundred and |103 eighty-three years, reckoning up by the individual Olympiads and computing them at four years each. This same Eusebius reports another view as well, which I do not entirely reject (A), that most authorities extend the one [last] week of years to the sum of seventy years, reckoning each year as a ten-year period [reading the corrupt upputatio as supputatio]. They also claim that thirty-five years intervened between the passion of the Lord and the reign of Nero, and that it was at this latter date when the weapons of Rome were first (689) lifted up against the Jews, this being the half-way point of the week of seventy years. After that, indeed, from the time of Vespasian and Titus (and it was right after their accession to power that Jerusalem and the temple were burned) up to the reign of Trajan another thirty-five years elapsed. And this, they assert, was the week of which the angel said to Daniel: "And he shall establish a compact with many for one week." For the Gospel was preached by the Apostles all over the world, since they survived even unto that late date. According to the tradition of the church historians, John the Evangelist lived up to the time of Trajan. Yet I am at a loss to know how we can understand the earlier seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks to involve seven years each, and just this last one to involve ten years for each unit of the seven, or seventy years in all.
So much for Eusebius. But Hippolytus has expressed the following opinion concerning these same weeks (B): he reckons the seven weeks as prior to the return of the people from Babylon, and the sixty-two weeks as subsequent to their return and extending to the birth of Christ. But the dates do not (p. 548) agree at all. If indeed the duration of the Persian Empire be reckoned at two hundred and thirty years, and the Macedonian Empire at three hundred, and the period thereafter up to the birth of the Lord be thirty years, then the total from the beginning of the reign of Cyrus, King of the Persians, until the advent of the Savior will be five hundred and sixty years. Moreover Hippolytus places the final week at the end of the world and divides it into the period of Elias and the period of Antichrist, so that during the [first] three and a half years of the last week the knowledge of God is established. And as for the statement, "He shall establish a compact with many for a week" (Dan. 9:27), during the other three years under the Antichrist the sacrifice and offering shall |104 cease. But when Christ shall come and shall slay the wicked one by the breath of His mouth, desolation shall hold sway till the end.
On the other hand Apollinarius of Laodicea in his investigation of the problem breaks away from the stream of the past and directs his longing desires towards the future, very unsafely venturing an opinion concerning matters so obscure. And if by any chance those of future generations should not see these predictions of his fulfilled at the time he set, then they will be forced to seek for some other solution and to convict the teacher himself of erroneous interpretation. And so, in order to avoid the appearance of slandering a man as having made a statement he never made, he makes the following assertion ---- and I translate him word for word: "To the period of four hundred and ninety years the wicked deeds are to be confined (690) as well as all the crimes which shall ensue from those deeds. After these shall come the times of blessing, and the world is to be reconciled unto God at the advent of Christ, His Son. For from the coming forth of the Word, when Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, to the forty-ninth year, that is, the end of the seven weeks, [God] waited for Israel to repent. Thereafter, indeed, from the eighth year of Claudius Caesar [i.e., 48 A.D.] onward, the Romans took up arms against the Jews. For it was in His thirtieth year, according to the Evangelist Luke, that the Lord incarnate began His preaching of the Gospel (Luke 1) [sic!]. According to the Evangelist John (John 2 and 11), Christ completed two years over a period of three passovers. The years of Tiberius' reign from that point onward are to be reckoned at six; then there were the four years of the reign of Gaius Caesar, surnamed Caligula, and eight more years in the reign of Claudius. This makes a total of forty-nine years, or the equivalent of seven weeks of years. But when four hundred thirty-four years shall have elapsed after that date, that is to say, the sixty-two weeks, then [i.e. in 482 A.D.] Jerusalem and the Temple shall be rebuilt during three and a half years within the final week, beginning with the advent of Elias, who according to the dictum of our Lord and Savior (Luke 1) [sic!] is going to come and turn back the hearts of the fathers towards their children. And then the Antichrist shall come, and according to the Apostle [reading apostolum for apostolorum] he is going to sit in the |105 temple of God (II Thess. 2) and be slain by the breath of our Lord and Savior after he has waged war against the saints. And thus it shall come to pass that the middle of the week shall mark the confirmation of God's covenant with the saints, and the middle of the week in turn shall mark the issuing of the decree under the authority of Antichrist that no more sacrifices be offered. For the Antichrist shall set up the abomination of desolation, that is, an idol or statue of his own god, within the Temple. Then shall ensue the final devastation and the condemnation of the Jewish people, who after their rejection of Christ's truth shall embrace the lie of the Antichrist. Moreover this same Apollinarius asserts that he conceived this idea about the proper dating from the fact that Africanus, (p. 549) the author of the Tempora [Chronology], whose explanation I have inserted above, affirms that the final week will occur at the end of the world. Yet, says Apollinarius, it is impossible that periods so linked together be wrenched apart, but rather the time-segments must all be joined together in conformity with Daniel's prophecy.
The learned scholar Clement, presbyter of the church at Alexandria, regards the number of years as a matter of slight consequence, (691) asserting that the seventy weeks of years were completed by the span of time from the reign of Cyrus, King of the Persians, to the reign of the Roman emperors, Vespasian and Titus; that is to say, the interval of four hundred and ninety years, with the addition in that same figure of the two thousand three hundred days of which we made earlier mention. He attempts to reckon in these seventy weeks the ages of the Persians, Macedonians, and Caesars, even though according to the most careful computation, the number of years from the first year of Cyrus, King of the Persians and Medes, when Darius also bore rule, up to the reign of Vespasian and the destruction of the Temple amounts to six hundred and thirty.
When Origen came to deal with [reading praefuisset instead of profuisset] this chapter, he urged us to seek out what information we do not possess; and because he had no leeway for allegorical interpretation, in which one may argue without constraint, but rather was restricted to matters of historical fact, he made this brief observation in the tenth volume of the Stromata: "We must quite carefully ascertain the amount of time between |106 the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, and the advent of Christ, and discover how many years were involved, and what events are said to have occurred during them. Then we must see whether we can fit these data in with the time of the Lord's coming."
We may learn what Tertullian had to say on the subject by consulting the book which he wrote against the Jews (Contra Judaeos), and his remarks may be set forth in brief: "How, then, are we to show that Christ came within the sixty-two (A) weeks? This calculation begins with the first year of Darius, since that was the time when the vision itself was revealed to Daniel. For he was told: 'Understand and conclude from (B) the prophesying (692) of the command for me to give thee this reply....' Hence we are to commence our computation with the first year of Darius, when Daniel beheld this vision. Let us see, then, how the years are fulfilled up to the advent of Christ. Darius reigned nineteen (p. 550) years; Artaxerxes forty years; the Ochus who was surnamed Cyrus twenty-four years; (C) Argus, one year. Then Darius II, who was called Melas, twenty-one (D) years. Alexander the Macedonian reigned twelve years. And then after Alexander (who had ruled over both the Medes and the Persians, after he had conquered them, and had established his rule in Alexandria, calling it after his own name), Soter reigned (E) there in Alexandria for thirty-five years, and was succeeded by Philadelphus, who reigned for thirty-eight years (F). After him Euergetes reigned for twenty-five years, and then Philopator for seventeen years, followed by Epiphanes for twenty-four years. Furthermore the second Euergetes ruled for twenty (G) and nine years, and Soter for thirty-eight years. Ptolemy [sic!] for thirty-seven (H) years, and Cleopatra for twenty years and five months (I). Furthermore Cleopatra shared the rule with Augustus for thirteen years. After Cleopatra Augustus reigned forty-three years more. For all of the years of the reign of Augustus were fifty-six in number. And let us see (variant: we see) that in the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus, who ruled after the death of Cleopatra (J), (693) Christ was born. And this same Augustus lived on for fifteen years after the time when Christ was born. And so the resultant periods of years up to the day of Christ's birth and the forty-first year of Augustus, after the death of Cleopatra [actually only twenty-nine |107 years after Cleopatra's death ---- the language here is confusing], come to the total figure of four hundred and thirty-seven years and five months. This means that sixty-two and a half weeks were used up, or the equivalent of four hundred and thirty-seven years and six months, by the day when Christ was born. Then eternal righteousness was revealed, and the Saint of saints was anointed, namely Christ, and the vision and prophecy were sealed, and those sins were remitted which are allowed through faith in Christ's name to all who believe in Him." But what is the meaning of the statement that the "vision and prophecy are confirmed by a seal"? It means that all the prophets made proclamation concerning [Christ] Himself, saying that He was going to come and that He would have to suffer. Hence we read shortly thereafter in this Tertullian passage, "The years were fifty-six in number; furthermore, Cleopatra continued to reign jointly under Augustus...." (p. 551) It was because the prophecy was fulfilled by His advent that the vision was confirmed by a seal; and it was called a prophecy because Christ Himself is the seal of all the prophets, fulfilling as He did all that the prophets had previously declared concerning Him. Of course after His advent and His passion (variant; the passion of Christ), there is no longer any vision or prophecy (variant: or prophet) which declares that Christ will come [?]. And then a little later Tertullian says, "Let us see what is the meaning of (A) the seven and a half weeks, which in turn are divided up into a subsection of earlier weeks; by what transaction were they fulfilled? Well, after Augustus, (B) who lived on after Christ's birth, fifteen years elapsed. He was succeeded by Tiberius Caesar, and he held sway for twenty-two years, seven months and twenty-eight (C) days. In the fifteenth year of his reign (D) Christ suffered, being about (694) thirty-three when He suffered. Then there was Gaius Caesar, also named Caligula, who reigned for three years, eight months and thirteen days. [Note that Claudius' reign of 13 years is here omitted.] Nero reigned for nine years, nine months and thirteen days. Galba ruled for seven months and twenty-eight (E) days; Otho for three months and five days; and Vitellius for eight months and twenty-eight (F) days. Vespasian vanquished the Jews in the first year of his reign, bringing the number of years to a total of fifty-two, plus six months. For he ruled for eleven years, and so by the date of his |108 storming Jerusalem, the Jews had completed the seventy weeks foretold by Daniel."
As for the view which the Hebrews hold concerning this passage, I shall set it forth summarily and within a brief compass, leaving the credibility of their assertions to those who asserted them. And so let me put it in the form of a paraphrase (paraphrastikds) in order to bring out the sense more clearly. "O Daniel, know that from this day on which I now speak to thee (and that was the first year of the Darius who slew Belshazzar and transferred the Chaldean Empire to the Medes and Persians) unto the seventieth week of years (that is, four hundred and ninety years) the following events shall befall thy people in stages [literally: part by part]. First of all, God shall be appeased by thee in view of the earnest intercession thou hast just offered Him, and sin shall be canceled out and the transgression shall come to an end. For although the city at present lies deserted and the Temple lies destroyed to its very foundations [reading fundamenta for the non-existent frudamenta], so that the nation is plunged into mourning, yet within a fairly short time it shall be restored. And not only shall it come to pass within these seventy weeks that the city shall be rebuilt and the Temple restored, but also the Christ, who is the eternal righteousness, shall be born. (p. 552) And so shall the vision and the prophecy be sealed, with the result that there shall be no more any prophet to be found in Israel, and the Saint of saints shall be anointed. We read concerning Him in the Psalter: 'Because God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness (695) above thy fellows' (Ps. 44:8 =45:7). And in another passage He says of Himself: 'Be ye holy, for I also am holy' (Lev. 19:2). Know therefore that from this day on which I speak to thee and make thee the promise by the word of the Lord that the nation shall return and Jerusalem shall be restored, there shall be sixty-two weeks numbered unto the time of Christ the Prince and of the perpetual desolation of the Temple; and that there shall also be seven weeks in which the two events shall take place which I have already mentioned, namely that the nation shall return and the street shall be rebuilt by Nehemiah and Ezra. And so at the end of the weeks the decree of God shall be accomplished in distressing times, when the Temple shall again be destroyed, and the city taken captive. For |109 after the sixty-two weeks the Christ shall be slain, and the nation who shall reject Him shall go out of existence" ---- or, as the Jews themselves put it, the kingdom of Christ which they imagined they would retain (G) shall not even be. And why do I speak of the slaying of Christ, and of the nation's utter forfeiture of God's help, since the Roman people were going to demolish the city and sanctuary under Vespasian, the leader who was to come? Upon his death the seven weeks or forty-nine years were complete, and after the city of Aelia was established upon the ruins of Jerusalem, Aelius Hadrian vanquished (H) the revolting Jews in their conflict with the general, Timus Rufus. It was at that time that the sacrifice and offering (ceased and) will continue to cease even unto the completion of the age, and the desolation is going to endure until the very end. We are not, say the Jews, greatly impressed by the fact that the seven weeks are mentioned first, and afterwards the sixty-two, and again a single week divided into two parts. For it is simply the idiomatic usage of the Hebrew language, as well as of antique Latin, that in quoting a figure, the small number is given first and then the larger. For example, we do not, according to good usage say in our language, "Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years"; on the contrary the Hebrews say, "Abraham lived five and seventy and one hundred years" (I). And so the fulfilment is not to follow the literal order of the words, but it shall be accomplished in terms of the whole sum, taken together. I am also well aware that some of the Jews assert that as for the statement about the single week, (696) "He shall establish a covenant with many (p. 553) for one week," the division is between the reigns of Vespasian and Hadrian. According to the history of Josephus, Vespasian and Titus concluded peace with the Jews for three years and six month. And the [other] three years and six months are accounted for in Hadrian's reign, when Jerusalem was completely destroyed and the Jewish nation was massacred in large groups at a time, with the result that they were even expelled from the borders of Judaea. This is what the Hebrews have to say on the subject, paying little attention to the fact that from the first year of Darius, King of the Persians, until the final overthrow of Jerusalem, which befell them under Hadrian, the period involved is a hundred and seventy-four Olympiads or six hundred ninety-six years, which total up to |110 ninety-nine Hebrew weeks plus three years ---- that being the time when Barcochebas, the leader of the Jews, was crushed and Jerusalem was demolished to the very ground. |111
CHAPTER TEN
Verse 1. "In the third year of Cyrus, King of the Persians, a word was revealed unto Daniel, who was surnamed Belteshazzar, and it was a true word and great strength. For there is need of understanding in a vision." And how is it that we read at the end of the first vision, "And Daniel lived until the first year of Cyrus the King"? Well then, we understand that he enjoyed his former high position among the Chaldeans and was clothed in purple and fine linen right up until the first year of King Cyrus, when Cyrus overthrew the Chaldeans, and afterwards Daniel commenced service under Darius, the son of Ahasuerus of the Median line, who reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans. Or else, indeed, that Darius had already died in whose first year Daniel had learned of the mystery of the seventy weeks, and he is now relating that he beheld these things in the third year of King Cyrus. "And it was a true word and great strength" refers either to the strength of the God who was going to perform these things or to the strength of the prophet who would comprehend them.
Verses 2, 3. "In those days I, Daniel, mourned for the days of three weeks; I ate no desirable bread, and neither flesh or wine entered into my mouth; neither was I anointed with ointment until the days of three weeks were accomplished." By this example we are taught to abstain from the pleasanter types of food (I think that the term "desirable bread" is that inclusive) during a period of fasting, and that we neither eat flesh nor drink (A) wine, (697) and especially that we desire no anointing with ointments. This custom is maintained among the Persians and Indians even to this day, that they use ointment as a substitute for baths. Also, Daniel afflicted his soul for three consecutive weeks, so that his intercession might not appear cursory or casual. By inference, indeed, we ought to make the observation that a person in mourning who (p. 554) bemourns the absence of one betrothed partakes of no desirable bread though |112 it comes down from heaven itself; neither does he touch solid food, which is to be understood in the sense of meat, nor does he drink any wine, which gladdens the heart of man, or make his face cheerful with oil (as we read in the Psalms: "That he may make the face cheerful with oil" Ps. 103 [=104]: 15). By means of such a fast as this (B) the betrothed girl sheds tears which will be convincing, when her fiance has been taken from her. Daniel also did well to supplicate the Lord with boldness, inasmuch as in the first year of Cyrus's reign the captivity of the Jews had already been somewhat relaxed in its severity.
Verse 4. "And in the twenty-fourth day of the first month, I was beside the great river which is the Tigris." Ezekiel also had seen a great vision beside a river, the Chebar (Ez. 1). And it was by the stream of the Jordan that the heavens were opened to the gaze of our Lord and Savior and also to John the Baptist (Matt. 3). (C) Therefore those critics should leave off their foolish objections who raise questions about the presence of shadows and symbols in a matter of historical truth and attempt to destroy the truth itself by imagining that they should employ allegorical methods to destroy the historicity of rivers and trees and of Paradise [mentioned in Scripture].
Verse 5. "And I lifted my eyes and saw." We must lift up our eyes if we are to be able to discern a mystical vision.
"And behold, a person clothed in linen." Instead of "linen," as Aquila rendered it, Theodotion simply puts baddim [a mere transcription of the Hebrew word], whereas the Septuagint renders it as byssus [fine linen], and Symmachus as exaireta (choice vestments), (D), that is, "distinguished clothing" (praecipua). And instead of what we have rendered as, "Behold, a man," on the basis of the Hebrew text, Symmachus puts, "One like unto a man," inasmuch as he was not actually a man but only had the appearance of one.
"And his loins were girt about with pure gold." The Hebrew term for this is (E) 'wpz or ophaz [actually pointed as 'uwpaz in the Massoretic Text], a word which Aquila has rendered in this fashion: "And his loins were girt about with the color of ophax" [a Greek word which does not otherwise exist]. (698).
Verse 6. "And his body was like chrysolite." (F) |113 For "chrysolite," one of the twelve gems inserted in the oracular breastplate of the high priest, the Hebrew has trs'ys (tharsis) [actually tarsiys or tarshish], a word which Theodotion and Symmachus simply left unchanged in transcription; but the Septuagint called it "the sea," according to the usage in the Psalms: "With a violent gale Thou dashest the ships of Tharsis in pieces," i.e., "the ships of the sea" (Ps. 47:8). Jonah, also, was desirous of fleeing, not to Tarsus, the Cilician city (as most people suppose), substituting one letter for another), nor to some region in India (as (G) Josephus imagines), but simply out to the high seas in general (Jonah 1). (p. 555)
Verse 7. "And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me saw it not; but an exceeding great terror fell upon them, and they fled away and hid themselves." The Apostle Paul had a similar experience in the Book of Acts, in that while the others could see nothing, he alone beheld the vision (Acts 22).
Verse 10. "And behold, a hand touched me, and lifted me up upon my knees...." The angel appeared in the form of a man and laid his hand upon the human prophet as he lay upon the ground, in order that he might not be terrified, beholding a form like his own.
Verse 11. "And he said to me, 'Daniel, thou man of desires....' " It was fitting that he be addressed as a man of desires, for by dint of urgent prayer and affliction of body and the discipline of severe fasting he desired to learn of the future and to be informed of the secret counsels of God. Instead of "man of desires," Symmachus rendered it as "desirable man." The term is apt, for every saint possesses a beauty of soul and is beloved by the Lord.
Verse 12. "And he said to me: 'Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day when thou didst set thine heart to understand and to afflict thyself in the sight of thy God (variant: thy Lord), thy words have been heard and granted, and I have come forth in response to thy words" (Vulgate: on account of thy words). On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, that is, of Nisan, after three weeks or twenty-one days had elapsed, he beheld this vision, and he heard from the angel that on the very |114 first day he had begun to pray and to afflict himself before God, his words had been heard and granted. The question arises why, if he had been heard, was the angel not sent (699) to him right away. Well, by reason of the delay an opportunity was afforded him of praying to the Lord at greater length, so that in proportion as his earnest desire was intensified, he might by his effort the more fully deserve to hear [or else: "might deserve to hear more, i.e., than he would otherwise"]. And as for the angel's statement, "And I have come in response to thy words," his meaning is this: "After thou didst begin to invoke God's mercy by good works and tearful supplication and fasting, then I for my part embraced the opportunity of entering in before God and praying for thee."
Verse 13. "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me for twenty-one days." In my opinion this was the angel to whose charge Persia was committed, in accordance with what we read in Deuteronomy: "When the Most High divided the nations and distributed the children of Adam abroad, then He established the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God" (Deut. 32:8). [See note at VII: 2, Migne p. 528.] These are the princes of whom Paul also says: "We speak forth among the perfect a wisdom which none of the princes of this world knew. For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory" (I Cor. 2:6). And so the prince or angel of the Persians offered resistance, acting on behalf of the province entrusted to him, in order that (p. 556) the entire captive nation might not be released. And it may well be that although the prophet was graciously heard by God from the day when he set his heart to understand, the angel was nevertheless not sent to proclaim to him God's gracious decision, for the reason that the prince of Persia opposed him for twenty-one days, enumerating the sins of the Jewish people as a ground for their justly being kept in captivity and as proof that they ought not to be released.
"And behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to my assistance." That is, while the angel of the Persians was resisting thy petitions and my representations on thy behalf as I presented thy prayers to God, then there came to my assistance the angel Michael, who has oversight of the people of Israel. By chief princes we are of course to understand archangels. |115
"And I remained there close by the king of the Persians." He designates the angel or prince by the term "king of the Persians," and shows that he had tarried with Michael for a little as he spoke in opposition to the prince of the Persians.
Verse 14. "And I have come to teach thee what things shall befall thy people in the last days." The very petition which Daniel had requested is the thing which he deserves to hear from God, namely what is going to happen to the people of Israel, not in the near future, but (700) in the last days, that is, at the end of the world.
Verse 16. (A) "O my lord, at the sight of thee my joints are loosed...." Theodotion interprets it this way, in accordance with what we read in the One Hundred and Second Psalm [i.e. the 103rd]: "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless His holy name." For our inward nature must direct its gaze without, before we deserve to behold a vision of God; and when we actually have beheld a vision of God, then our inward nature is converted within us and we become wholly of the number of those concerning whom it is written in another Psalm: "All the glory of the daughter of kings (B) is within, in golden borders" (Ps. 44:14).
Verse 19. "And as he spoke with me, I recovered strength and said, 'Speak, my Lord, for thou hast reassured me' And he said...." For unless the angel had reassured him by touching him like a son of man, so that his heart was freed of terror, he would not have been able to hearken to God's secrets. For that reason he now says, "Speak, for thou hast reassured me; for thou hast enabled me both to hear and understand what thou sayest."
Verse 20. " 'Dost thou know why I have come to thee? And now I will return to fight against the prince of the Persians.'" What he means is this: I have indeed come to teach thee of the things thou hast received in answer to prayer; but I am going to return once more to contend against the prince of the Persians in the sight of God, for he is unwilling that thy people be released from captivity.
"For (Vulgate: Therefore) as I was coming away, the prince of the Greeks appeared and entered in (Vulgate: and came |116 up)." He means, "I myself was departing (p. 557) from God's presence in order to announce to thee [reading tibi for the inappropriate ubi] the events which are to befall thy people in the last days; and yet I am still not secure, since the prince of the Persians stands to plead against the granting of thy petitions and the acceptance of my advocacy on thy behalf. And behold, the prince of the Greeks, or Macedonians, had just come, and he entered in before God's presence to lodge accusation against the prince of the Medes and Persians, in order that the kingdom of the Macedonians might succeed in their place." Truly marvelous are the secret counsels of God, for it indeed came to pass that after the Jewish people had been freed from captivity, Alexander, king of the Macedonians, slew Darius and overthrew the kingdom of the Persians and Medes, so that the prince of the Greeks did overcome the prince of the Persians.
Verse 21. "Nevertheless I will relate to thee what has been set down in the Scripture of truth." That is, this is the order which the words follow. The fulfilment is still in doubt. For even though thou dost beseech the Lord (701) and I present thy prayers to Him, yet the prince of the Persians takes his stand on the opposite side, and is unwilling that thy people be freed from captivity. But because the prince of the Greeks has come, and in the meantime is contending against the prince of the Persians, and also because I have Michael there as my assistant, I shall, during their mutual conflict, report to thee the coming events which God has foretold to me and has bidden me relate to thee. And let no one be disturbed by the question as to why mention is made of the prince of the Greeks or Hellenes rather than of the Macedonians, for Alexander, king of the Macedonians, did not take up arms against the Persians until he had first overthrown Greece and subjected it to his power.
"And no one is my helper in all these things except Michael, your prince." He implies, "I am that angel who presents thy prayers to God, and I have no other helper in petitioning God on your behalf except the archangel Michael, to whose charge the Jewish nation has been entrusted. And meanwhile the prince of the Greeks is engaged in a common effort with me at this particular time, contending against the prince of the Persians. We should review our ancient history and (A) consider whether |117 by any chance that was the date of the conquest of the Persians by the Greeks. According to the Vulgate edition (of the Septuagint), this same vision is reckoned as extending to the end of the book, that is, the vision which appeared to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus, King of the Persians. On the other hand, according to the Hebrew original, the ensuing sections are separate from this, and recorded in an inverted order. The causes for this phenomenon we have already mentioned; that is, the matters here recorded are related as having occurred in the first year of the Darius who overthrew Belshazzar, not in the third year of Cyrus. |118
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Verse 1. "And from the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up that he might be strengthened and confirmed." Daniel implies, "From the first year of the reign of Darius, who overthrew the Chaldeans and delivered me from the hand of my enemies to the extent of his ability (for even his sealing of the pit of lions with his signet ring was for my protection, lest my adversaries should slay me), I for my part stood before God, and I besought God's mercy upon him, in view of the man's love for me, in order that either he or his kingdom might be strengthened and confirmed. And since I persevered in my prayer, I was answered by God and given to understand the following information. After all, it is a customary thing (p. 558) with the prophets to bring in new speakers abruptly and without warning. So it is in Psalm Thirty-one [i.e., Thirty-two]: for when the prophet has petitioned God and said: "Thou art my refuge from my tribulation (B) which compassed me about; O Thou, who art my rejoicing, deliver me from those who now encompass me," then God is abruptly brought in as the speaker, replying, "I will give thee understanding, and I will instruct thee in this way in which thou shalt go; I will fasten Mine eyes upon thee" (verses 7 and 8). So also here, as the prophet relates, "From the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up and interceded that he might be strengthened and that his rule might be confirmed," God suddenly responds:
Verse 2. "And now I shall proclaim the truth to thee." And the meaning is this: "Because thou desirest to know what shall befall the kings of Persia, hearken thou to the order of events and hear the answer to thy request."
"And behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and the fourth shall be enriched exceedingly above them all, and when he shall have grown mighty through his wealth, he shall stir up all men against the kingdom of Greece." He states that four kings shall arise in Persia after Cyrus, namely Cambyses, |119 the son of Cyrus, and the Magus named Smerdis, who married Pantaptes, the daughter of Cambyses. Then, when he was slain by seven Magi and Darius had succeeeded to his throne, the same Pantaptes married Darius, and by him gave birth to Xerxes, who became a most powerful and wealthy king, and led an innumerable host against Greece and performed those deeds which are related by the Greek historians. For in the archonship of Callias he destroyed Athens by fire, and about that same time waged the war at Thermopylae and the naval battle at Salamis. It was in his time that Sophocles and Euripides became famous [hardly Euripides, whose first play was given in 455, nine years after Xerxes' death], and Themistocles fled in exile to Persia, where he died as a result of drinking the blood of a bull. And so that writer [apparently Tertullian, cf. p. 550] is in error who records as the fourth king that Darius who was defeated by Alexander, for he was not the fourth king, but the fourteenth king of the Persians after Cyrus. It was in the seventh year of his rule that Alexander defeated and slew him. Moreover it should be observed that after he has specified four kings of Persia after Cyrus, the author [i.e., Daniel] omits the nine (C) others and passes right on to Alexander. For the Spirit of prophecy was not concerned about preserving historical detail but in summarizing only the most important matters. (703)
Verses 3, 4. "But there shall rise up a strong king and shall rule with great power, and he shall do whatever he pleases. And when he shall have arisen, his kingdom shall be broken." He clearly refers to Alexander the Great, king of the Macedonians, and son of Philip. For after he had overcome the Illyrians and Thracians, and had conquered Greece and destroyed Thebes, he crossed over into Asia. And when he had routed Darius's generals and taken the city of Sardis, he afterwards captured India and founded the city of Alexandria. And then, when he had attained the age of thirty-two and the twelfth year of his reign, he died of poison.
"And it shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven, but not unto his own posterity nor according to his power with which he had borne rule." After Alexander his kingdom was divided towards the four (p. 559) winds, namely to the east, the west, the south, and the north. In Egypt, that is in the south, |120 Ptolemy the son of Lagos was the first to become king. In Macedonia, that is in the west, the Philip who was also called Aridaeus, a brother of Alexander, became king. The king of Syria and Babylon and the remoter regions, that is, the east, was Seleucus Nicanor. Antigonus was king of Asia Minor and Pontus and of the other provinces in that whole area, that is, in the north. So much for the various regions of the world as a whole; but from the standpoint of Judea itself, the north would be Syria and the south would be Egypt. And as for the statement, "But not unto his own posterity," the implication is that Alexander would have no children, but rather, his kingdom would be rent asunder and fall to others who were not of his family, except of course for Philip, who kept Macedonia. Nor would it be according to the power of him who had borne rule, for the kingdom became feebler by division into four parts, for they constantly fought among themselves and raged with internecine fury.
"For his kingdom shall be rent in pieces (variant: destroyed), and that too among strangers besides these." Besides the four kingdoms of Macedonia, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, the kingdom of the Macedonians was torn asunder among other rulers of less prominence and among petty kings. The reference here is to Perdiccas and Craterus and Lysimachus, for Cappadocia, Armenia, Bithynia, Heracleia, Bosphorus and various other provinces withdrew themselves from the Macedonian power and set up various kings for themselves.
Verse 5. "And the king of the South shall be strengthened." The reference is to Ptolemy, son of Lagos, who was the first to become king in Egypt, and was a very clever, mighty and wealthy man, and possessed such power that he was able to restore Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, to his kingdom after he had been driven out, and also to seize Cyprus and Phoenicia. And after he had conquered Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, he restored to Seleucus that portion of his kingdom which Antigonus had taken away from him. He also acquired Caria and many islands, cities, and districts unnecessary to detail at this time. But no further notice is taken of the other kingdoms, Macedonia and Asia Minor, because Judaea lay in a midway position and was held now by one group of kings and now by another. And it is not the purpose of Holy Scripture to cover external history |121 apart from the Jews, but only that which is linked up with the nation of Israel.
"And one of his princes shall prevail over him, and he shall rule with great power, for his dominion shall be great." The person mentioned is Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second king of Egypt and the son of the former Ptolemy. It was in his reign that the Seventy (Septuaginta) translators are said to have translated the Holy Scripture into Greek. He also sent many treasures to Jerusalem for the high priest Eleazar, and votive vessels for the Temple. The curator of his library was Demetrius of Phalerum, a man of reputation among the Greeks as an orator and philosopher. Philadelphus is reported [reading narratur instead of the inappropriate narrantur] to have possessed such great power as to surpass his father Ptolemy. For history relates that he possessed two hundred thousand infantrymen, twenty thousand cavalry, and even two thousand chariots and four hundred elephants, which he was the first to import from Ethiopia. He also had a thousand five hundred (p. 560) war galleys of the type now known as Liburnian, and a thousand others for the transporting of military provisions. So great was his treasure of gold and silver that he received a yearly revenue from Egypt amounting to fourteen thousand eight hundred talents of silver, as well as grain in the amount of five or ten hundred thousand artabae (a measure containing three and a half modii [a modius being about three and a half pecks]).
Verse 6. "And at the end of the years they shall be leagued together (or, as Theodotion renders: And after his years they shall be united). And the daughter of the king of the South shall come to the king of the North in order to make friendship, but she shall not obtain strength of arm nor shall her seed endure. And she herself shall be handed over, as well as her young men (Vulgate: youths) who brought her and who were strengthening her in (these) times." As we have already said, it was Seleucus, surnamed Nicanor, who first ruled over Syria. The second king was Antiochus, who was called Soter. The third was Antiochus himself, (705) who was called Theos, that is the Divine. He was the one who waged numerous wars with Ptolemy Philadelphus, who was the second ruler in Egypt, and he also fought with all the Babylonians and the men of the East, And so after |122 many years Ptolemy Philadelphus wished to have done with this vexatious struggle, and so he gave his daughter, named Berenice, in marriage to Antiochus, who had already had by a previous wife, named Laodice, two sons, namely Seleucus, surnamed Callinicus, and the other, Antiochus. And Philadelphus conducted her as far as Pelusium and bestowed countless thousands of gold and silver by way of a dowry, from which circumstance he acquired the nickname of phernophoros or Dowry-giver (dotalis). But as for Antiochus, even though he had said he would regard Berenice as his royal consort and keep Laodice in the status of a concubine, he was finally prevailed upon by his love for Laodice to restore her to the status of queen, along with her children. But she was fearful that her husband might in his fickleness restore Berenice to favor once more, and so she had him put to death by her servants with the use of poison. And she handed over Berenice and the son whom she had born by Antiochus to Icadio and Genneus, princes of Antiochus, and then set up her elder son, Seleucus Callinicus, as king in his father's place. And so this is the matter referred to in this passage, namely that after many years Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antiochus Theos would conclude a friendship, and the daughter of the king of the South, that is Ptolemy, would go to the king of the North, that is Antiochus, in order to cement friendly relations between her father and her husband. And the text says that she will not be able to gain her end, nor shall her posterity remain upon the throne of Syria, but instead both Berenice and the men who had escorted her thither shall be put to death. And also the king, Antiochus, who had strengthened her, that is, through whom she could have obtained the mastery, was killed by his wife's poison.
Verses 7-9. "And a plant of the bud of her roots shall arise, and he shall come with an army and shall invade the province of the king of the North. And he shall abuse them and shall prevail. And he shall also carry away captive into Egypt their gods and their sculptures and their precious vessels of gold and silver; he shall prevail against the king of the North. And the king of the South shall enter into the kingdom and shall return to his own land." After the murder of Berenice and the death of her father, Ptolemy Philadelphus, in Egypt, her brother, who was also named Ptolemy |123 and surnamed Euergetes, succeeded to the throne as the third of his dynasty, being in fact an offshoot of the same plant and a bud of the same root as she was, inasmuch as he was her (p. 561) brother. He came up with a great army and advanced into the province (706) of the king of the North, that is Seleucus Callinicus, who together with his mother Laodice was ruling in Syria, and abused them, and not only did he seize Syria but also took Cilicia and the remoter regions beyond the Euphrates and nearly all of Asia as well. And then, when he heard that a rebellion was afoot in Egypt, he ravaged the kingdom of Seleucus and carried off as booty forty thousand talents of silver, and also precious vessels and images of the gods to the amount of two and a half thousand. Among them were the same images which Cambyses had brought to Persia at the time when he conquered Egypt. The Egyptian people were indeed devoted to idolatry, for when he had brought back their gods to them after so many years, they called him Euergetes (Benefactor). And he himself retained possession of Syria, but he handed over Cilicia to his friend, Antiochus, that he might govern it, and the provinces beyond the Euphrates he handed over to Xanthippus, another general.
Verse 10. "And his sons shall be provoked, and they shall assemble a multitude of great armies, and he shall come with haste like a flood. And he shall return and be stirred up, and he shall join battle with his army." After the flight and death of Seleucus Callinicus, his two sons, the Seleucus surnamed Ceraunus and the Antiochus who was called the Great, were provoked by a hope of victory and of avenging their father, and so they assembled an army against Ptolemy Philopator and took up arms. And when the elder brother, Seleucus, was slain in Phrygia in the third year of his reign through the treachery of Nicanor and Apaturius, the army which was in Syria summoned his brother, Antiochus the Great, from Babylon to assume the throne. And so this is the reason why the present passage states that the two sons were provoked and assembled a multitude of very sizable armies. But it implies that Antiochus the Great came by himself from Babylon to Syria, which at that time was held by Ptolemy Philopator, the son of Euergetes and the fourth king to rule in Egypt. And after he had successfully fought with his generals, or rather had by the betrayal of Theodotius obtained |124 possession of Syria (which had already been held by a succession of Egyptian kings), he became so emboldened by his contempt for Philopator's luxurious manner of life and for the magical arts which he was said to employ, that he took the initiative in attempting an invasion of Egypt itself.
Verses 11, 12. "And the king of the South, being provoked, shall go forth and shall prepare an exceeding great multitude, and a multitude shall be given into his hand. And he shall take (707) a multitude, and his heart shall be lifted up, because (Vulgate: and) he shall cast down many thousands. But he shall not prevail." The Ptolemy surnamed Philopator, having lost Syria through the betrayal of Theodotius, gathered together a very great multitude and launched an invasion against (p. 562) Antiochus the Great, who now bears the title of king of the North, at the region where Egypt borders upon the province of Judaea. For owing to the nature of the region, this locality lies partly to the south and partly to the north. If we speak of Judaea, it lies to the north of Egypt and to the south of Syria. And so when he had joined battle near the town of Raphia at the gateway of Egypt, Antiochus lost his entire army and was almost captured as he fled through the desert. And after he had conceded the loss of Syria, the conflict was finally brought to an end upon the basis of a treaty and certain conditions of peace. And this is what the Scripture means here by the statement that Ptolemy Philopator "shall cast down many thousands" and yet shall not prevail. For he was unable to capture his adversary. The sequel now follows.
Verses 13, 14. "And the king of the North shall return and shall prepare a much greater multitude than before, and in the end of times and years he shall come in haste with a large army and great resources. And in those times many shall rise up against the king of the South." This indicates that Antiochus the Great, who despised the worthlessness of Ptolemy Philopator (for he had fallen desperately in love with a lute-player named Agathoclea and also her brother, retaining Agatho-cles himself as his concubine and afterwards appointing him as general of Egypt), assembled a huge army from the upper regions of Babylon. And since Ptolemy Philopator was now dead, Antiochus broke his treaty and set his army in motion against |125 Philopator's four-year-old son, who was called Epiphanes. For so great was the dissoluteness and arrogancy of Agathoclea, that those provinces which had previously been subjected to Egypt rose up in rebellion, and even Egypt itself was troubled with seditions. Moreover Philip, King of Macedon, and Antiochus the Great made peace with each other and engaged in a common struggle (708) against Agathocles and Ptolemy Eprphanes, on the understanding that each of them should annex to his own dominion those cities of Ptolemy which lay nearest to them. And so this is what is referred to in this passage, which says that many shall rise up against the king of the South, that is, Ptolemy Epiphanes, who was then a mere child.
"Moreover the children of the transgressors of thy people shall lift themselves up, that they may fulfil the vision, and then fall to ruin (Vulgate: and they shall fall to ruin)." During the conflict between Antiochus the Great and the generals of Ptolemy, Judaea, which lay between them, was rent into contrary factions, the one group favoring Antiochus, and the other favoring Ptolemy. Finally the high priest, Onias, fled to Egypt, taking a large number of Jews along with him, and was given by Ptolemy an honorable reception. (A) He then received the region known as Heliopolis, and by a grant of the king, he erected a temple in Egypt like the temple of the Jews, and it remained standing up until the reign of Vespasian, over a period of two hundred (B) and fifty years. But then the city itself (C), which was known (p. 563) as the City of Onias, was destroyed to the very ground because of the war which the Jews had subsequently waged against the Romans. There is consequently no trace of either city or temple now remaining. But as we were saying, countless multitudes of Jews fled to Egypt on the occasion of Onias's pontificate, and the land was filled with a large number from Cyrene as well. For Onias affirmed (A) that he was fulfilling the prophecy written by Isaiah: "There shall be an altar of the Lord in Egypt, and the name of the Lord shall be found in their territories" (Isa. 19:19). And so this is the matter referred to in this passage: "The sons of the transgressors of thy people," who forsook the law of the Lord and wished to offer blood-sacrifices to God in another place than what He had commanded. They would be lifted up in pride and would boast that they were fulfilling the |126 vision, that is, the thing which the Lord had enjoined. But they shall fall to ruin, for both temple and city shall be afterwards destroyed. And while Antiochus held Judaea, a leader of the Ptolemaic party called Scopas (B) Aetholus was sent against Antiochus, and after a bold campaign he took Judaea and took the aristocrats of Ptolemy's party back to Egypt with him on his return. (709)
Verses 15, 16. "And the king of the North shall come, and shall cast up a mound and capture the best fortified cities, and the arms of the South shall not withstand. And his chosen ones shall rise up to resist, and they shall have no strength. And he shall come upon him and do according to his own desire, and there shall be none to stand against his face. And he shall stand in the glorious land and it shall be consumed by his hand." Purposing to retake Judaea and the many cities of Syria, Antiochus joined battle with Scopas, Ptolemy's general, near the sources of the Jordan near where the city now called Paneas was founded, and he put him to flight and besieged him in Sidon together with ten thousand of his soldiers. In order to free him, Ptolemy dispatched the famous generals, Eropus, Menocles and Damoxenus (Vulgate: Damoxeus). Yet he was unable to lift the siege, and finally Scopas, overcome by famine, had to surrender and was sent away with his associates, despoiled of all he had. And as for the statement, "He shall cast up a mound," this indicates that Antiochus is going to besiege the garrison of Scopas in the citadel of Jerusalem for a long time, while the Jews add their exertions as well. And he is going to capture other cities which had formerly been held by the Ptolemaic faction in Syria, Cilicia and Lycia (variant: Lydia). For at that time Aphrodisias, Soloe, Zephrion, Mallos, Anemurium (variant: Anemurum), Selenus, Coracesium, Coricus, Andriace, Lymira, Patara (variant: Patra), Xanthus, and finally Ephesus were all captured. These things are related by both Greek and Roman historians. And as for the statement, "And he shall stand in the glorious land, and it shall be consumed (or, finished) by his hand," the term "glorious land," or, as the Septuagint interprets it, "the land of desire" (that is, in which God takes pleasure) signifies Judaea, and particularly Jerusalem, to which Antiochus pursued those men of Scopas's party who had been honorably (C) received there. Instead of the |127 phrase, "glorious land," as (p. 564) Aquila rendered it, Theodotion simply puts the Hebrew word itself, (D) Sabin; instead of that Symmachus translated it "land of bravery."
Verses 17-19. "And he shall set his face to come and possess all his kingdom, and he shall make upright conditions with him. And he shall give him the daughter of women, that she may overthrow him" (Vulgate: it). That is to say, the intention is to overthrow him, that is, Ptolemy, or else to overthrow it, that is, his kingdom. Antiochus not only wished to take possession of Syria, Cilicia, and (710) Lycia, and the other provinces which had belonged to Ptolemy's party, but also to extend his empire to Egypt. He therefore used the good offices of Eucles of Rhodes to betroth his daughter, Cleopatra, to young Ptolemy in the seventh year of his reign; and in his thirteenth year she was given to him in marriage, professedly endowed with all of Coele-syria and Judaea as her marriage-portion. By pleonasm she is called a daughter of women, just as the poet says:
...Thus she spake with her mouth.
...And with these ears did I drink in her voice.
[The second line is quoted from Vergil's Aeneid, iv, 359; the first line I have not been able to locate; neither seems to be particularly appropriate to the context.]
"And she shall not stand, neither shall she be for him. And he shall turn his face to the islands and shall capture many; and she shall cause the prince of her reproach to cease, and his reproach shall be turned upon him. And he shall turn his face to the empire of his own land; and he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found." For he was unable to take possession of Egypt, because Ptolemy Epiphanes and his generals detected the strategem and followed a cautious policy. And besides, Cleopatra inclined more to her husband's side than to her father's. And so he turned his attention to Asia Minor, and by carrying on naval warfare against a large number of islands, he seized Rhodes, Samos, Colophon (variant: Colophonia and Bocla), Phocea and many other islands. But he was opposed by Lucius Scipio Nasica and also his brother, Publius Scipio Africanus, who had vanquished Hannibal. For since the consul Nasica, the brother of Africanus, was of a somewhat sluggish disposition, the Roman senate was unwilling to entrust to him a |128 war against so mighty a king as Antiochus. Africanus therefore offered to assume the post of deputy on a voluntary basis, in order to obviate any damage that his brother might cause. Consequently Antiochus was vanquished and commanded to confine his rule to the other side of the Taurus range. And so he took refuge in Apamia and Susa and advanced to the easternmost cities of his realm [reading regni for regi]. And during a war against the Elymaeans he was destroyed together with his entire army. And so this is what the Scripture refers to in this passage, when it states that he would capture many islands, and yet because of the Roman conqueror he would lose the kingdom of Asia; and that the disgrace he had inflicted would come back upon his own head; and that in the end he would flee from Asia Minor and return to the empire of his own land, and would then stumble and fall, so that his place would not be found.
Verse 20. "And there shall stand up in his place one most vile and unworthy of kingly honor, and in a few days he shall be destroyed, not in rage nor in a battle." The reference is to the Seleucus surnamed Philopator, (711) the son of Antiochus the Great, who during his reign performed no deeds worthy of Syria or of his father, but (p. 565) perished ingloriously without fighting a single battle. Porphyry, however, claims that it was not this Seleucus who is referred to, but rather Ptolemy Epiphanes, who contrived a plot against Seleucus and prepared an army to fight against him, with the result that Seleucus was poisoned by his own generals. They did this because when someone asked Seleucus where he was going to get the financial resources for the great enterprises he was planning, he answered that his financial resources consisted in his friends. When this remark was publicly noised abroad, the generals became apprehensive that he would deprive them of their property and for that reason did him to death by nefarious means. Yet how could Ptolemy be said to rise up in the place of Antiochus the Great, since he did nothing of the sort? This is especially improbable since the Septuagint translated: "And there shall stand up a plant from his root," that is, "of his issue and seed," who should deal a severe blow to the prestige of the empire; "and within a few days he shall be destroyed without wrath or battle." The Hebrews claim that it is Trypho who was intended by the man who was most |129 vile and unworthy of kingly honor, for as the boy-king's guardian he seized the throne for himself.
Verse 24. "And there shall stand up in his place one despised, and the kingly honor shall not be given him; and he shall come privately and shall obtain the kingdom by fraud. And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face and shall be broken, and the prince of the covenant as well. And after friendly advances he shall deal deceitfully with him, and shall go up and shall overcome with a small people. And he shall enter into rich and prosperous cities, and shall do things which his fathers never did, nor his fathers' fathers. He shall scatter their spoil and their booty and their wealth, and shall undertake plots against the best fortified cities, and shall continue thus for a time." Up to this point the historical order has been followed, and there has been no point of controversy between Porphyry and those of our side (variant: and us). But the rest of the text from here on to the end of the book he interprets as applying to the person of the Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes, the brother of Seleucus and the son of Antiochus the Great. He reigned in Syria for eleven years after Seleucus, and he seized Judaea, and it is under his reign that the persecution of God's Law is related, and also the wars of the Maccabees. But those of our persuasion believe all these things are spoken prophetically of the Antichrist who is to arise in the end time. But this factor appears to them as a difficulty for our view, namely the question as to why the prophetic discourse should abruptly cease mention of these great kings and shift from Seleucus to the end of the world. The answer is that in the earlier historical account where mention was made of the Persian kings, only four kings of Persia were presented, following after Cyrus, and (712) many who came in between were simply skipped over, so as to come quickly to Alexander, king of the Macedonians. We hold that it is the practice of Scripture not to relate all details completely, but only to set forth what seems of major importance. Those of our school insist also that since many of the details which we are subsequently to read and explain are appropriate to the person of Antiochus, he is to be regarded as a type of the Antichrist, and those things which happened to him in a preliminary way are to be completely fulfilled in the case of the Antichrist. We hold that it is the habit of Holy |130 Scripture to set forth by means of types the reality of things to come, in conformity with what is said of our Lord and Savior in the Seventy-first [i.e Seventy-second] Psalm, a psalm which is noted at the beginning as being Solomon's, and yet not all the statements which are made concerning can be applied to Solomon. For certainly he neither endured "together with the sun and before the moon from generation to generation," nor did he hold sway from sea (p. 566) to sea, or from the River unto the ends of the earth; neither did all the nations serve him, nor did his name endure before the sun; neither were all the tribes of earth blessed in him, nor did all races magnify him. But in a partial way these things were set forth in advance, by shadows as it were, and by a mere symbol of the reality, in the person of Solomon, in order that they might be more perfectly fulfilled in our Lord and Savior. And so, just as the Savior had Solomon and the other saints as types of His advent, so also we should believe that the Antichrist very properly had as a type of himself the utterly wicked king, Antiochus, who persecuted the saints and defiled the Temple. Let us therefore follow along with the explanation point by point, and let us briefly observe in the case of each item what it signifies to those of the other school of thought and what it signifies to those of our school, in accordance with each of the two explanations. Our opponents say that the one who was to "stand up in the place of" Seleucus was his brother, Antiochus Epiphanes. The party in Syria who favored Ptolemy would not at first grant him the kingly honor, but he later secured the rule of Syria by a pretense of clemency. And as Ptolemy fought and laid everything waste, his arms were overcome and broken before the face of Antiochus. Now the word arms implies the idea of strength, and therefore also the host of any army is known as a hand [i.e. manus, "hand," may also signify a "band of armed men"]. And not only does the text say that he conquered Ptolemy by fraud, but also the prince of the covenant he overcame by treachery, that is, Judas Maccabaeus. Or else this is what is referred to, that after he had secured peace with Ptolemy and he had become the prince of the covenant, he afterwards devised a plot against him. Now the Ptolemy meant here was not Epiphanes, who was the fifth Ptolemy to reign in Egypt, but Ptolemy (713) Philometor, the son of Antiochus' sister, Cleopatra; and so Antiochus was his |131 maternal uncle. And when after Cleopatra's death Egypt was ruled by Eulaius, the eunuch who was Philometor's tutor, and by Leneus, and they were attempting to regain Syria, which Antiochus had fraudulently seized, warfare broke out between the boy Ptolemy and his uncle. And when they joined battle between Pelusium and Mt. Casius, Ptolemy's generals were defeated. But then Antiochus showed leniency towards the boy, and making a pretense of friendship, he went up to Memphis and there received the crown after the Egyptian manner. Declaring that he was looking out for the lad's interests, he subjected all Egypt to himself with only a small force of men, and he entered into rich and prosperous cities. And so he did things which his father had never done, nor his fathers' fathers. For none of the kings of Syria had ever laid Egypt waste after this fashion and scattered all their wealth. Moreover he was so shrewd that he even overcame by his deceit the well-laid plans of those who were the boy-king's generals. This is the line of interpretation which Porphyry followed, pursuing the lead of (A) Sutorius with much redundancy, discoursing of matters which we have summarized within a brief compass. But the scholars of our viewpoint have made a better and correcter interpretation, stating that the deeds are to be performed by the Antichrist at the end of the world. It is he who is destined to arise from a small nation, that is from the Jewish people, and shall be so lowly and despised that kingly honor will not be granted him. But by means of intrigue and deception he shall secure the government and by him shall the arms of the fighting nation of Rome be overcome and broken. He is to effect this result by pretending to (p. 567) be the prince of the covenant, that is, of the Law and Testament of God. And he shall enter into the richest of cities and shall do what his fathers never did, nor his fathers' fathers. For none of the Jews except the Antichrist has ever ruled over the whole world. And he shall form a design against the firmest resolves of the saints and shall do everything [he wishes] for a time, for as long as God's will shall have permitted him to do these things.
Verses 25, 26. "And his strength and his heart shall be stirred up against the king of the South with a great army. And the king of the South shall be aroused to war with many and very strong auxiliary forces; and they shall not stand, for they |132 shall form designs against him. And they that eat bread with him shall destroy him, and his army shall be crushed, (714) and many shall fall down slain." Porphyry interprets this as applying to Antiochus, who set forth with a great army on a campaign against his sister's son. But the king of the South, that is the generals of Ptolemy, were also roused to war with many and very powerful auxiliary forces, but they could not stand against the fraudulent schemes of Antiochus. For he pretended to be at peace with his sister's son and ate bread with him, and afterwards he took possession of Egypt. But those of our view with greater plausibility interpret all this as applying to the Antichrist, for he is to be born of the Jewish people and come from Babylon, and is first of all going to vanquish the king of Egypt, who is one of the three horns of which we have already spoken earlier.
Verses 27----30. "And the heart of the two kings shall be to do evil, and they speak falsehood at one table, and they shall not prosper, because as yet the end is unto another time. And he shall return into his land with much riches." There is no doubt but what Antiochus did conclude a peace with Ptolemy and ate at the same table with him and devised plots against him, and yet without attaining any success thereby, since he did not obtain his kingdom but was driven out by Ptolemy's soldiers. But it cannot be proved from this set of facts that the statement of this Scripture was ever fulfilled by past history, namely that there were two kings whose hearts were deceitful and who inflicted evil upon each other. Actually, Ptolemy was a mere child of tender years and was taken in by Antiochus' fraud; how then could he have plotted evil against him? And so our party insist that all these things (A) refer to the Antichrist and to the king of Egypt whom he has for the first time overcome.
"And his heart shall be against the holy covenant, and he shall succeed and return into his own land. At the time appointed he shall return and shall come to the South; but the latter time shall not be like the former. And the galleys shall come upon him, and the Romans, and he shall be dealt a heavy blow." Or, as another has rendered it, "... and they shall threaten him with attack." Both the Greek and the Roman historians relate that after Antiochus had (p. 568) been expelled from Egypt and had gone back once more, he came to Judaea, that is, against |133 the holy covenant, and that he despoiled the Temple and removed a huge amount of gold; and then, having stationed a garrison in the citadel, he returned to his own land. And then two years later he gathered an army against (715) Ptolemy and came to the South. And while he was besieging his two nephews, the brothers of Ptolemy and sons of Cleopatra, at Alexandria, some Roman envoys arrived on the scene, one of whom was Marcus (B) Popilius Laenas. And when he had found Antiochus standing on the shore and had conveyed the senatorial decree to him by which he was ordered to withdraw from those who were friends of the Roman people and to content himself with his own domain, then Antiochus delayed his reply in order to consult with his friends. But Laenas is said to have made a circle in the sand with the staff which he held in his hand, and to have drawn it around the king, saying, "The senate and people of Rome give order for you to make answer in this very spot as to what your decision is." At these words Antiochus was greatly alarmed and said, "If this is the good pleasure of the senate and people of Rome, then I must withdraw." And so he immediately set his army in motion. But he is said to have been dealt a heavy blow, not that he was killed but that he lost all of his proud prestige. As for the Antichrist, there is no question but what he is going to fight against the holy covenant, and that when he first makes war against the king of Egypt, he shall straightway be frightened off by the assistance (C) of the Romans. But these events were typically prefigured under Antiochus Epiphanes, so that this abominable king who persecuted God's people foreshadows the Antichrist, who is to persecute the people of Christ. And so there are many (D) of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero [actually Domitius was the name of Nero's father, Ahenobarbus] was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity.
"And he shall return and shall be angry at the covenant of the sanctuary, and he shall succeed; and he shall return and take thought concerning (Vulgate: against) those who have abandoned the covenant of the sanctuary." We read of these matters at greater length in the exploits of the Maccabees (I Macc. 1), where we learn that after the Romans expelled him from Egypt, he came in anger against the covenant of the sanctuary and was welcomed by those who had forsaken the law of God and |134 taken part in the religious rites of the Gentiles. But this is to be more amply fulfilled under the Antichrist, for he shall become angered at the covenant of God and devise plans against those whom he wishes to forsake the law of God. And so Aquila has rendered in a more significant way: (716) "And he shall devise plans to have the compact of the sanctuary abandoned."
Verse 31. "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall defile (Vulgate: that (?) they may defile) the sanctuary of strength, and they shall take away the continual sacrifice, and shall place there the abomination unto desolation." Instead of "arms," (E) another writer has rendered it as "seed," so as to imply (p. 569) descendants and progeny. But those of the other viewpoint claim that the persons mentioned are those who were sent by Antiochus two years after he had plundered the Temple in order to exact tribute from the Jews, and also to eliminate the worship of God, setting up an image of Jupiter Olympius in the Temple at Jerusalem, and also statues of Antiochus himself. These are described as the abomination of desolation, having been set up when the burnt offering and continual sacrifice were taken away. But we on our side contend that all these things took place in a preliminary way as a mere type of the Antichrist, who is destined to seat himself in the Temple of God, and make himself out to be as God. The Jews, however, would have us understand these things as referring, not to Antiochus Epiphanes or the Antichrist, but to the Romans, of whom it was earlier stated, "And war galleys shall come," whether Italian or Roman, "and he shall be humbled." Considerably later, says the text, a king, Vespasian, shall emerge from the Romans themselves, who had come to Ptolemy's assistance and threatened Antiochus. It is his arms or descendants who would rise up, namely his son Titus, who with his army would defile the sanctuary and remove the continual sacrifice and devote the temple to permanent desolation. By the terms siim (Siyyim) and chethim (Kittiym), which we have rendered as "galleys" and "Romans," the Jews would have us understand "Italians" and "Romans."
Verse 32. "And ungodly men shall deceitfully dissemble against the covenant. But the people who know their God shall prevail and succeed." And in Maccabees we read that there were some who, to be sure, pretended that they were custodians of |135 God's law, and later they came to terms with the Gentiles; yet the others adhered to their religion. But in my opinion this will take place in the time of the Antichrist, when the love of many shall wax cold. It is concerning these people that our Lord says in the Gospel, "Dost thou think that the Son of man, when He comes, will find faith upon the earth?" (Luke 18:8).
Verse 33. "And they that are learned among the people shall teach many and (717) they shall fall by the sword and by fire and by captivity and by spoil for many days." The books of Maccabees relate the great sufferings the Jews endured at the hands of Antiochus and they stand as a testimony of their triumph; for they endured fire and sword, slavery and rapine, and even the ultimate penalty of death itself for the sake of guarding the law of God. But let no one doubt that these things are going to happen under the Antichrist, when many shall resist his authority and flee away in various directions. The Jews, of course, interpret these things as taking place at the destruction of the Temple, which took place under Vespasian and Titus, and they claim that there were very many of their nation who knew their Lord and were slain for keeping His law.
Verses 34, 35. "And when they shall have fallen, they shall be relieved with a small help; and many shall be joined to them deceitfully. And some of the learned shall fall, that they may be refined as by fire and that they may be chosen and made white even to the time before appointed, because there shall yet be another time." Porphyry thinks that the "little help" was Mattathias of the village of (variant: mountain of) Modin, for he rebelled against the generals of Antiochus and attempted to preserve the worship of the true God (I Macc. 2). He says he is called a little help because Mattathias was (p. 570) slain in battle; and later on his son Judas, who was called Maccabaeus, also fell in the struggle; and the rest of his brothers were likewise taken in by the deceit of their adversaries. Consult the books of Maccabees for the details. And all these events took place, he asserts, for the purpose of testing and choosing out the saints, that they might be made white until the time before appointed, inasmuch as victory was deferred until another time. Our writers, however, would have it understood that the small help shall arise under the reign of the Antichrist, for the saints shall gather together to |136 resist him, and afterwards a great number of the learned shall fall. And this shall take place in order that they may be refined as by fire in the furnace, and that they may be made white and may be chosen out, until the time before determined arrives ---- for the true victory shall be won at the coming of Christ. Some of the Jews understand these things as applying to the princes Severus and Antoninus, who esteemed the Jews very highly. But others understand the Emperor Julian as the one referred to; for after they had been oppressed by Gaius Caesar and had steadfastly endured such suffering in the afflictions of their captivity, Julian rose up as one who pretended love for the Jews, promising that he would even offer sacrifice in their temple. They were to enjoy a little help from him, and a great number of the Gentiles (718) were to join themselves to their party, although falsely and insincerely. For it would only be for the sake of their own idolatrous religion that they would pretend friendship to the Jews. And they would do this in order that those who were approved might be made manifest. For the time of their true salvation and help will be the coming of the Christ; for the Jews mistakenly imagine (A) that he (i.e., their Messiah) is yet to come, for they are going to receive the Antichrist (when he comes) (I Cor. 11).
Verse 36. "And the king shall do according to his will, and he shall be lifted up and shall magnify himself against every god; and he shall speak arrogant words against the God of gods, and shall manage successfully until the wrath be accomplished (Vulgate: indignation); for the determination is made." Or else, as another has translated it: "for in him shall be the consummation." The Jews believe that this passage has reference to the Antichrist, alleging that after the small help of Julian a king is going to rise up who shall do according to his own will and shall lift himself up against all that is called god, and shall speak (B) arrogant words against the God of gods. He shall act in such a way as to sit in the Temple of God and shall make himself out to be God, and his will shall be prospered until the wrath of God is fulfilled, for in him the consummation will take place. We too understand this to refer to the Antichrist. But Porphyry and the others who follow his lead suppose the reference to be to Antiochus Epiphanes, pointing out that he did raise himself up against the worship of God, and pushed his arrogance so far as to |137 command his own statue to be set up in the Temple in Jerusalem. And as for the subsequent statement, "And he shall manage successfully until the wrath be accomplished, for the consummation shall be in him," they understand it to mean that his power will endure until such time as God becomes angry at him and orders him to be killed. For indeed Polybius and Diodorus, who composed the histories of the (C) Bibliothecae (Libraries), relate that Antiochus not only took measures against the God of Judaea, but also was impelled by an all-consuming avarice to attempt the plunder of the temple of (D) Diana in Elymais, because it was so wealthy. But he was so beset by the temple guard (p. 571) and the neighboring populace, and also by certain fearful apparitions, that he became demented and finally died of illness. And the historians record that this befell him because he had attempted to plunder the temple of Diana. But we for our part maintain that even though this thing befell him, it did so because he had perpetrated great cruelty upon the saints of God and had defiled His Temple. For we ought not to suppose that it was because of something he (719) only attempted to do but from which he then desisted by an act of repentance, but rather because of something he actually did he was punished.
Verses 37-39. "And he shall make no account of the god of his fathers, and he shall be engrossed in lust for women; nor shall he have regard for any of the gods, for he shall rise up against everything. But he shall worship the god Maozim in his place, and a god which his fathers knew not shall he worship with gold and silver and precious stones and things of great price. And he shall take measures to fortify Maozim, together with a strange god whom (A) he has acknowledged. And he shall increase glory and shall grant them power over many and shall divide the land as a free gift." Instead of our rendering, the Septuagint translates: "...and he will not be subject to the lusts of women." And again, instead of "the god Maozim (m'dym) [the Massoretic text has md'uzziym]," as the Hebrew has it, Aquila renders, "the God of mighty powers (fortitudinum)," whereas the Septuagint says, "the most mighty God." But because there is an ambiguity of position in the Hebrew original of the phrase we rendered by, "And he shall be engrossed in lust for women," Aquila renders it simply word for word (in Greek): "And he shall |138 have no understanding with regard to the god of his fathers, and (B) in regard to the desire of women and in regard to every god he shall have no understanding"; that is (in Latin): "And concerning the god of his fathers he shall not understand, and concerning the lust for women, and concerning every god he shall not understand." There are two interpretations current concerning these words, that he cherished lust for women, and that he cherished no lust for them. If we read it one way and understand it as an apo koinou [the use of a common word in two different clauses]: "And he shall have no knowledge concerning a lust for women," then it is more easily applied to the Antichrist; i.e., that he will assume a pretense of chastity in order to deceive many. But if we read it in this fashion: "And occupied with lust for women," understanding, "...he shall be," then it is more appropriate to the character of Antiochus. For he is said to have been an egregious voluptuary, and to have become such a disgrace to the dignity of kingship through his lewdness and seductions, that he publicly had intercourse with actresses and harlots, and satisfied his sexual passions in the presence of the people. As for the god Maozim, Porphyry has offered an absurd explanation, asserting that Antiochus's generals set up a statue of Jupiter in the village of Modin, from which came Mattathias and his sons; moreover they compelled the Jews to offer blood-sacrifices to it, that is, to the god of Modin. The next statement, "...and he shall worship a god whom his fathers did not know" is more appropriate to the Antichrist than to Antiochus. For we read that Antiochus held to the religion of the (720) idols of Greece and compelled the Jews and Samaritans to worship his own gods. Likewise in regard to the statement, "...and he shall take measures to fortify Maozim, together with a strange god whom he has acknowledged; and he shall increase glory and grant them power over many, and shall divide the land as a free gift," Theodotion has interpreted (p. 572) as follows: "And he shall conduct these affairs so as to fortify garrisons with a strange god, and with them he shall manifest and increase glory; and he shall cause them to bear rule over many and divide up the land as a free gift." Symmachus rendered it "refuges" instead of "garrisons." Porphyry explained this as meaning that the man is going to fortify the citadel in Jerusalem and will station garrisons in the rest of the |139 cities, and will instruct the Jews to worship a strange god, which doubtless means Jupiter. And displaying the idol to them, he will persuade them that they should worship it. Then he will bestow upon the deluded both honor and very great glory, and he shall deal with the rest who have borne rule in Judaea, and apportion estates unto them in return for their falsehood, and shall distribute gifts. The Antichrist likewise is going to make lavish bestowal of many rewards upon those whom he has deceived, and will divide up the land to his soldiery. And those whom he will not be able to subject to himself by fear he will subject through their cupidity.
Verses 40, 41. "And at the predetermined time the king of the South shall war against him, and the king of the North shall come against him like a tempest with chariots, with horsemen and with a great navy; and he shall invade lands and destroy them and pass through. And he shall enter into the glorious land, and many shall fall." Theodotion rendered: "...and many shall be enfeebled." And according to Aquila, the many that fell are to be understood as cities or districts or provinces. This too is referred by Porphyry to Antiochus, on the ground that in the eleventh year of his reign he warred for a second time against his nephew, Ptolemy Philometor. For when the latter heard that Antiochus had come, he gathered many thousands of soldiery. But Antiochus invaded many lands like a mighty tempest, with his chariots and horsemen and large navy, and laid everything waste as he passed through. And he came to the glorious land, that is, Judaea, which Symmachus rendered as "land of strength." In place of this Theodotion used the Hebrew word itself, Sabai (variants: Sabam and Saba) (sby). And Antiochus used the ruins of the wall of the city to fortify the citadel, (721) and thus he continued on his way to Egypt. But those of our viewpoint refer these details also to the Antichrist, asserting that he shall first fight against the king of the South, or Egypt, and shall afterwards conquer Libya and Ethiopia, for these constitute the three broken horns about which we read previously. And then he shall come to the land of Israel, and many cities or provinces shall be given into his hands.
"And only these cities shall be saved from his hands: Edom, Moab, and the principality of the children of Ammon." |140 They say that in his haste to fight Ptolemy, the king of the South, Antiochus left untouched the Idumaeans, Moabites, and Ammonites, who dwelt to the side of Judaea, lest he should make Ptolemy the stronger by engaging in some other campaign. The Antichrist also is going to leave Idumaea, Moab, and the children of Ammon (i.e., Arabia) untouched, for the saints are to flee thither to the deserts.
Verses 42, 43. "And he shall lay his hand upon the lands, and the land of Egypt shall not escape; and he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt. And likewise he shall pass through [reading transibit for transivit] (p. 573) the Libyans (Vulgate: Libya and Ethiopia) and the Ethiopians." We read that Antiochus partially accomplished this. But as for the added detail, "He shall pass through the Libyans and Ethiopians," our school insists that this is more appropriate to the Antichrist. For Antiochus never held Libya, which most writers understand to be North Africa, nor Ethiopia; unless, of course, his capture of Egypt involved the harrassment of those provinces of Egypt which lay in the same general region as Ethiopia, and which lay as distant neighbors to it, on the other side of the deserts. Hence there is no assertion of his conquering them, but only the statement that he passed through the Libyans and the Ethiopians.
Verses 44, 45. "And tidings from the East and from the North shall trouble him. And he shall come thither with a great host to destroy and slay very many. And he shall pitch his tent in Apedno between (A) the two seas, upon the famous and holy mountain; and he shall come even unto its summit, and none shall help him." Even for this passage Porphyry has some nebulous application to Antiochus, asserting that in his conflict with the Egyptians, Libyans, and Ethiopians, passing through them he was to hear of wars which had been stirred up against him in the North and the East. Thence he was to turn back and overcome the resistance of the Aradians [Aradus was an island off the coast of Phoenicia], and lay waste the entire province along the coastline of Phoenicia. (722) And then he was to proceed without delay against Artaxias, the king of Armenia, who was moving down from the regions of the East, and having slain a large number of his troops, he would pitch his tent in the |141 place called Apedno which is located between the two broadest rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is impossible to state upon what famous and holy mountain he took his seat, after he had proceeded to that point. After all, it cannot be shown that he took up his seat between two seas, and it would be foolish to interpret the two seas as being the two rivers of Mesopotamia. But Porphyry gets around this famous mountain by following the rendering of Theodotion, who said: "...upon the sacred Mount Saba between the two seas." And even though he supposes that Saba was the name of a mountain in Armenia or Mesopotamia, he cannot explain why it was holy. [The Massoretic text has the common noun, sebiy, which means "beauty" or "honor," and gives no room for any proper noun, Saba.] To be sure, if we assume the right of making things up, we can add the detail which Porphyry fails to mention, that the mountain, forsooth, was called holy, because it was consecrated to idols in conformity with the superstition of the Armenians. The account then says: "And he shall come even unto the summit of that same mountain," ----supposedly in the province of Elam, which is the easternmost Persian area. And there when he purposed to plunder the temple of Diana, which contained countless sums of money, he was routed by the barbarians, for they honored that shrine with a remarkable veneration. And Antiochus, being overcome with grief, died in Tabes, a town in Persia. By use of a most artificial line of argument Porphyry has concocted these details as an affront to us; but even though he were able to prove that these statements applied to Antiochus instead of the Antichrist, what does that matter [reading quid instead of the inappropriate qui] to us? For do we not on the basis of all the passages of Scripture prove the coming of Christ and the falsehood of the Antichrist? For assume that these things did refer to Antiochus, what injury does that inflict upon our religious faith? Is it not true that in the earlier vision also, (p. 574) which contained a prophecy fulfilled in Antiochus, there is some reference to the Antichrist? And so let Porphyry banish his doubts and stick to manifest facts. Let him explain the meaning of that rock which was hewn from the mountain without hands, and which grew to be a great mountain and filled the earth, and which smashed to pieces the fourfold image. And let him say who that Son of man is who |142 is going to come with clouds and stand before the Ancient of Days and have bestowed upon him a kingdom which shall never come to an end, and who is going to be served by all [reading omnes for omnem] nations, tribes, and language-groups. (723) Porphyry ignores these things which are so very clear and maintains that the prophecy refers to the Jews, although we are well aware that they are to this very day in a state of bondage. And he claims that the person who composed the book under the name of Daniel made it all up in order to revive the hopes of his countrymen. Not that he was able to foreknow all of future history, but rather he records events that had already taken place. Thus Porphyry confines himself to false claims in regard to the final vision, substituting rivers for the sea, and positing a famous and holy mountain, Apedno (B) even though he is unable to furnish any historical source in which he has read about it. Those of our party, on the other hand, explain the final chapter of this vision as relating to the Antichrist, and stating that during his war against the Egyptians, Libyans, and Ethiopians, in which he shall smash three of the ten horns, he is going to hear that war has been stirred up against him in the regions of the North and East. Then he shall come with a great host to crush and slay many people, and shall pitch his tent in Apedno near Nicopolis, which was formerly called Emmaus, at the beginning of the mountainous region in the province of Judaea. Finally he shall make his way thence to go up to the Mount of Olives and ascend to the area of Jerusalem; and this is what the Scripture means here: "And when he has pitched his tent...." at the foothills of the mountainous province between two seas. These are, of course, that which is now called the Dead Sea on the east, and the Great Sea on the shore of which lie Caesarea, Joppa, Ashkelon, and (C) Gazae. Then he shall come up to the summit thereof, that is of the mountainous province, or the apex of the Mount of Olives, which of course is called famous because our Lord and Savior ascended from it to the Father. And no one shall be able to assist the Antichrist as the Lord vents his fury upon him. Our school of thought insists that Antichrist is going to perish in that spot from which the Lord ascended to heaven. Apedno is a compound word, which upon analysis yields the meaning of "his throne" (the Greek thronou autou), or (in Latin) "thy throne" [or, if tui |143 is a misprint for sui, his throne]. And the meaning is that he shall pitch his tent (D) and his throne between the seas upon the famous, holy mountain. Symmachus translated this passage (724) as follows (in Greek): "And he shall stretch out the tents of his stable between the seas in the holy mountain of power, and he shall come even unto its height"; which means in Latin: "And he shall stretch forth the pavilions of his cavalry between the seas, upon the holy mountain of power, and shall come even unto the apex of the mountain." Theodotion (p. 575) renders it: "And he shall pitch his tent in (A) Aphedanum between the seas in the holy Mount Saba, and he shall come to the region thereof." Aquila says: "And he shall set up the tent of his headquarters in (Greek) Aphadanon between the seas, in the glorious, holy mountain, and he shall come even unto its border." Only the Septua-gint frees itself from the problem about the name by translating: "And he shall establish his tent there between the seas and the holy mountain of desire and he shall come to the hour of his final end." Adhering to this rendering, Apollinarius omits all mention of the name Apedno. I have gone into this matter at some length not only for the purpose of exposing Porphyry's misrepresentation (for either he was ignorant of all these matters or else he pretended not to know them) but also to show the difficulty in Holy Scripture. And yet men who altogether lack experience lay special claim to understanding it apart from the grace of God and the scholarship of preceding generations. Now it should be observed that Hebrew has no letter P, but uses instead the letter phe, which has the force of the Greek phi. [An interesting observation, but rather puzzling. Ordinarily the Hebrew pe is spirantized only after a vowel sound, and is hard the rest of the time. It is hard and doubled in this particular word, 'appadnow, according to the Massoretic pointing.] It is simply that in this particular place the Hebrews write the letter (B) phe, yet it is to be pronounced as p. But that the Antichrist is going to come to the summit of the holy, famous mountain and perish there is a fact upon which Isaiah expatiates more fully, saying: "The Lord shall in the holy mountain cast down the face of the ruler of the darkness which is over all races, and him who rules over all peoples, and the (C) anointing which is applied against (variant: with which he was anointed against) all the |144 nations." [This rather incoherent quotation varies very considerably from Jerome's own rendering of Isaiah 25:7 in the Vulgate, and also from the Septuagint rendering. The editors were apparently so dubious about it that they failed to give the citation at all.] |145
CHAPTER TWELVE
Verses 1-3. "But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who stands for the children of thy people, and a time shall come such as never occurred from the time that nations began to exist even unto that time. And at that time shall thy people be saved, even everyone who shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, that they may behold it always. But those who are instructed shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that instruct many as to righteousness, as the stars for all eternity." Up until this point Porphyry somehow managed to maintain his position and impose upon the credulity of the naive [reading imperitis for imperitus] among our adherents as well as the poorly educated among his own. But what can he say of this chapter, in which is described the resurrection of the dead, with one group being revived for eternal life and the other group for eternal disgrace? He cannot even specify who the people were under Antiochus who shone like the brightness of the firmament, and those others who shone like the stars for all eternity. But what will pigheadedness not resort to? Like some bruised serpent, he lifts up his head as he is about to die, and pours forth his venom upon those who are themselves at the point of death. This too, he declares, was written with reference to Antiochus, for after he had invaded Persia, he left his army with Lysias, who was in charge of Antioch and Phoenicia, for the purpose of warring against the Jews and destroying their city of Jerusalem. All these details are related by Josephus, the author of the history of the Hebrews. Porphyry contends that the tribulation was such as had never previously occurred, and that a time came along such as had never been from the time that races began to exist even unto that time. But when victory was bestowed upon them, and the generals of Antiochus had been slain, and Antiochus himself had died in Persia, the people of Israel |146 experienced salvation, (p. 576) even all who had been written down in the book of God, that is, those who defended the law with great bravery. Contrasted with them were those who proved to be transgressors of the Law and sided with the party of Antiochus. Then it was, he asserts, that these guardians of the Law, who had been, as it were, slumbering in the dust of the earth and were cumbered with a load of afflictions, and even hidden away, as it were, in the tombs of wretchedness, rose up once more from the dust of the earth to a victory unhoped for, and lifted up their heads, rising up to everlasting life, even as the transgressors rose up to everlasting disgrace. But those masters and teachers who possessed a knowledge of the Law shall shine like the heaven, and those who have exhorted the more backward peoples to observe the rites of God shall blaze forth after the fashion of the stars for all eternity. He also adduces the historical account concerning the Maccabees, in which it is said that many Jews under the leadership of Mattathias and Judas Maccabaeus fled to the desert and hid in caves and holes in the rocks, and came forth again after the victory (I Macc. 2.) These things, then, were foretold in metaphorical language (726) as if it concerned a resurrection of the dead. But the more reasonable understanding of the matter is that in the time of the Antichrist there shall occur a tribulation such as there has never been since nations began to exist. For assume that Lysias won the victory instead of being defeated, and that he completely crushed the Jews instead of their conquering; certainly such tribulation would not have been comparable to that of the time when Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians, the Temple was destroyed, and all the people were led off into captivity. And so after the Antichrist is crushed and destroyed by the breath of the Savior's mouth, the people written in God's book shall be saved; and in accordance with the merits of each, some shall rise up unto eternal life and others unto eternal shame. But the teachers shall resemble the very heavens, and those who have instructed others shall be compared to the brightness of the stars. For it is not enough to know wisdom unless one also instructs others; and the tongue of instruction which remains silent and edifies no one else can receive no reward for labor accomplished. This passage is expressed by Theodo-tion and the Vulgate edition [of the Septuagint] in the following |147 fashion: "And those who understand shall shine forth like the radiance of the firmament, and many of the righteous like the stars forever and ever." Many people often ask whether a learned saint and an ordinary saint shall both enjoy the same reward and one and the same dwelling-place in heaven. Well then, the statement is made here, according to Theodotion's rendering, that the learned will resemble the very heavens, whereas the righteous who are without learning are only compared to the brightness of the stars. And so the difference between learned godliness and mere godly rusticity shall be the difference between heaven and the stars.
Verse 4. "But Thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even to the time appointed. Many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold." He who had revealed manifold truth to Daniel now signifies that the things he has said are matters of secrecy, and he orders him to roll up the scroll containing his words and set a seal upon the book, with the result that many shall read it and inquire (p. 577) as to its fulfilment in history, differing in their opinions because of its great obscurity. And as for the statement, "Many shall pass over" or "go through," this indicates that it will be read by many people. For it is a familiar expression to say: "I have gone through a book," or, "I have passed through an historical account." Indeed this is the idea which Isaiah also expressed in regard to the obscurity of his own book: "And the sayings of that book shall be like the words of a book that is sealed. And if they shall give it to an illiterate man, saying, 'Read it,' he will reply, (727) 'I do not know how to read.' But if they give it to a man who does know how to read and say, 'Read the book,' he will reply, 'I cannot read it, because it is sealed up' " (Isa. 39:11). Also in the Revelation of John, there is a book seen which is sealed with seven seals inside and outside. And when no one proves able to break its seals, John says, "I wept sore; and a voice came to me, saying, 'Weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the book and break its seals' " (Rev. 5:4). But that book can be opened by one who has learned the mysteries of Scripture and understands its hidden truths, and its words which seem dark because of the greatness of the secrets they contain. He it is who can interpret the parables |148 and transmute the letter which killeth into the spirit which quickeneth.
Verses 5, 6. "And I Daniel looked, and behold as it were two other persons were standing, one on this side upon the river-bank, and the other upon that side, on the other bank of the river. And I said to the man that was clothed in linen, that stood upon the waters of the river, 'How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?'" Daniel saw two angels standing on either side upon the bank of the river of Babylon. Although it is mentioned here without specifying its name, I suppose that in line with the preceding vision it would be the Tigris River, which is called Eddecel (H-d-q-l) in Hebrew. Yet Daniel does not address his question to those who were standing upon either bank, but rather to the one whom he had seen at the beginning, who was clothed in vesture of linen or byssus, which is called baddim (b-d-y-m) in Hebrew. And this same angel was standing upon the waters of the river of Babylon, treading upon them with his feet. From this fact we understand that the former pair of angels whom he saw standing upon the bank and did not question or deem worthy of interrogation were the angels of the Greeks and Persians. But this first angel was the gracious one who had presented Daniel's prayers before God during the twenty-one days while the angel of the Persians was opposing him. And Daniel was asking him (variant: asks him) about these wonders spoken of in the present vision, as to the time when they should be accomplished. Porphyry, of course, assigns this time to the period of Antiochus, after his usual fashion, whereas we assign it to the time of Antichrist.
Verse 7. "And I heard the man that was clothed in linen, that stood upon the waters of the river: when he had lifted up his right hand and his left hand to heaven and had sworn by Him that liveth (728) forever, that it should be unto a time and times and half a time." Porphyry interprets a time and times and half a time to mean three and a half years; and we for our part do not deny that this accords with the idiom of Sacred Scripture. For we read in an earlier section (p. 578) that seven times passed over Nebuchadnezzar, that is, the seven years of his existence as a wild beast. The expression was also used in the vision of the four beasts, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the |149 other beast whose name was not specified but which represented the kingdom of the Romans. Right afterwards the statement is made concerning the Antichrist that (A) he will humble kings and utter speeches against the Exalted One and will crush the saints of the Most High; moreover he will imagine that he can alter times and laws. And the saints shall be turned over to his power unto a time and times and half a time. And the court will sit for judgment, in order that power may be removed and utterly broken and vanish away until the very end. And clearly the reference is to the coming of Christ and the saints when it is said: "But kingdom and power and the greatness of the kingdom which lies beneath the whole heaven shall be bestowed upon the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; and all the kings shall serve and obey Him." If therefore the earlier references which were plainly written concerning the Antichrist are assigned by Porphyry to Antiochus and to the three and a half years during which he asserts the Temple was deserted (cf. Verse 1, above), then he is under obligation to prove that the next statement, "His kingdom is eternal, and all kings shall serve and obey him," likewise pertains to Antiochus, or else (as he himself conjectures) to the people of the Jews. But it is perfectly apparent that such an argument will never stand. We read in the books of Maccabees----and Josephus also concurs in the same opinion (Book 11, chap. 10) ---- that the Temple in Jerusalem lay defiled for three years, and under Antiochus Epiphanes an idol of Jupiter stood within it (B); that is to say, from Chislev, the ninth month, of the one hundred forty-fifth year of the Macedonian rule until the ninth month of the one hundred forty-eighth year, which amounts to three years. But under the Antichrist it is not stated that the desolation and overthrow of the holy Temple shall endure for three years, but for three years and a half, that is, one thousand two hundred and ninety days.
"And when the scattering of the band (729) of the holy people shall be accomplished, all these things shall be fulfilled." When it is stated that the people of God shall have been scattered ---- either under the persecution of Antiochus, as Porphyry claims, or of Antichrist, which we deem to be closer to fact ---- at that time shall all these things be fulfilled.
Verses 8-10. "And I heard, and understood not. |150 And I said, 'O my lord, what shall happen after these things?' And he said, 'Go, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time (C) of the end. Many shall be chosen and made white and shall be tried as fire; and the wicked shall deal wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.'" The prophet wished to comprehend what he had seen, or rather, what he had heard, and he desired to understand the reality of the things to come. For he had heard of the various wars of kings, and of battles between them, and a detailed narrative of events; but he had not heard the names of the individual persons involved. And if the prophet himself heard and did not understand, what will be the case with those men who presumptuously expound a book which has been sealed, and that too unto the time of the end, a book which is (p. 579) shrouded with many obscurities? But he comments that when the end comes, the ungodly will lack comprehension, whereas those who are learned in the teaching of God will be able to understand. "For wisdom will not enter the perverted soul, nor can it impart itself to a body which is subject to sins." [The editors do not cite the source of this quotation.]
Verse 11. "And from the time that the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days." Porphyry asserts that these one thousand two hundred and ninety days were fulfilled in the desolation of the Temple in the time of Antiochus, and yet both Josephus and the Book of Maccabees, as we have said before, record that it lasted for only three years. From this circumstance it is apparent that the three and a half years are spoken of in connection with the time of the Antichrist, for he is going to persecute the saints for three and a half years, or one thousand two hundred and ninety days, and then he shall meet his fall on the famous, holy mountain. And so from the time of the removal of the endelekhismos, which we have translated as "continual sacrifice," i.e., the time when the Antichrist shall obtain possession of the world (variant: the city) and forbid the worship (A) of God, unto the day of his death the three and a half years, or one thousand two hundred and ninety days, shall be fulfilled. (730).
Verse 12. "Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh |151 unto a thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." He means that he is blessed who waits for forty-five days beyond the predetermined number, for it is within that period that our Lord and Savior is to come in His glory. But the reason for the forty-five days of inaction after the slaying of the Antichrist is a matter which rests in the knowledge of God; unless, of course, we say that the rule of the saints is delayed in order that their patience may be tested. Porphyry explains this passage in the following way, that the forty-five days beyond the one thousand two hundred and ninety signify the interval of victory over the generals of Antiochus, or the period when Judas Maccabaeus fought with bravery and cleansed the Temple and broke the idol to pieces, offering blood-sacrifices in the Temple of God. He might have been correct in this statement if the Book of Maccabees had recorded that the Temple was polluted over a period of three and a half years instead of just three years (I Mace. 4).
Verse 13. "But thou, (B) Daniel, go thy way until the time appointed, and take thy rest (Vulgate: thou shalt rest) and thou shalt stand in thy lot unto the end of the days." Instead of this Theodotion translated it: "But go thy way and take thy rest, and thou shalt rise up again in thy turn at the end of the days." From this remark it is demonstrated that the whole context of the prophecy has to do with the resurrection of all the dead, (p. 580) at the time when the prophet also is to rise. And it is vain for Porphyry to claim that all these things which were spoken concerning the Antichrist under the type of Antiochus actually refer to Antiochus alone. As we have already mentioned, these false claims have been answered at greater length by Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarius of Laodicea, and partially also by that very able writer, the martyr Methodius; and anyone who knows of these things can look them up in their writings. (C) Thus far we have been reading Daniel in the Hebrew edition; but the remaining matter to the end of the book has been translated from Theodotion's edition. |152
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Verses 1, 2. "Now there was a man that dwelt in Babylon whose name was Joakim; and he took a wife whose name was Susanna, the daughter of Helcias, a very beautiful woman and one who feared the Lord" (Vulgate: God). Having expounded to the best of my ability the contents of the book of Daniel according to the Hebrew, I shall briefly set forth the comments of Origen concerning the stories of Susanna and of Bel contained (731) in the Tenth Book of his Stromata. These remarks are from him (D) and one may observe them in the appropriate sections (i.e., of Origen's work).
Verse 3. "And being righteous folk, her parents had educated their daughter in conformity with the law of Moses (Vulgate: because they were righteous, they had instructed...." This verse should be used as a testimony in order to urge parents to teach their daughters in accordance with God's law and holy Word, as well as their sons.
Verse 5. "And there were (E) two of the elders of the people (the Vulgate omits: of the people) who were appointed judges that year." There was a Jew who used to allege that these men were Ahab and Zedekiah (variant: Alchias and Zedekiah), of whom Jeremiah wrote: "The Lord do to thee as Ahab and Zedekiah, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire because of the iniquity they had wrought in Israel and because they had committed adultery (variant: were committing adultery) with the wives of their citizens" (Jer. 29). [In Jer. 21:23; 29:21 they are mentioned as Ahab, the son of Koliah, and Zedekiah, the son of Maaseiah, two false prophets who were denounced by Jeremiah.]
"It was concerning them that the Lord said that iniquity came forth from Babylon on the part of the ancient judges who appeared to govern the people. They used to frequent the house of Joakim...." Very appropriately it is not said of these sinful elders, "They governed the people," but rather, "They |153 appeared to govern." For those who furnish good leadership to the people are the ones who govern them, but those who merely have the title of judge and lead the people unjustly only appear to govern the people rather than actually doing so.
Verse 8. "And they were inflamed with lust (F) for her, and they perverted their own mind and turned their eyes away that they might not look toward heaven nor remember just judgments." What the Greeks call pathos we render more correctly by "emotion" than by "passion." And so it was this emotion, this lustful desire, which (p. 581) aroused or even smote the hearts of the elders. But in order that they might lay some basis for it in their hearts and might plan how to satisfy their desires, they perverted their own minds. And as their minds were subverted, they turned away their eyes that they might not regard heavenly things or remember righteous judgments, or God, or honor, or character, the factors for good which are inherent in all men. "And behold, Susanna was taking a walk according to her custom." [This is Verse 13 according to the Septuagint, not according to Theodotion, who does not include the verse at all.] It has been stated already that Susanna was actually in the habit of taking walks in the mornings. For the sake of pleasing those people who seek out Scriptural precedent for everything we do, it would not be inappropriate to seize upon this passage about taking walks, and say that it is a good thing for a person to take walks for the invigorating of his body. Origen says that he has taken this particular passage from the Septuagint; by this statement he shows that he has not discussed the rest of the chapter on the basis of the Septuagint translation.
Verse 19. [Vulgate: XIII:22] "Susanna sighed and said: 'I am straitened on every side.'" Anyone who has attained to the acme of perfect virtue never says that she is faced with a crisis of decision, when she is unable to escape the hands of adulterers who say, "Consent to us and have intercourse with us; for otherwise, if thou art unwilling, we will witness against thee that a young man was with thee and thou sentest away thy maidens from thee for this purpose." It is of course a characteristic of human frailty to fear a death which is inflicted upon one because of his uprightness. To be sure we might interpret her distress as arising not from the prospect of death but from the contumely |154 and disgrace which would be heaped upon her by those accusers who would claim: "A young man was with her, and she sent away her maidens for that reason."
Verse 22. " 'For if I do this, it is death to me; but if I do not...." She speaks of sin as death. For just as in the case of one who commits adultery, the adultery means death, so also every sin which results in death is to be equated with death. And we believe we die as often as we sin unto death. And therefore on the other hand we rise again and are made alive just as often as we perform deeds which are worthy of life.
Verse 23. " 'But it is better for me to fall into your hands without doing the deed than to sin in the sight of the Lord.'" In the Greek the word is not hairetoteron, or "better" [actually: more preferable], but haireton, which we may render by "good" [more accurately: "preferable"]. And so she chose her words well when she avoided saying, "It is better for me to fall into the hands of my enemies, the elders, than to sin in the sight of the Lord"; for thus she avoided calling something better in comparison with sin, which was not a good thing at all. But, she remarks, it is good for me not to do the wicked thing, and to fall into your clutches without sinning in God's sight. (733) Therefore one should not use the comparative and say, "It is better for me to fall into your (p. 582) clutches than to sin in God's sight," but rather the positive, "It is good for me not to do the wicked thing and fall into your clutches, rather than to commit sin in God's sight."
Verse 24. "And Susanna cried out with a great voice...." Her voice was great, not because of the intense vibrations it sent through the air nor because of the outcry that came from her lips, but because of the greatness of the chastity with which she called out to the Lord. And so for this reason the Scripture did not attribute a great voice to the outcry of the elders, for the following statement is merely: "The elders also cried out against her."
Verse 42. "But Susanna cried out with a great voice...." Her voice was rendered the clearer because of the emotion of her heart, the honest sincerity of her avowal, and the uprightness of her conscience. And so, although men would not listen to it, her outcry to God was great. |155
Verse 45. "And as she was being led away to die, the Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy." By this language it is shown that the Holy Spirit did not then enter into Daniel, but rather that He was already within him, and only because of the tenderness of his years He had remained inactive. Nor could He show forth His works until an occasion arose and the Lord stirred him up on behalf of the holy woman.
Verse 46. "And he cried out with a great voice: 'I am innocent of the blood of this woman....'" Because the Holy Spirit was roused up within him and dictated to the boy what he should say, his voice was great. And if there is any place in Holy Scripture where the voice of a sinner is called great, it has (yet) to be noted. (734)
Verses 54 ff. " 'Tell me under which tree thou sawest them conversing with each other.' And he answered, 'Under the mastic tree.' And Daniel said to him, 'Well hast thou lied against thine own head; for behold, the angel of God, having received His sentence from Him, shall cleave thee in twain.' And a little while later the other elder said, 'Under the holm tree.' And Daniel said to him, 'Well hast thou lied against thine own head; but the angel of the Lord waiteth with a sword to sever thee in twain.'" Since the Hebrews reject the story of Susanna, asserting that it is not contained in the Book of Daniel, we ought to investigate carefully the names of the trees, the skhinos and the prinos, which the Latins interpret as "holm-oak" and "mastic-tree," and see whether they exist among the Hebrews and what their derivation is ---- for example, as "cleavage" [Latin (scissio) is derived from "mastic" [Greek skhinos], and "cutting" or "sawing" [Latin sectio, serratio] is derived from "holm tree" [Greek prinos, which resembles the Greek word for "to saw": prio] in the language of the Greeks. But if no such derivation can be found, then we too are of necessity forced to agree with the verdict of those who claim that this chapter [Greek pericope] was originally composed in Greek, because it contains Greek etymology not found in Hebrew. [That is, because Daniel twice makes a sinister wordplay based upon the Greek names of these two trees, and a similar pun could not be made out from the Hebrew names, if any, of these trees, the story itself could never have been composed in Hebrew.] But if anyone can show (A) that the derivation |156 of the ideas of cleaving and severing from the names of the two trees in question is valid in Hebrew, then we may accept this scripture also as canonical.
Verse 60. "And the whole congregration (Vulgate: assembly) cried out with a great voice and blessed God, who (p. 583) saveth those who trust in Him...." If the whole congregation put them to death, the view which we mentioned earlier is apparently refuted (A), namely that these were the elders Ahab and Zedekiah, in conformity with Jeremiah's statement (chap. 29). The only other possibility is that instead of taking the statement, "They killed them," literally, we interpret it as meaning that they gave them over to the king of Babylon to be put to death. (735) That would be just like when we say that the Jews put the Savior to death; not that they smote Him themselves, but they gave Him over to be slain and cried out, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" (John 19:15).
Verse 63. "But Helcias and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna...." Like true saints they praise God after a worthy fashion, not simply on the ground of Susanna's deliverance from the clutches of the elders ---- for that would hardly be sufficient (p. 584) matter for praise or of any decisive importance, even if she had not been so delivered ---- but rather on the ground that no immorality was found in her. |157
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
"And as soon as he had opened the door, the king (736) looked upon the table and cried out with a great voice: 'Great art thou, O Bel, and there is no deceit with thee.'" The statement of Scripture in this passage, "He cried out with a great voice," may seem, because of its reference to an idolator ignorant of God, to refute the observation put forth a little previously, that the expression "great voice" is found only in connection with saints. This objection is easily solved by asserting that this particular story is not contained in the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel. If, however, anyone should be able to prove that it belongs (B) in the canon, then we should be obliged to seek out some answer to this objection.
Footnotes moved to the end. Most of the notes were placed in the body of the text in square brackets.
1. 1 Here Jerome gives the Hebrew consonants, by mistake substituting he for heth in the last letter. Actually the Hebrew word means: "to the choir-leader." (C)
2. 2 Not an actual quotation, but a collocation of words from Daniel 1:54-59 according to the Septuagint version. Actually there is no prisai there, but the verb appears as the compound kataprise.
3. 3 Reading Ecclesiae instead of the meaningless Ecclesiam of the text.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Material in () is the KJV verse no; material in [] is comments by Gleason Archer. (p.584) is the page number in Migne; (A-D) are the sections on a page in Migne.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_daniel_03_notes.htm
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958). Migne Footnotes. pp. 159-189.
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958). Migne Footnotes. pp. 159-189.
Migné Footnotes
P. 491
A. This interpretation of Daniel, which has been preserved by a single book in a connected series, receives laudatory mention by Cassiodorus in chapter three of the Institutes as a work divided into three sections. We have treated it and revised it according to very ancient manuscript codices noted beforehand, one of which is Vatican no. 333, and the other the Palatine-Vatican no. 175.
B. The Palatine MS does not recognize the words "prior to these authors."
P. 492
C. The Vatican MS seems to prefer henikën [a rare word for "single," in the feminine].
D. The excellent and ancient Corbio MS adds the name of God, for it reads skhisesi theos....intended for skhisas se, skhisei se Theos ["cleaving thee, God shall cleave thee"].
P. 493
A. Montfaucon feels that Jerome in this passage is inconsistent, because even though he had just said that the churches do not read Daniel according to the Septuagint version but according to Theodotion's, yet he straightway adds that all the churches of Christ, both Greek and Latin, Syrian and Egyptian, use the Vulgate edition (which is understood to be that of the Septuagint), augmented by Origen from the edition of Theodotion and amended by obeli and asterisks. Now this statement, Montfaucon alleges, is very difficult of credence if it is to be understood of the use of the book in public assemblies of the Church, for how could two editions of the same prophet be read indiscriminately in all the churches? Moreover it is certain that Jerome himself in his Commentary, chap. 4, verse 5, mentions the tradition that, "By the judgment of the masters |160 of the Church the Septuagint edition contained in this volume has been rejected, and it is the Theodotion edition which is commonly read, since it agrees both with the Hebrew and the other translators." He thinks that the contradiction is to be resolved in this way, that when the statement is made that the Vulgate edition revised by Origen is read by all the churches of Christ, both of the Greeks and Romans, we are to understand that that edition was commonly current, but read privately rather than in public assemblies, where only Theodo-tion's edition held the field. Such was the case among the Greeks, at any rate, as evidenced by the holy Greek fathers, especially Chrysostom and Theodoret, who cite no other edition (but Theodotion's). But it is my contention that this was not what Jerome meant at all, and that there is no difficulty in this passage. For there is no mention here of a Vulgate edition of Daniel by itself, but rather of a Vulgate which is of Septuagint origin in all the other books but in the case of Daniel alone is drawn from Theodotion's translation. Thus it is that, so far as Daniel is concerned, the Vulgate edition and Theodotion's version are one and the same. I do not suppose that even the illustrious Montfaucon would deny this fact, for it is very clear both from the attestations which Jerome praises and from this entire preface, as well as other things rendered into Latin by Jerome relative to Daniel himself, that the Vulgate edition appropriated all the other books of Scripture from the Septuagint, but only the book of Daniel from Theodotion. Therefore the Vulgate edition is itself Theodotion's edition. Consequently in the passage under discussion, when the holy Doctor asserts that Origen in the Vulgate edition placed asterisks and obeli about Theodotion's work, the statement can by no means be understood as applying to this particular book of Daniel. For how could it have happened, [Latin unclear here owing to some misprint] or at least what a redundant procedure it would have been, for Origen to place obeli and asterisks around Theodotion's edition in the edition of Theodotion (for there was no other Vulgate edition of the book)? It is therefore abundantly evident that his remarks here pertain to the whole work of Scripture, and it is upon his Vulgate edition that Adamantius |161 [a prenomen of Origen] expends this labor. Jerome witnesses to the fact that that edition was the Hexaplar, and no one is any longer ignorant of the fact that it was approved and publicly read by the churches, both Greek and Latin, Syrian and Egyptian, each in their own tongue. Moreover the context further on shows very clearly that it is the Scripture as a whole which is receiving praise, not the book of Daniel alone. To be sure Jerome takes occasion from Theodotion's unbelief to commend his own work to students all the more earnestly, or else to defend it against rivals. For if, as he pointed out, the scholarly industry of that heretic won him such great favor with the churches that in Origen's opinion he might be approved as useful not only in Daniel but in the other books (of the Old Testament), how much more ought Jerome himself, being a Christian, to be favorably received; especially in view of his following the example of Origen in desiring his own countrymen to have "what the Greeks publicly read in the editions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus."
P. 494
B. Previously read as Suctorius, and incorrectly so; for Sutorius was distinguished from Callinicus as if they were two authors. However this Callinicus is a Syrian or Arabic sophist who flourished in the reign of Gallienus, and who not only wrote other works but also a history of Alexandria in ten books dedicated to Cleopatra, and it is to these that Jerome here refers. The man was surnamed Soutorius, as Suidas observes.
P. 495
A. The Palat. MS has tessarakaidekas (instead of tessaradekas). Victorinus indeed has noted that both Jechonias is called by Matthew "Joachim" (with whom the second group of fourteen ends, at the time of the Babylonian deportation) and also his own son Joachim (with whom after the aforesaid deportation the third [reading tertia for the meaningless tertiae] group begins); and that likewise in IV Reg. xxiii [II Kings 23] both men are called "Joacim" by the Septuagint. Porphyry, not noticing this, as he takes it that Jechonias stands for one and the same person in Matthew, asserted |162 that a generation was missing after Jechonias, or else tried to indict Matthew on the charge of error.
B. Our MSS continue Jerome's exposition, omitting this short verse.
C. Victorinus attributes the reading in Dei domum Dei sui ("to the house of the god, his god") by no means to the Vulgate edition alone, but to the three MSS whose accuracy he praises.
P. 496
D. Our MSS complete the rest of the text of Daniel necessary to the exposition. Moreover the Vatican reads Abeisdri; the Palatine along with the Sangermane MS in Montfaucon's possession reads Abiesdri in Latin letters. Likewise a little further on, the Vatican reads Porthomim, whereas the Palatine with the Sangermane reads Porthommim.
E. Our MSS ignore the name of "Babylon" here.
F. Sapharatphaneb is the reading given in the [printed?] editions, incorrect according to the Hebrew; whereas Jerome here put Somtonphanec in accordance with the Septuagint. Mar-tianus says that two MSS read Somtophanes.
P. 497
A. Vatic. reads: baneraem; Palat.: banarehem [postulating Aramaic, "sons of thunder"].
B. Palat. inserts "of Ham and" (sapientiam Cham et Aegyptiorum).
C. Here again our MSS supply the rest of the verse. P. 498
D. On the basis of the Brescian MSS and older editions Victorinus prefers de signis to de singulis, i.e., "who pursue philosophic enquiry concerning omens."
E. Compare with this the testimony of St. Hilary, De Trinitate, iv, 37, and also his commentary on Matthew. As to this same Evangelist, see the author of Opus Imperfectum (?) and also the author of Quaestiones ex Novo Testamento, Question 63. In fact there are more of the ancient authors who understand "magi" unconditionally as wicked enchanters.
P. 499
A. In order to follow faithfully the reading of our manuscripts, |163 we have removed to this footnote the following verses of the sacred text [i.e., the rest of v. 4 and the first half of v. 5]: "O king, live forever: Tell [reading Dic for the misprint, Sic] the dream to thy servants, and we will disclose its interpretation to thee. And the king said in reply to the Chaldeans, The subject matter [sermo representing the Aramaic millethâ, "the word, the matter talked about" ---- Douay renders simply: "The thing"] has gone from me." These verses were wrongly subjoined (by earlier printed editions) contrary to the holy Doctor's intention, since they were themselves written in Syriac and were therefore to be excluded.
B. In place of these words, "Therefore made this reply.... " our MSS substitute the following variant from the sacred text: "The matter which thou askest, O king, is difficult, and no one could be found to set it forth before the king except the gods themselves, who maintain no intercourse with men.
C. Our MSS add: "Daniel and his comrades were sought after that they might be killed."
P. 500
D. The words "Therefore when Arioch had explained the matter to Daniel," belonging to the preceding verse [v. 15]; and followed by the next verse in its entirety, "And he entered his house...." ---- all this is not included in our MSS.
P. 501
A. This is the reading of the Vatican and Palatine MSS, and the one which Victorinus restored, after the model of the Vulgate (LXX) and Chaldee text, on the supposition (whether by valid argument I cannot say) that the reading nostrorum ("our" rather than "my"), retained by Martianaeus in conformity with Erasmus, was derived from Theodotion's version.
B. Instead of the Greek word ethos ("custom," "habitual reaction"), the Vatican MS has the Latin mos ("custom") and the Palatine has typus ("type" or "character").
P. 502
C. The older, corrupt reading was thuas [which would mean either a species of juniper, or, if nominative, "frantic"], and this has been amended by our manuscripts, although, to be |164 sure, they are agreed in exhibiting the word under the less correct spelling of thitas instead of thytas [upsilon being pronounced about like iota by Roman times]. Montfaucon had recommended this reading to be restored, in accordance with a scholium on the Septuagint, edited at Rome, contained in chapter 9, verse 4 [of what?] [in Greek]: "The Gazarenoi were the ones who ministered at the offering up of sacrifices, for Theodotion gives the rendering thutai ("sacrificers") instead of Gazarenoi." From Jerome you may understand that the name of Theodotion has been substituted for Symmachus in this last quotation. The Sangerm. MS reads incorrectly EAS [presumably in place of the Greek thytas]. A little further on, we amend, on the strength of those manuscripts, to the reading praedicant ("in order to predict"), since the old reading, praedicent ("in order to proclaim"), was corrupt.
D. Nevertheless the MSS read: "the image of the statue which is beheld" [imago statuae quae cernitur instead of imago statuaque quae cernitur].
E. Here Victorinus supplies mala [which would change the translation to: "Why are ye meditating evil...?"], on the basis of the Fesulanus MS and the Vulgate (LXX).
P. 503
A. Victorinus restores non enim for non solum on the basis of four MSS. [This would change the translation to read: "for he does not set forth what the king had beheld...."]
B. However, our MSS subjoin some other verses of sacred Scripture without breaking them up. Also, in place of andrianti from the noun andrias, the former reading was andriante. The Sangerm. MS reads pro andriante [the last letter being epsilon, an impossible case-ending for the Greek word]; and if this reading be correct, says Montfaucon, it is to be understood that Jerome gave a Latin ending to the Greek word, in order that it might be conformed to the preposition pro. The Palatine MS, which has undergone revision by a later hand in this passage, presents the word as andriante in Roman letters.
C. The Vatican and Palatine MSS read calcantes [instead of |165 interpretantes.] [This would change the translation to read: "and as we go through Daniel's words...."]
P. 504
D. Compare Jerome's Preface to Book 11 of his Commentary on Ezechiel.
E. With greater accuracy the Vatican and Palatine MSS omit the words: "Therefore the king spoke and said to Daniel."
F. And to be sure the account of his deed is quite worthy of a second reading in Josephus' Antiquities, Book 11, chap. 8, no. 5. Note especially Alexander's reply to Parmenio [The Greek original is here given, followed by a Latin translation]: "It is not this man whom I have worshipped, but the God with whose high priesthood he has been honored.."
P. 505
A. Our MSS supply the remaining portion of the verse.
B. The same MSS read "'sojourners from among the Jews" (instead of "...the Jews, as...sojourners").
C. Victorinus deleted the usual fit ("was made of," for the word sit ("was"), on the basis of three Florentine MSS.
D. The earlier reading was Duraum, and this was actually preferred by one of our own MSS. But Montfauconius' opinion seemed convincing, for he believes that the final "-m" arose from the little stroke put above the Durau in the most ancient Sangermane MSS and there indicating the accent rather than "-m." Symmachus probably rendered it as Dorau, Theodotion as Deira; the Vatican MSS note: "Theodotion, Deira; Symmachus, Dûrûm.
E. The phrase "and all the princes of the various districts" is supplied by the Vatican and Palatine MSS.
P. 507
A. Our MSS have no knowledge of the words: "as there is in the Septuagint."
P. 508
B. These words: "and the aspect of his countenance was wholly altered" are supplied by our MSS.
C. Our MSS have no knowledge of the section of Scripture which |166 follows from this point on, and the explanation which is subjoined thereto does not demand it either.
D. Our MSS, as well as the Vulgate, read cum braccis ["with their trousers"] instead of braccis ["in their trousers"].
E. Sarabara is a corrupt reading of the Septuagint, of Pollux, of Hesychius, Photius, and others. The correct reading, sarabala, is given by Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic. And there is no reason why we should repeat at greater length the etymology of the term, which many authorities derive from the Persian. Drusius pointed out that the spelling saraballa with the double l was not quite correct in Jerome, since there is but a single l in the Chaldee spelling, sarbela. [My translation here assumées that the impossible m-b-l-' is a misprint for s-r-b-1-'. The printer seems to be unaware even in the text of Jerome that final mem in Hebrew is not the same letter as sarnekh. Note also that for resh he has substituted a maqqeph or hyphen.] Compare these notations of ours with the first epistle to Innocent, number 9. It is from the different spelling of the word that the interpretation itself arose. Isidore in Book 19, chap. 23, reports that to some authorities the word signifies "head-covering," and to others "loose and flowing garments" ---- an interpretation which he personally prefers.
P. 509
A. Our MSS add the words: "And all Thy works are true and Thy ways are righteous and Thy judgments true. For Thou hast performed true judgments in regard to all that Thou hast brought upon us."
B. Here also our MSS add the words: "...nor burnt offering nor sacrifice nor oblation nor incense nor place for presenting the first-fruits before Thee, so as to find mercy."
P. 510
C. Plotinus, followed by Bishop Apollinarius, driveled forth a stupid theory of this sort, to the effect that man is composed of three substances, the flesh, the soul, and the spirit. Or, as Nemesius reports in his book on The Nature of Man, chap. 1, he is composed of soul, body, and intellect. But even Didymus was reproved by St. Augustine in his book on Ecclesiastical Dogmas, chap. 20, because he had expressed the view that |167 the spirit constituted a sort of third element in the human substance. Recall to mind Jerome's epistle to Hedibias, Question 12. As to the concession he makes, "apart from the Holy Spirit," Jerome brings in the Catholic teaching, that "in human beings, that is to say righteous human beings, the Holy Spirit resides, as well as the soul itself."
D. Our MSS contain a reading which is, in my opinion, less accurate: napta or naptha. Furthermore, as to Jerome's mention of a passage in Sallust's history concerning this type of tinder, no such reference can be found in any of Sallust's extant writings, not even in his collected fragments. This loss can be made up from other authors, most conspicuously from Ammianus Marcellinus, to whom the work Oleum medicum ("Medical Oil") is ascribed. In Book 23 we read: "It is said that in this region they prepare a medical oil which is smeared on a dart, and if it is shot gently from a rather slack bow (for it will go out in too fast a flight) it will adhere to any object it strikes and consume it with a persistent flame. If anyone tries to wash it away with water, it will flare up all the more fiercely, nor will it yield to any other extinguisher except when it is stifled by casting dirt upon it. Now it is prepared in this fashion: those who are skilled in these matters manufacture the oil from a certain herb of common use which is tinctured by it, and they save it up for a long time. Then as it becomes firmer they harden it by admixture with a natural resinous substance resembling thick oil. This type of preparation is produced amongst the Persians, and as we have stated, they have given it the native name of naphtha." And again in the same book: "Here also naphtha is manufactured, being a kind of sticky pitch and resembling also real bitumen. And even though a bird should light upon it momentarily, its flight would become so impeded that it would be drowned and completely disappear. Once this liquid begins to burn, there is no device which human ingenuity can discover to put it out, except for dust." Pliny also in his Second Book [of Natural History], chap. 195, after speaking of a slimy substance known as maltha, adds: "It is of a nature resembling naphtha, the term for it used in the Babylonian region and among the Austagenians of Parthia, and is a fluid substance |168 like liquid bitumen. It has a great affinity for fire, the flames of which spread across its surface instantly wherever it appears. The story is that [Jason's] concubine was by this means set on fire by Medea, for it was after she had approached the altars to offer sacrifice that she was snatched up by a wreath of fire." You may add to these references a testimony from one of the Greek authors, Strabo, who in his Sixteenth Book reports on the authority of Eratosthenes that there is a variant type of asphalt called naphtha, and he describes its remarkable incendiary power. But also Plutarch in his Alexander, Xiphilinus of Dio, Dioscorides in his First Book, Procopius in Book Five of the Vandal War, Suidas in several places, and other authorities too numerous to name have somthing to say about naphtha.
P. 511
A. Victorinus inserts "the fourth (Person)," so that it reads: "might announce the fourth Person to them...." But the MSS offer very little support therefor.
B. Victorinus reads "like a son of God" (similis filio Dei instead of similtudo filii Dei) in conformity with the Vulgate; although the subjoined exposition all but rejects this variant.
P. 513
A. This is the reading preferred by the MSS we have used and also by Victorinus on the basis of older copies of the common edition. But Martianus concurs with Erasmus in reading, "Let them ask and reply."
P. 514
B. The Palatine MS leaves out the rest of the verse and follows immediately with the words: "The rest of the authorities similarly omit this, except for the LXX, who for some reason have omitted this whole passage. Consequently by the judgment...."
C. The ancient authorities (to be specific, Chrysostom and Theodoret) read "another man" instead of "associate"; in other words, heteron instead of hetairon. Besides, that rendering, whether it suggests "friend" or "associate" (collega), is not very close to the Chaldee original. For this reason scholars |169 have felt that Jerome utilized defective codices, and therefore he understood "an associate" instead of "another man," that is to say he read hetairon instead of heteron in the Greek. To be sure, Nebuchadnezzar could have intended to refer to him by the term "associate," since he was his right hand man and the second in rank to the king. And indeed there is that well-known saying of Clement of Alexandria: "ho de hetairos heteros egö" ("But one's associate is his other self"). Lastly, Origen in his Homily Eighteen on Numbers had written, "Let us read again those things which are written in Daniel concerning Daniel himself and his three friends" ----the Greek for "friends" being hetairois.
P. 515
A. The Palatine MS has kyriotes, a word preferably to be restored in the text as kyriotes ["lordship"] rather than kyreia, and therefore less suited and less elegant as a term to express "dominion" than is kyreia.
B. He speaks as if the word had been written 'îr in the Chaldee, with an aleph, instead of 'îr with an 'ayin. The ancients rendered the word as "splendor" or "light." Chrysostom says concerning this passage: "hora, phesin eir ---- phos mega kai lampedona": "See, the word ir means a great light and splendor." And Suidas defines: "eir lampedon," that is, "Ir means splendor." And so Nazianzenus also, although he teaches that angels are meant by the word just as Jerome does, nevertheless does not explain it as from the idea of their constant watching, as Jerome does, but rather from the idea of their emitting light. And lastly the LXX in the older Alexandrian copy, at least, renders the same 'îr in Job 37:30 as toxon, i.e., "bow," which the translators of this passage everywhere take to be the heavenly bow or Iris. But Origen reads Irin instead of Ir even in this passage of Daniel.
C. On the authority of the Vatican and Palatine MSS we have deleted the word "the king," an addition which Victorinus has noted to be lacking in the Vulgate, Chaldee [i.e., the Aramaic original], and Greek codices.
P. 517
A. In place of "great," a word not contained in the sacred text, |170 Victorinus has substituted "city" (i.e., "Is this not the city of Babylon...?"). [What the editor means here is unclear. The Aramaic original certainly does contain the word "great"----rabbeta; so also does the Latin Vulgate ---- magna.]
B. Our MSS contain the words: "just as in heaven, so also on earth" instead of "just as among the powers of heaven [This substituted reading is, however, inaccurate, and the reading in Jerome's text is faithful to the original.]
P. 518
C. Compare the passage from Berosus quoted in Josephus, Contra Apionem, I, 20. For this last king, whom Berosus calls Nabonidus, is called Balthasar (i.e., Belshazzar) by Jerome, who makes him out to be the son of Labosordach. Berosus asserts that the king in question was a certain man of Babylon and of the same nation [same as what? a Babylonian by extraction or of the same clan as Nebuchadnezzar?]. But further on an even greater discrepancy appears between the two authorities, for the holy Doctor says that this last king "was killed by Darius, king of the Medes, who was also the uncle of Cyrus, king of the Persians." Berosus, on the other hand, says that Cyrus made his attack upon Babylonia in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus's reign and that Nabonidus fled from thence and was besieged in the city of the Busippensians. And being driven out of it, he successfully entreated his conqueror, Cyrus, that he might of his mercy grant him the boon of a humble dwelling in Carmania (oiketerion Karmanian.) And it was there that to loipon tou khronou diagenomenos en ekeine te khorâ katestrepse ton bion, i.e., he passed the remaining period of his life, and in that province he ended his days.
D. The Palatine MS consistently gives the name as Laborsedech, and the Vaticanus as Labosardech.
P. 519
A. In the same MSS (the Vatican and Palatine) we find, "... the gods of gold."
P. 520
B. On the other hand, one may find instances in Cicero, at least, |171 where the masculine is used; for example in the well-known statement in De Officiis, III, 31, concerning Manlius, "...who invented the term 'adorned with a necklace' (Torquatus), deriving it from the word for necklace (torquis)." [The participle modifying torquis is in the masculine: detracto.]
P. 521
A. So Victorinus restores, on the basis of the Brescian codices. Martianus follows Erasmus in retaining scripta (i.e., "these three words written on the wall") instead of scriptura ("the inscription of these three words").
P. 522
B. Victorinus reads: "sucklings of the womb" (lactentibus uteri instead of lactantibus uteris). For thus he says, the text speaks of little babies as sucklings of the womb. In the Hebrew it is "fruit of the womb." It is not the mothers who furnish the milk who are being spoken of, but the little ones who suck it up.
C. The Greek text of Josephus, Antiquities, X, ch. 11 is as follows [translated]: "And when Darius, allied with his relative, Cyrus, had destroyed the rule of the Babylonians, he was sixty-two years of age at the time when he captured Babylon. He was a son of Astyages, and among the Greeks he was called [reading ekaleito for the impossible ekpleito] by another name. And he also took the prophet Daniel and brought him to his own residence in Media, and giving to him a share of all honor, he kept him in his company. Daniel was one of the three chief satraps whom he set up over the three hundred and seventy satrapies."
P. 523
A. Victorinus prefixes the words: "Wherefore the princes and satraps sought.... "
P. 524
B. The Chaldee as we have it today reads w-sh-h-y-t-h, Ushehhitha, which means, "... and corruption." [Here it should be explained that Jerome is discussing a portion of verse 4 not quoted in his text: "... and they were unable to discover any cause or suspicion, by reason of the fact that he was |172 faithful...."] The authorities read sh-h-y-t-h, ushehhitha in the margin of their edition, not realizing that Jerome did not cite the actual context of the Chaldee, but simply said that the word "suspicion" is called essaitha (i.e., hashshehïythâh) in the Chaldee tongue, and this really does mean "corruption" or "depravity." And it is only a possibility that Jerome had this reading in his copy of the text. (So Martianus.)
C. The codices of the manuscripts read menia ("enclosures"); but Erasmus reads meniana ("projecting balconies"). Compare our previous notes in connection with chap. 41 of Ezekiel. Martianus reads menia, suggesting also the variant spelling, maenia ---- which our MSS have also. Nevertheless I should with Victorinus prefer to follow Erasmus in substituting meniana, on the basis of one manuscript from Brescia, and of an earlier printed edition. Consult our earlier observations in connection with Ezekiel 41 and the epistle to Sunnias and Fretella.
D. Not inappropriately the Palatine MS reads anabata, that is, "places to be ascended to."
P. 525
A. Victorinus reads: "In order that there might be greater cause for indignation, despising him who...." He has derived this restored reading partly from manuscript and partly from a printed edition. That would mean, then, that in order to incite the king to greater indignation by despising the man who had despised the king's commands, they speak of Daniel as being a mere captive or purchased slave.
P. 527
A. The words of the sacred text which follow from this point on are not necessary to the subjoined exposition, and are not contained in our manuscripts. To be sure, if any such cases occur either previously or subsequently, and if it seems of little moment to call them to the reader's attention, we shall everywhere in the citation of the Scripture references tacitly carry through (?exigemus) in accordance with the more appropriate rule of the manuscripts themselves. |173
P. 528
B. On the basis of the Greek, Victorinus adds the name "Israel," without which he contends that the sense is doubtful and incomplete.
C. The earlier reading was incorrectly given as "the impious one" (impio) instead of "empire" (imperio) ---- an error corrected by the manuscript itself.
P. 529
A. The Palatine MS reads: "they are completely silent as to who they might be."
B. The Palatine MS reads: "oclavum [a non-existent word in Latin!] alium Xersem" (instead of Xerxem).
C. On the basis of the Vulgate and the Hebrew, Victorinus inserts the "like unto."
P. 531
A. In the earlier printed editions the name of Ptolemy Philometor was missing, and also Ptolemy Euergetes was listed as the Sixth instead of the Seventh, but the Palatine and Vatican MSS supply the necessary addition and correction, and on the basis of them we have elicited the words intervening between the names of the two Ptolemies. This textual confusion seemed to have resulted from an ancient error occasioned by the fact that the same word occurs twice. Consequently, as often happens, the eye of the copyist too hastily passed over the words which came in between.
B. On the basis of the Brescian codices, Victorinus substituted the plural for the singular: "golden crowns."
C. This reading is rightly preferred by all our manuscripts and those of Victorinus. The earlier reading was "the Aged" (vetus) instead of "the Ancient" (vetustus).
P. 532
D. Instead of cruciatibus (torments, calamities), the reading retained by the printed editions and manuscripts, some authorities would like to substitute "cities" (civitatibus). St. Thomas Aquinas casts the weight of his authority in favor of this reading of theirs. Nevertheless, seeing that Jerome speaks elsewhere of the angels who watch over cities, he certainly is |174 speaking of another class in this case, that is, the ones who minister unto rewards and punishments. He speaks after the same tenor in the ninth book of the previous commentary on Ezekiel, chapter 30, saying: "It is not the good angels but the wicked who have been put in charge of torments" ---- a statement to be understood as referring to the torments of those in hell. Furthermore St. Ambrose also in Epistle 55 (formerly numbered as 38) queries: "Or do we not believe that those very angels who carry on various duties in the labors of this world, as we read in the Revelation of John, groan within them whenever they are summoned to be ministers of punishment and slaughter? Possessing, as they do, eternal life, they would certainly prefer that it be spent in their former state of personal tranquillity, than that they should be called upon to inflict the punishments for our sins." So also the ancient author of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews in the works of Ambrose, the praiseworthy, remarks (chap. 1, v. 7): "It can be said that when they are sent to bear a gracious message, they are angels indeed; but when they are sent on a mission of punishment, they are ministers, that is to say, a flaming fire."
P. 534
A. Two MSS read: "To such an extent shall he exalt himself in pride, that...." A little further down they contain a better reading: "...above all that is called God or religion, subjecting all things to his own power."
B. We have supplied the remaining portion to the end of the verse on the basis of our manuscripts, in order that it might be clearly established just how far the Chaldee portion goes. In previous editions the impression was given that it stopped with the word "troubled," contrary to Jerome's intention.
P. 535
A. This description has been drawn almost word for word from Josephus, as you may see by reference to the last chapter of Antiquities, Book 10.
B. The Palatine MS reads: "near the gate...."
C. Two MSS add the words: "...without lifting up our eyes." |175
D. The Vatican reads: "eastward and westward"; the Palatine simply reads "eastward" instead of [adding] "westward."
P. 537
A. The Palatine MS reads tinpole [A word meaningless in Greek], but a second scribe has corrected it to tinipote. The reading in the earlier editions was tinipote with a circumflex accent over the iota in the first syllable [a manifest error].
B. The Vatican MSS, in agreement with the Sangermane MS, as quoted by Montfaucon, reads phelmoni in Roman letters [instead of the Greek letters of the text]. Other printed editions read pelmoni or pelimoni (in Roman letters).
C. Victorinus says that the word "days" is not contained in the Hebrew original nor in the Brescian codices, but it was probably inserted from Theodotion or else inserted here from the margin as a word to be understood.
D. Two manuscripts and the earlier printed editions have "sons" instead of "brothers." Victorinus long ago corrected this to the true reading, with the aid of the Florentine codices, and under the influence of the actual account in I Maccabees, chap. 2, verse 8. The brothers of Judas Maccabaeus were Simon, Joseph, and Jonathan. Compare also Josephus, Antiquities, X, 9.
P. 538
E. The Palatine MS transfers to this place the words, "Of course the significance of the name indicates the fact that the only true remedy is to be found in God." This is approximately the reading of the editions of Erasmus and Victorinus, but Martianus assigns them more correctly to the end of the paragraph.
F. This same sentence according to the early editions reads: "It is necessary that Michael be directed to go, for his name means 'Who is like unto God?' Of course the intention is that it might be understood that no one can bestow a propitiation or expiation except God Himself."
P. 540
A. One Palatine MS reads: "We have acted impiously, and have been defiled with sins. On the ground of his being one of |176 the people...." The Vatican MS reads: "We have done impiously. The sins of the people...." In order to avoid the redundancy, Victorinus has written it in conformity with the Vulgate: "We have done iniquity, we have behaved impiously."
B. Victorinus adds, "... as a mighty man who.... " on the basis of the text of the Psalm itself.
P. 541
A. The Palatine MSS read: "...in the vision at the beginning...."; the Vatican MS reads only: "...in the beginning...."
B. The Vatican MS reads: "And I have come forth from the presence of God, not that I (might depart) from Him...." In the Palatine MSS the words, "And I have come forth" are lacking.
P. 542
C. The following passage of the sacred text is completely missing in our manuscripts.
D. The words included within parentheses are not found in the Hebrew.
E. This particular fragment of the work of Africanus is preserved in Greek translation in Eusebius' De Praeparatione Evan-gelica, viii, 1.
F. In the Vatican MS we read: "...up until the baptism of John."
P. 543
A. Two manuscripts read: "... if we are unwilling to take any other date as the starting point."
P. 545
A. That is, in Book 11, chap. 8, Josephus records the tradition that Alexander came to Jerusalem and sacrificed in the Temple "to God under the guidance of the high priest" [in Greek], but by no means does Josephus specify that Alexandria was founded at that date, or in the lifetime of Jaddua. |177
P. 546
B. Our MSS lack the word "except." Compare the Greek text itself.
P. 547
A. The Vatican MS reads: "...he does not entirely reject"; the Palatine reads: "...part of which is not rejected," and then follow the words: "that more fully a week of years to the sum of seventy...."
B. This quotation is from his Commentary on Daniel, or from his book, The Story of Susanna.
P. 549
A. In Tertullian himself the words read: "...within seventy-two and a half weeks."
B. The author Pomerius who was commended by Pamelius reads the text as: "Understand the prophesyings of this command." But, says Pamelius, he himself prefers the reading: "From the going forth of the command...."
P. 550
C. Most authorities agree in calling this name Arsen. The Canon Mathematicus calls him Arogus.
D. In the common editions of Tertullian we read, "twenty-two years."
E. Our manuscripts and the published codices of Tertullian add the words: "...after him." Victorinus deletes these words as being redundant in view of what the words in parentheses have already stated.
F. The common edition of Tertullian adds another year to this, bringing the figure up to "thirty-nine years"; with this both Pomerius and the gloss on the passage agree. And so, says Pamelius, this figure is to be corrected even in the Blessed Jerome.
G. Our manuscripts simply give the figure "twenty-seven"; so also Pomerius.
H. Pamelius restores the number as "thirty-eight," and maintains that this emendation should be made even in the text of Jerome and of Pomerius as well, so that the total number of |178 years might come out to 436 ---- especially, he points out, in view of the fact that Eusebius assigns eight years (if the codex reads accurately) to Ptolemy, the son of Cleopatra, and thirty-eight years to Ptolemy Dionysius. Other writers number the two together as if they were one and the same person.
I. On the basis of the usual gloss, Pamelius restores this number as "six," both in this passage and in the later one. Then, on the basis of these three, he makes out the number for Augustus to be "forty-three years" instead of "forty-eight." For thirteen years in coregency with Cleopatra and forty-three after her decease "came to fifty-six years," he says. Then too, according to Tertullian, "Besides, Cleopatra had up to this time shared in the government under Augustus...."
J. Pamelius comments: The fact that the author has the reading, "after the death of Cleopatra" certainly results from a lapse of memory. And yet the genuineness of this reading is evident from the fact that in the computation which follows he arrives at the sum of 437 years, and reckons the years of Cleopatra under Augustus at thirteen, and the subsequent years of Augustus at L But actually he should have reckoned the years of Augustus after Cleopatra's time at only 29 (just as Clement of Alexandria does). And Jerome was again confused when he stated that Augustus lived fifteen years after the birth of Christ, and yet elsewhere according to his own earlier reckoning, he could not have lived any more than two years after the thirteen years of Cleopatra and after his own forty-one years. After all he admits that according to the common view of all the writers, Augustus ruled only 56 years in number. And even in this passage the words "in number" are an addition, judging by the reading of Pomerius, of the Blessed Jerome, and of the usual gloss. These too read: "And the remaining periods of years unto the day of Christ's birth and the forty-first year of Augustus after the death of Cleopatra were [reading erant for the inappropriate erunt] 437 years and six months. In my opinion this is more justified than the reading of the standard codices: "...forty-one years to the day of Christ's birth. And this comes to the total of 157 years and five months." Likewise also the reading of Pomerius, "are |179 forgiven" seems preferable to the former reading, "are allowed" [several lines further down], inasmuch as it would be poor usage to speak of the "allowing of sins" instead of the "forgiving of sins." Then also, Pomerius reads [at the bottom of p. 550]: "...concerning (Christ) Himself" instead of the former "...concerning Him." On the same basis we read [p. 551 near the top]: "...He Himself is the seal." And [in the following sentence on p. 551] it is all the same whether you read: "...nor is there any prophet who," or "nor is there a prophecy by which."
P. 551
A. Pamelius deletes the superfluous "what (is the meaning of)."
B. The Palatine MS reads: "during which (years) he lived on...." Then, further on, we amend "during fifteen years" to "fifteen years (elapsed)" [i.e., nominative case instead of ablative], and correct the punctuation as well. Pamelius says he thinks the right reading is: "First of all (the years) of Augustus...." instead of "Well, after Augustus," since those fifteen years belong to the reign of Augustus himself.
C. In Tertullian's text we find only "twenty" instead of "twenty-eight." In regard to this passage Pamelius comments that even though the Blessed Jerome, Pomerius, and the usual gloss all read "twenty-eight," nevertheless the common reading of Tertullian is preferable, especially since the author is not concerned particularly [? lit.: "does not compute"] about mere days. For according to the Fasti Consulates [The Registers of the Higher Magistrates] edited by Goltzius, we read: "In the year 789 after the founding of Rome, on the 17th day before the Kalends of April [i.e., March 16th] Tiberius Augustus Caesar, son of the divine Augustus and grandson of the divine Julius, passed away." But between the above-mentioned month of August in the fifth (?) year, 766 A.U.C., and the month of March in the year 789 A.U.C. amounts to only 22 years 7 months [the text not clear here; some typographical errors].
D. In the Vatican MS we read "was baptized" instead of "suffered," which is in approximate agreement with the usual gloss, leaving out also the clause, "when He suffered" which |180 follows soon after. And actually, when the Palatine MS and the codices of Tertullian are compared together, his reckoning was not "thirty-three" but only "thirty" years. He evidently hints at the testimony of the Gospel record, which states that Christ was baptized in the fifteenth year of Tiberius at about the age of thirty.
E. Pamelius prefers "six" to "twenty-eight," because, he says, he ruled only seven months and a very few days, that is to say, from the fourth day before the Ides of June [June 10th] to the eighteenth day before the Kalends of February [January 15th].
F. Here again Pamelius reads "ten" instead of "twenty-eight" in the text of Tertullian, proving it from the fact that Aulus Vitellius ruled from the 12th day before the Kalends of May [April 20th] to the ninth day before the Kalends of January [December 24], the date when he was slain. This is an interval of eight months and some odd days.
P. 552
G. This is the correction of the Vatican MS; the earlier reading was, "which he thought he would redeem."
H. Perhaps the reading should be, "will vanquish"; but further on the Vaticanus reads "ceased" instead of "will (continue to) cease."
I. Add to this the work of my compatriot, Cardinal Norisius, A Dissertation on the Epochs of the Syro-Macedonians, Book iii, chap. 4; he contributes quite a few examples from the coins to illustrate this passage of Jerome. But a good many ancient inscriptions also survive showing this method of expressing sums.
P. 553
A. So also Epistle 100, that is, the Third Epistle of Theophilus Paschalias, no. 3: "Let us by no means, during the forty days, sigh after the wine-cup, as do the wealthy and luxurious." Also in no. 8: "During a fasting period we must abstain from wine and meat." See our observations upon that passage. A little further on, the Palatine MS reads, "...nor anoint ourselves with ointment." |181
P. 554
B. Two MSS read: "And during this fast (she sheds tears) which are convincing," omitting the noun sponsa ("betrothed girl").
C. The whole paragraph beginning, "Therefore those critics.... " directed against the followers of Origen, is missing in our manuscripts.
D. In other MSS we read exairetan, or written in Roman letters: "exeretan." But the Palatine MS ascribes this rendering to Aquila, not to Symmachus.
E. The Palatine and Sangermane MSS agree in reading Opaz in the work of Montfaucon; and instead of the Greek ophax (which follows right afterwards), they read ophaz in Roman letters.
F. After these words the printed editions add: "Concerning these matters we have given a fuller interpretation in the exposition of Ezechiel, but right now let us make a few remarks about chrysolite." None of the codices of our manuscripts contains this very inexpert discussion, and we also perceive its spurious and suppositions character from the fact that Jerome had not yet written about Ezechiel when he composed his commentary explaining Daniel. (Mart.)
G. Drusius asserts that the view which Josephus commends is impossible. For in the Ninth Book of his Antiquities, chap. 2, Josephus clearly makes the claim that the prophet intended to sail to the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. But also in Book I, chap. 2, he says: "Tharsis is the same as Tharsus. This was the name the ancients gave to Cilicia. And so even today Tarsus, the most important city in the entire province, retains the ancient name, the theta being altered to t." And so Jerome himself contains this item also, in his discussion of the place in the Book of Jonah, where he says: "Departing thence from the presence of the Lord, Jonah was stirred up and purposed to flee away to Tharsis, which Josephus explains as the city of Tarsus in Cilicia, simply changing the first letter in the name." Accordingly Drusius surmises that this passage is involved in error and offers this as a possible restoration: "Not to Tarsus in Cilicia, as Josephus supposes, |182 substituting one letter for another, but rather to the region of India, as most writers believe."
P. 556
A. Our MSS read: "O Lord, at the sight of Thee my inward parts are transformed within me."
B. The Vatican and Palatine MSS read: "... is inside (intrinse-cus)," and leave out the following, "in golden borders." On the basis of the Vulgate and the Greek Victorinus reads: "... of a daughter of a king is within (ab intus)." The word "Psalm," which occurs just previously, was missing, but we have supplied it on the basis of the manuscripts.
P. 557
A. Our MSS and Victorinus himself, on the basis of the Florentine MSS, have this reading. The earlier reading was, "and (the history) must be considered."
P. 558
B. Our MSS lack the word "my"; it is also lacking in the Greek text as well.
C. Those nine would be reckoned as: Artaxerxes Longimanus, Xerxes (II), Sogdianus, Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Artaxerxes Ochus, Arses, and Darius Codomanus, who was defeated by Alexander. [This, however, totals only eight kings; Jerome seems to have erred in his figure of nine.]
P. 562
A. This whole account of the temple of Onias was translated from Josephus' Jewish War. To be sure, Josephus describes in greater detail the district which Onias received from Ptolemy, saying (Greek): "He gives to him a tract of land measuring one hundred by eighty stadia, and this district was called the Heliopolite Nome of Memphis. There Onias constructed a fort and built the temple, not that it resembled the Temple in Jerusalem, but was more like a castle in shape." And so one sees that Josephus does not agree with Jerome, who states that the temple was constructed like the Jewish Temple, whereas Josephus informs us that it was dissimilar.
B. On the other hand Josephus computes the time as three |183 hundred forty-three years (Greek): "The interval which had elapsed between the building of the temple and the time when it was closed up came to three hundred forty-three years." Rufinus translated it as 333 years. To be sure, a recent editor of Josephus says that the proper reading is 233, for that particular temple was closed by order of Vespasian soon after Jerusalem was demolished, about 824 A.U.C. [=71 A.D.]. Compare Seldenus, De Successione in Pontificatu Hebraico, I, viii.
C. Josephus therefore states that the temple was built (Greek): "in the so-called City of Onias."
P. 563
A. As regards this prediction of Isaiah, the holy Doctor elsewhere, that is, in his commentary upon this same passage in Isaiah, administered a rebuke to Onias himself, on the ground that Isaiah was of course describing the spiritual kingdom of Christ, stating that it would be propagated even as far as Egypt.
B. Our MSS read: "the son of Aethiolus" or "of Eptolus." See Polybius, Book IV, chap. 26.
C. On the basis of his intuition (ingenium) or else in accord with the logic of the preceding context, Victorinus corrects "who had been honorably received" (referring to the men) to "having been honorably received" (referring to Antiochus himself). Right afterwards he reads, "persecuted" instead of "pursued."
P. 564
D. The better reading is apparently that of the Palatine MSS and (according to Montfaucon) the Sangermane MSS, which spell the word in Roman letters, and with an "r": Sabir. Theodoritus says (Greek): "Some of those who have turned the Hebrew language into Greek [literally: Greece] have called it a land of Sabeir." [This translation of Theodoritus is doubtful, because of his obscurity.] Nevertheless it seems that Theodotion used the form (Greek) Sabei or Sabaeim.
P. 566
A. The earlier reading was Suctorius; other printed editions have |184 Suturius. Also there is the variant "at great length" (sermone latissimo) for "with much redundancy" (sermone laciniosissimo). Compare in the Prologue of this Commentary Note B on p. 494.
P. 567
A. On the basis of the Brescian codices Victorinus reads "be referred to" instead of "refer to"; and then right after it: "whom he is going to overcome" rather than "whom he has overcome."
P. 568
B. Our MSS read "Pompilius"; but it was a common thing to confuse these two names, and so the Lex Pompilia is also called Lex Popilia, and Pompilius Rufus is also called Popilius Ruf us.
C. This reading is more elegant than that of the Eatic (?) MS, which uses the Romanorum form of the genitive instead of Romanum. By no means should we accept the poor reading of the Palatine: "by fear of the Romans for his aid." And the earlier reading was unintelligible: "for his help of the Romans."
D. A representative of this viewpoint, to name one specifically, was Victorinus in his commentary on Revelation; but this opinion is well controverted by Lactantius in his De Mortibus Persecutorum [The Deaths of Persecutors] near the end of chapter 2. But also it was refuted by Augustine in De Civitate Dei [The City of God], XX, 19; by Ambrosiaster in his commentary on I Corinthians, at 4:9; Severus Sulpicius in his History, II, 29, as well as in Dialogue II, last chapter; and lastly, of the Greek Fathers, by Chrysostom, Homily IV, concerning II Thessalonians. Compare Epistle 121, addressed to Algasias, final question. Moreover, some MSS read "Domi-tianus" instead of "Domitius." The Vatican reads "Domi-tianus or Nero."
E. Instead of "another writer," Victorinus favors "Aquila," a reading preferred by two MSS which he commends.
P. 570
A. The Vatican and Palatine MSS read: "for the Jews mistakenly hope" instead of "imagine." |185
B. Victorinus reads the future loquetur (following the example of the Vulgate) instead of the subjunctive loquatur [the latter is better grammar, but there is no difference in meaning]. A little later he reads the future dirigetur instead of the subjunctive dirigatur [the same remark applies].
C. One critic would very much prefer to have these words rewritten and corrected to "who composed the Bibliothecae (Libraries) of history," arguing from the title of Diodorus's work, and from the passage in Eusebius's Praeparatio Evangelica, I, 6, which states (Greek): "He brought together into one opus his entire Historike Bibliotheke" (Historical Library).
D. Compare also I Maccabees, vii, and the Syriac of Appianus, who calls it the temple of Venus rather than of Diana; yet Josephus, as well as Polybius and Diodorus, says it was the temple of Diana.
P. 571
A. Both here and in the place further down where this passage recurs, the Palatine MS offers the reading with a negative particle: "whom he did not acknowledge (or "know")."
B. We have supplied the word epi ("upon," "with regard to") on the basis of the Vatican MS, for it was left out because of the recurrence of the same letters in the following word (epithymia).
P. 573
A. Victorinus deletes the word "two," for even though it is presupposed by the accompanying exposition, it nevertheless is not found in any edition of the sacred text.
P. 574
B. At this point Victorinus, in consistency with the previous context, adds the words "calling it Sabin."
C. Two MSS read "Gaza" in the singular number. But that the holy Doctor really used the plural appears from the fact that he understands both cities to be included, namely Majuma, and Gaza ---- properly so called, even though it was removed some distance from the sea. Sozomenus in his History, vii, 21, calls the former Gaza by its proper name, saying (in Greek): "...in Gaza by the sea, which is also named Maiouma." |186
D. The Palatine reads: "the tent of his throne between the two seas"; these last words are entirely missing in the Vatican.
P. 575
A. Our MSS read: Ephadano or Epadno, and with greater correctness omit the preposition "in." The Sangermane MS also reads Epadano [using a Greek delta for "d," so also in the other two spellings]; a second hand has written in Epedno, and a little later in the Aquila quotation: "of his headquarters, Apedno." And a little further on Jerome himself shows spelling with "p" instead of "ph."
B. Many MSS use the spelling f without any aspirate (ph).
C. The Palatine reads: "and the league (junctionem) which is joined...."
P. 578
A. Victorinus restores: "that he will humble three kings," because that is the reading above in chap. 7 and Jerome interpreted it that way. Besides, several MSS support the emendation.
B. Victorinus adds: "place," so as to read, "....an idol of Jupiter stood in that place."
C. Victorinus reads, in conformity with the Vulgate, the word "predetermined" as modifying "time."
P. 579
A. Two MSS put cultus ("worship") in the dative instead of the accusative, and use interfectionem for "death" instead of inter-necionem [but the translation is not affected],
B. Victorinus deletes the name "Daniel," which is not found in the sacred text.
P. 580
C. This last sentence in the paragraph is not found in the Palatine MS, nor is the following verse of the sacred text belonging to chapter 13. But in the Vatican, we find in their place the rubric: "The Beginning of the Story of Susanna according to the Blessed Jerome."
D. Our MSS have no knowledge of these words, "...and one may observe them in the appropriate sections." And besides, Jerome |187 does not seem to have set forth consistently the remarks of Origen in Latin.
E. Instead of this verse, which is supplied by our MSS, another has been proposed: "And Joakim was exceedingly wealthy and owned an orchard near by his home." But this last has no relevance to the accompanying explanation. On the other hand, approximately the same wording is found in a letter of Origen to Africanus relative to the story of Susanna, Letter Seven: [Here the Greek text is given] "In fact I remember conversing with a scholarly Hebrew, the son of a man reputed among them to be a savant, and on the basis of the fact that the story of Susanna is not rejected by many of the Jews, I was informed also as to the names of the elders, that they were found after this fashion in Jeremiah, 'May the Lord make thee....' " [This is now put into Latin as follows: "Indeed I remember that I conversed with a scholarly Hebrew ---- and he was the son of a man called a savant among them ---- and that I learned from him, on the assumption that Susanna was genuine history, even the names of the elders, just as they occur in Jeremiah, and they are found in this fashion: 'May the Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahiab, whom....'"]
F. Here again we have, as often before, supplied on the basis of the authority of the manuscripts, inserted the Scriptural text under discussion, for the sake of the ensuing explanation.
P. 582
A. (Origen) comes to a far more justifiable conclusion in the letter (numbers 6 and 7) which was previously commended. There he makes a reply to the objection thus raised, saying that even though it is impossible to show, on the basis of the lost Hebrew text, the etymology of "cleaving" and "severing" from the names of the two trees involved, he nevertheless has no doubt but what this etymology could be true, since wordplays of that kind do occur in the Scriptures. And indeed we should like to indicate a certain portion, at least, of his answer to the objection, translating it into Latin as follows: "Let us see what accusation can be derived from the speech of Daniel itself. First of all, let us start with that consideration which might |188 deter us from conceding the historicity of the passage, namely the fact that prisis ["sawing through"] is derived from prinos ("holm tree") and skhisis ["cleaving"] is derived from skhinos ["mastic tree"). Concerning this thou hast announced thy finding that even though thou hast discovered how this wordplay works out in Greek, the several ideas would be expressed by mutually dissimilar sounds in Hebrew. Well I also have been disturbed by this passage, and since I myself remained in doubt, I consulted a good many Hebrews, inquiring of them what the name of the holm tree was in their language, and how they would express the idea of sawing; and likewise what word they would use to express mastic tree and how they would say "cleave." And they answered that they were unacquainted with the Greek terms, prinos and skhinos, and requested that they might have the trees themselves pointed out to them, in order to know what names to assign to them. To be sure, I did not hesitate (since truth is my friend), to bring before them samples of the wood itself. But one of them stated that they were never named in Scripture, and so he could not be sure what they would be called in Hebrew; although it was an easy expedient, in case of doubt, to use the Syriac word in substitution for the Hebrew. Moreover he said that a good many words sometimes have to be looked up even by the most learned scholars. And so, he remarked, if thou canst show any place in Scripture where the holm is mentioned by name, or a mastic tree either, there we shall certainly discover the data we are looking for, and the derivation of the names, with the roots from which they arise. Yet we are also not aware of whether the trees are nowhere named. Since therefore these statements were made by Hebrews with whom I have had friendly relations and who were not unfamiliar with the story, I am very cautious about making a positive statement as to whether or not a similar derivation of words might be preserved by the Hebrews. But perhaps thou knowest some reason for affirming that the derivation does not exist in Hebrew."
P. 583
A. Jerome urges this difficulty, based on the meaning of the words in Hebrew, in a much more emphatic way in his Commentary |189 on Jeremiah, chap. 29, with reference to the prophet's statement, "May the Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like unto Ahab...." He remarks: "The Hebrews claim that these are the elders who wrought folly in Israel and committed adultery with wives of their fellow-citizens, and to one of whom Daniel said, 'O thou that art grown old in evil days,' and to the other of whom he said, 'Thou seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thy heart.' But the statement in this present passage, 'Whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire,' seems to contradict the story in Daniel. For the story asserts that they were stoned by the people in accordance with Daniel's sentence, whereas it is written here that the king of Babylon roasted them in the fire. For this reason the story itself is rejected as a mere fable by the majority of the Hebrews, or almost all of them; nor is it read aloud in their synagogues. 'For how,' they object, 'could it have happened that mere captives would have had the authority to stone their own princes and prophets?' They affirm that it is more likely true that the elders were, to be sure, convicted of guilt by Daniel, but the sentence was inflicted upon them by the king of Babylon, who as conqueror and lord possessed the authority over the captives."
P. 584
B. Consider again the Epistle to Africanus, numbers 4 and 5.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_letter_106_to_sunnia_and_frithila_02_trans.htm
Jerome, Letter 106: to Sunnia and Frithila. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 36 (1937) pp.515-542.
[Translated by Michael Metlen]
To My Beloved Brethren Sunja and Frithila and All Those Who with You are Serving the Lord, Hieronymus.
1. Certainly these apostolic and prophetic words have been fulfilled in you: Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world?2 Who would believe that the barbarous language of the Goths would try to compete with the Hebrew in establishing the true text of the Scriptures, and that, while the Greeks are indolent and contentious, even Germany3 would scrutinize the words of the Holy Spirit? Truly I have found out that God is no respecter of persons, but that among every nation he who feareth him and cloth what is right will be acceptable to him.4 Already the hands callous from wielding the sword, and the fingers fitter to handle the bow are getting accustomed to using the pen, and the men hardened in warfare are learning Christian gentleness. Now we see the prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled indeed: They will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation will not lift up the sword against nation, neither will they learn war any more.5 And again in the same: The wolf will eat with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the bull will feed together, and a little child will lead them; and the cow and the bear will eat together, and their young ones will be friends, and the lion and the ox will eat straw,6 not in order that meekness shall become ferocious, but that ferocity shall learn meekness.
2. You are requesting of me a difficult thing and one beset with trouble, a matter which does not require so much of ingenuity as rather learning, exposing me, as it does, while trying to judge about others, to public criticism. You wish namely, according to your letter, that I indicate to you, wherever there is in the Psalter a discrepancy between the Latin and Greek texts, which of the readings in question expresses the corresponding Hebrew text more faithfully. In connection with this let me advise you at the outset briefly that there is one edition which Origines and Eusebius of Caesarea and all Greek writers call the κοινή,7 that is, the common or vulgar text, and which now goes mostly by the name of Lukian, the other is the Septuagint, which is also to be found in the Hexapla8 and has been translated by me faithfully into Latin, and is used at Jerusalem and in the oriental churches. About this matter also my holy son Avitus has inquired often, and since our brother, the presbyter Firmus, who brought me your letter, affords me a chance, I am going to answer it jointly, thus acquitting myself of a duty of friendship which cannot be exaggerated. And as, in dealing with the New Testament, whenever among the Latin writers a doubt arises, and there occurs a discrepancy between individual copies, we have recourse to the original Greek, in which the New Testament was written, so also in the Old Testament, if there are discrepancies between the Greek and Latin texts, we go back to the Hebrew, in order that we may trace to their origins the individual variant readings. The κοινή that is the common edition, however, is the same as the Septuagint, but with the difference that the κοινή is the old edition, which became corrupted through the whims of the individual writers and the accidents of the times and of the places [where the copies were made],9 whereas the one which is contained in the Hexapla and which I have translated is the pure and unadulterated version of the Septuagint, as it is found in the texts of learned scholars. There is no doubt that whatever differs from this differs also from the Hebrew text.10
3. Your first question concerns the place in the th Psalm: Neque habitabit juxta te malignus which reads in the Greek: οὔτε παροικήσει σοι πονηρὸς, which reading the vulgar11 edition contains; and you are wondering why the Latin translator has not rendered the word παροικίαν by "incolatum," and why he has used instead the word "habitationem," which is in the Greek κατοικία. He has done the same in another place, viz. in: Heu mihi, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est. And in the 14th Psalm he uses again "habitationem" for "incolatu": Domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo? It is to be noted that if we want to say: "Domine, quis incolet tabernaculum tuum?"," or in the th Psalm, "Neque incolet juxta te malignus," it won't sound right and, while translating literally, the rendering will not be correct. It should, therefore, be the rule of a good translator to express the idioms of a foreign language by the corresponding idioms of his own tongue. This also Tullius has done in Plato's Protagora and in the Οἰκονομικῷ of Xenophon and in the Oration of Demosthenes against Aeschines, as well as the very learned men Plautus, Terence, and Caelius in their translations of Greek comedies. Nobody should, however, on that account consider the Latin language not flexible enough because it cannot translate literally [and idiomatically at one and the same time],9 since the Greeks, too, mostly translate our works idiomatically and take care also not to render the Hebrew literally, but idiomatically.
4. In the same Psalm: Dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam. For this the Greek has: κατεύθυνον ἐνώπιον σου τὴν ὁδόν μου, that is: Dirige in conspectu tuo viam meam; the former version neither the Septuagint has, nor Aquila, nor Symmachus, nor Theodotion, but only the κοινή edition. Finally, I have found also in the Hebrew this reading: oser laphanoi darchach, which all [not mentioned]9 have translated the same way: Dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam, according to what is said also in the Lords Prayer: Pater noster, qui es in cælis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. This does not mean that by our prayers should be hallowed what is holy in itself, but it means that we are praying that that which is sacred in virtue of its own nature be also hallowed in us. In the same way the prophet is now also asking that the way of the Lord, which is right in itself, be made likewise right for him.
5. In Psalm 6: Erubescant et conturbentur vehementer omnes inimici mei. You say that vehementer is not found in the Greek. I know it, but the Vulgate11 has it. Besides, there is in the Hebrew the word mod, which means vehementer, and all have translated σφόδρα similarly.
6. In Psalm 7: Judica me, domine, secundum justitiam meam, for which the Greek has κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου, that is, juxta justitiam tuam. But that is wrong, for the Hebrew has sedechi, which is justitia mea, and not sedecach, which means justitiam tuam. But all translators have likewise rendered justitiam meam. And nobody should think it foolish that the Psalmist asks to be judged according to his own justice, since the following verse means the same thing: Et secundum innocentiam meam super me, while also the 16th Psalm starts this way: Exaudi, domine, justitiam meam, and the 17th has this: Retribuet mihi dominus secundum justitiam meam et secundum puritatem manuum mearum reddet mihi. Furthermore, we find also in the 25th Psalm this reading: Proba me, domine, et tempta me; ure renes meos et cor meum, and in the th: Quum invocarem, exaudivit me Deus justitiæ meæ, and in the 85th: Custodi animam meam, quoniam sanctus sum. Jacob also says in Genesis: Exaudiet me cras justitia mea.
7. In Psalm 8: Quoniam videbo cælos tuos. You say that the Greek does not have tuos. That is true, but in the Hebrew we find samacha, which means cælos tuos, and which has been added in the Septuagint from Theodotions text under an asterisk. Here I shall briefly explain this matter. Whenever there occurs in the Greek an omission, which the Hebrew has, Origenes added such omission from Theodotions translation, putting an asterisk that is a star in order that it should light up and make clear that which was previously obscure. On the other hand, whenever something is found in the Greek texts which is not in the Hebrew, he placed an obelus in front of it, that is, a horizontal line, which we may call in Latin a dart [in English an arrow]9 to indicate that that which is not found in the authentic texts should be extirpated. These signs are also found in Greek and Latin poems.
8. Psalm 14: Oculi tui videant æquitates. [You say that in the Greek]12 you have read: οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου, that is, oculi mei. But it is more correct to say oculi tui because the prophet had said before: De vultu tuo judicium meum prodeat, in order that Gods eyes should not see in the work of the prophet the wrong but the right things. In the same: Custodi me ut pupillam oculi. You say that your Greek version is: Custodi me, Domine. This is found, however, neither in the Hebrew, nor in any translator. In the same: Exurge, Domine, præveni eum et supplanta eum. For this you say the Greek has πρόφθασον αὐτούς, that is, Præveni eos et supplanta eos. The singular number is here better, however, if the statement is made concerning the evil one, to whom applies also what immediately follows: Præveni eum et supplanta eum; eripe animam meam ab impio. There is no doubt that this refers to the devil.
9. Psalm 17: Grando et carbones ignis, and you ask why in the Greek text not two other verses are inserted before the repetition of this one. It is to be noted, however, that this one has been added, in the Septuagint, under an asterisk from the Hebrew and the text of Theodotion. In the same: Qui perfecit pedes meos tamquam cervorum. For this you say the Greek has: ὡσεὶ ἐλάφου, that is, tamquam cervi, using the singular number for the plural. But in the Hebrew the plural chaialoth is used, and all translators have used the plural here. In the same: Et dedisti mihi protectionem salutis tuæ. For this you say you have read in the Greek: τῆς σωτηρίας μου, that is, salutis meæ. But in the Hebrew iesacha means salutis tuæ and not meæ. And all translators have this reading. In the same: Supplantasti insurgentes in me subtus me. For this you say you have found in the Greek: Omnes insurgentes. However, omnes has been added. In the same: Vivit Dominus et benedictus Deus meus. You say that in the Greek meus is lacking. This has not been added under an asterisk, but has been translated from the Hebrew by the very translators of the Septuagint, and all translators agree in this particular. In the same: Liberator meus de gentibus iracundis. For this you say you have found in the Greek: Ab inimicis meis fortibus, or potentibus. But since we are interested in the truth, let me say that if anything has been changed owing to the hurry of the translator or the fault of the transcriber, we simply have to admit it and correct the wrong form. The Hebrew has nothing else but: Liberator meus ab inimicis meis. The translators of the Septuagint, however, have added iracundis. And for gentibus the Greek text and all translators have inimici. I wonder how the form gentes has slipped in for inimicis.
10. Psalm 18: Exultavit ut gigas ad currendam viam suam. You say that in the Greek suam does not occur. But we find this word added here under an arrow, and it is apparent that it does not occur in the Hebrew.
11. Psalm 19: Tribuat tibi secundum cor tuum. You say that you have found that in the Greek the name of the Lord is added in this verse. This is superfluous because it is understood from the context of the preceding words {Ἐπακούσαι σου Κύριος} with which the Psalm begins: Exaudiat te Dominus in die tribulationis, so that the Psalmist continues here in the same vein: Tribuat tibi secundum cor tuum, which statement refers to the Lord himself who has been mentioned before. In the same: Et exaudi nos in die, qua invocaverimus te. For this you say you have read: in quocumque die. But the former reading agrees with the Hebrew, where we find biom, which means in die.
12. Psalm 21: Tu autem, Domine, ne elongaveris auxilium tuum a me. For this you say you have found meum. This is true and should be corrected accordingly. In short: If anything has been changed through an error of the transcribers, it would be foolish to defend such error. In the same: Universum semen Jacob, magnificate eum. For this you say the Greek has: δοξάσατε αὐτόν, that is: glorificate eum. But it is to be noted that wherever the Greek has glorificate, the Latin translator has rendered this by magnificate, on the basis of what is said in Exodus: Cantemus Domino; gloriose enim magnificatus est, for which in the Greek glorificatus est is written. This, however, sounds awkward in the Latin translation, so that I, when revising the Psalter, did not want to deviate from the practice of the old translators, provided no change of sense was involved, in order not to disturb the reader by too many innovations.
13. Psalm 22: Calix meus inebrians quam præclarus est. For this you say you have read in the Greek: calix tuus. But in the κοινή version this reading is a mistake. Besides, the Septuagint, the Hebrew and all translators have calix meus, which means in the Hebrew chosi; for calix tuus would be chosach.
14. Psalm 24: Confundantur omnes iniqua agentes. You say that omnes does not occur in the Greek. Thats right, for it does not occur in the Hebrew either, and it is added in the Septuagint under an arrow. In the same: Innocentes et recti adhæserunt mihi, quia sustinui te, and you say that you have found Domine in the Greek. This, however, is superfluous.
15. Psalm 26: Et nunc ecce exaltavit caput meum. But ecce is superfluous. In the same: Exquisivit facies mea, for which you say the Greek has: Quaesivit te facies mea. The former reading is the better one, however.
16. Psalm 27: Exaudi vocem deprecationis meæ, for which you say you have found: Exaudi, Domine. But Domine also has been added.
17. Psalm 28: Et in templo ejus omnis dicet gloriam. For this you say the Greek contains πᾶς τίς. But if we should want to translate verbatim omnis quis, the result would be a mere transliteration and an absurd rendering. In the same: Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit, for which you say you have read: Dominus diluvium inhabitat. The former rendering refers to the blessings of the faithful, the latter to the dwelling place of him in whom they believe. However, since iasaph is an ambiguous word which may mean either of two things for it signifies both sessio and habitatio and refers in the Psalm in question to the grace of Baptism: Vox Domini super aquas; Dominus super aquas multas; and Vox Domini præparantis cervos et revelabit condensa, et in templo ejus omnis dicet gloriam , I prefer to understand it of those who glorify the Lord, and have thus translated it, Dominus diluvium inhabitare facit.
18. Psalm 30: Quoniam tu es protector meus. Again in this place the Lords name has been added. Let me say once for all that you should not forget that the name of our Lord and God is often added, and that you should observe the corrections I have made on the basis of the Hebrew and the Septuagint. In the same: Ego autem dixi in excessu mentis meæ. For this the Latin texts had: in pavore meo, and I translated according to the Greek: ἐν τῇ ἐκστάσει μου, that is, in excessu mentis meæ. For the Latin cannot express ἔκστασιν except by mentis excessum. I know that I have read in the Hebrew the differing version: in stupore et in admiratione mea.
19. Psalm 31: Nec est in spiritu ejus dolus. For this you say you have read in the Greek: ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, that is, in ore ejus, which Symmachus alone has. On the other hand, the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Fifth and Sixth editions,13 Aquila, and the Hebrew itself have in spiritu ejus, which is in the Hebrew brucho. If the meaning were, however, in ore ejus, baffio would be written in the Hebrew. In the same: Conversus sum in ærumna mea. You say that the Hebrew does not have mea, which has been added under an asterisk from the Hebrew and Theodotion's translation, and which in the Hebrew reads lasaddi; lasaddi... [there is a gap here].9
20. Psalm 34: Omnia ossa mea dicent: « Domine ». Here, you say, you have found in the Greek the word Domine twice. It is to be noted, however, that there are many Hebrew copies which have the word Dominum not even once.
21. Psalm 36: Et viam ejus volet. You say that you have read in the Greek volet nimis. But nimis has been added and is not found in any one of the translators.
22. Psalm 38: Verumtamen vane conturbatur omnis homo. You say that you have not found in the Greek the word conturbatur. But this also has been added in the Septuagint under an arrow, and from this you and most of the rest have incurred an error because everything is mixed up through the negligence of the scribes in omitting the arrows and asterisks.
23. Psalm 39: Et legem tuam in medio cordis mei. For this you say you have found in the Greek: in medio ventris mei, which also in the Hebrew occurs in batthoch meai. This, however, has in the Latin texts euphemistically been changed to in corde. However, we should not change the meaning of anything. In the same: Domine, in adjutorium meum respice. For this you say you have found in the Greek: σπεῦσον, that is, festina. In the Septuagint, however, πρόσχες, that is respice, is written.
24. Psalm 40: Et si ingrediebatur, ut videret, and you say that si does not occur in the Greek, although it is very clearly written in the Hebrew and has been rendered by all translators. The Septuagint, too, renders it thus: καὶ εἰ εἰσεπορεύετο τοῦ ιδεῖν.
25. Psalm 41: Salutare vultus mei, Deus meus. For this you say you have found: et Deus meus. But it is to be noted that this [viz. deus meus]9 is found twice in that Psalm, and that in the first place salutare vultus mei, deus meus is written, while in the second place, viz., at the end of the Psalm, salutare vultus mei et Deus meus is used, but so that the conjunction et has been added under an asterisk from the Hebrew and Theodotion. In the same: Exprobraverunt mihi, qui tribulant me. For this you say you have found: οἱ ἐχθροί μου, that is, inimici mei, while the Septuagint has: οἱ θλίβοντές με, and the Hebrew sorarai, that is, hostes mei. In the same: Spera in deo, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi. You say that adhuc is not found in the Greek. But it has been added under an asterisk. In the Hebrew likewise we find written chi od, which means ὅτι ἔτι and is rendered in Latin by quoniam adhuc. The same applies to Psalm 42.
26. Psalm 43: Et non egredieris in virtutibus nostris. For this you say you have found in the Greek: Et non egredieris, Deus. But Deus is superfluous. In the same: Posuisti nos in similitudinem gentibus, for which you say the Greek has: ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. However, if we should say in Latin: in similitudinem in gentibus, it would sound badly, and on that account a proper rendering has been maintained without damage to the sense. On the other hand, I have found in the Hebrew text: Posuisti nos proverbium in gentibus. In the same: Exurge, adjuva nos. To this, as usually, the Lords name has been added in the Greek.
27. Psalm 44: Sagittae tuae acutæ. For this you say you have read in the Greek: acutæ, potentissime. But this is wrong, as potentissime has been added from a preceding verse in which we read: Accingere gladio tuo super femur tuum, potentissime.
28. Psalm 47: Quoniam ecce reges congregati sunt. For this you say you have found in the Greek: quoniam ecce reges ejus congregati sunt. The context of the reading itself shows that ejus is wrong. The old Latin texts had here reges terræ, which I omitted because it is found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint. In the same: sicut audivimus, sic vidimus. For this you say you have found in the Greek: sic et vidimus. This is wrong, for the Hebrew has here chen rainu, which is translated by οὕτως ἔιδομεν, that is, sic vidimus. In the same: Suscepimus, Deus, misericordiam tuam in medio templi tui. For the expression which I have translated, in accordance with the Hebrew and the Septuagint, by templi tui, you say you have read in the Greek populi tui, which is wrong, for in the Hebrew echalach is written, which means τοῦ ναοῦ σου, that is, templi tui, and not ammach, which signifies populum tuum.
29. Psalm 48: Homo, quum in honore esset. For this you say you have found in the Greek: Et homo, in honore quum esset. But it is to be noted that the verse in question occurs twice in this Psalm, and that in the first place the conjunction et is added, but in the second not. In the same: et dominabuntur eorum justi. For justis you say you have read in the Greek εὐθεῖς, which means rectos. However, justi has been substituted in the Latin on account of the context. Besides, also in that place in which we find the expression: in libro εὐθεῖς, we understand justorum libro. Hence, we should not translate so literally that, while splitting hairs about syllables, we lose sight of the sense. In the same: De manu inferni quum liberaverit me. For this you say you have read in the Greek: quum acceperit me. This I also have translated that way from the Septuagint, and I am wondering who has changed it in your text.
30. Psalm 49: Sedens adversus fratrem tuum loquebaris. For this you say you have found in the Greek: κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου κατελάλεις, and you think that it is not translated well because I said: adversus fratrem tuum loquebaris, and that I should have said: adversus fratrem tuum detrahebas. But even a fool realizes that that is wrong and not idiomatic in our language. Neither am I ignorant of the fact that καταλαλία means detractio. However, if we want to use that, we cannot say: adversus fratrem tuum detrahebas, but we must say: de fratre tuo detrahebas. However, if we do so, some hairsplitter of words will inquire again why we do not say: κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, that is, adversus fratrem tuum. All that, however, is nonsense, and we should not embark upon a useless quibbling about words, as long as the meaning remains one and the same, because every language, as I said before, has its own idiomatic way of expressing itself. In the same: Ne quando rapiat, et sit qui eripiat. You say that you have found in the Greek: Et non sit qui eripiat, which I also have translated thus and is to be found that way in my texts. Hence I wonder why you blame the translator for the negligence of a drowsy transcriber, unless the reading is perchance: Ne quando rapiat, nec sit qui eripiat, so that the copyist wrote et for nec. In the same: Sacrificium laudis honorificabit me, for which the Greek has: δοξάσει με, that is, glorificabit me, which I explained already a little while ago. In the Gospel we read in the Latin Pater, clarifica me, in the place where the Greek has: Πάτερ, δόξασόν με τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον παρὰ σοι πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον γενέσθαι. Thus I did not want to change a time-honored reading because there was no difference of meaning.
31. Psalm 54: Exspectabam eum qui salvum me fecit, and you say that you have found in the Greek: Exspectabam Deum, but Deum has been added. In the same: A pusillanimitate spiritus, and you say you have found in the Greek: ἀπὸ ὀλιγοψυχίας, which in effect means pusillanimitas. It is to be noted, however, that for ὀλιγοψυχία Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the Fifth Edition have the rendering ἀπὸ πνεύματος, that is, a spiritu, that the Hebrew has merucha, and that the complete sense is, in the texts referred to: Festinabo, ut salver a spiritu tempestatis et turbidinis. In the same: Quoniam si inimicus maledixisset. In the Greek we have ὠνείδισεν, that is, exprobrasset. But there is no difference in meaning between maledicta and opprobria.
32. Psalm 55: Quoniam multi bellantes adversum me, ab altitudine diei timebo. You say that you have found in the Greek: non timebo. Here non has been added. The sense is: quoniam multi dimicant adversum me, idcirco ego ab altitudine diei timebo, that is: non bellantes adversum me, sed tuum excelsum timebo lumen. In the same: In ira populos confringes. For this the Greek has: ἐν ὀργῇ λαοὺς κατάξεις [that is dejicies, and not κατεάξεις],12 that is, confringes. In Latin a bad error has crept in here, viz. confringes, that is κατεάξεις, for κατάξεις, which means dejicies. For the Hebrew has here hored, meaning καταβίβασον, which we may translate by depone, and which Symmachus has translated by κατάγαγε.
33. Psalm 58: Quia deus susceptor meus, for which the Greek has: Susceptor meus es tu. But it is to be noted that the Hebrew has neither es nor tu, and that these words appear only in the Septuagint. In the same: Deus meus, voluntas ejus præveniet me. For this the Greek has: τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ, that is, misericordia ejus, which is more correct. The Hebrew, on the other hand, has: Misericordia mea præveniet me. In the same: Deus ostendit mihi inter inimicos meos, for which the Greek has: Deus meus. But meus has been added. In the same: Ne occidas eos, ne quando obliviscantur populi tui, for which the Greek has: legis tuæ. But in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew, populi tui does not occur, but populi mei, and I have translated it thus. In the same: Et scient, quia Deus dominator Jacob finium terræ. For this the Greek has: Et finium terræ. The conjunction et has been added, however. The sense is: Scient quia Deus Jacob dominator finium terræ.
34. Psalm 59: Quis deducet me usque in Idumaeam? For this the Greek has: aut quis deducet me?, which is wrong.
35. Psalm 60: Quoniam tu, Deus meus, exaudisti orationem meam, for which you say your Greek text has: Quia tu, Deus, exaudisti me. This reading does not occur either in the Hebrew or in the Septuagint, but only in the Latin. In the same: Psallam nomini tuo in sæculum sæculi, for which you say your Greek text has: in sæculum. The Hebrew has once laed, that is, in æternum, and not lolam, which means in sæculum.
36. Psalm 61: Quia Deus adjutor noster in æternum, for which the Greek has: Deus adjutor noster. Hence in æternum is to be omitted.
37. Psalm 62: Sitivit tibi anima mea, for which you say your Greek text has: Sitivit in te anima mea. The Hebrew, however, has not attha, which means te, but lach, which means tibi. All translators have rendered accordingly. Hence it has been translated properly into the Latin.
38. Psalm 63: Sagittae parvulorum factæ sunt plagæ eorum, for which your Greek text has: Sagitta paruulorum. But if we say: Sagitta parvulorum factæ sunt plagæ eorum, the rendering is wrong from the standpoint of Latin. Instead, the Hebrew version, Percutiet eos Deus jaculo repentino et inferentur plagæ eorum, is better.
39. Psalm 64: Qui conturbas profundum maris, sonum fluctuum ejus. You say your Greek text has the addition: Quis sustinebit? This is wrong, for the sense is: qui conturbas profundum maris et conturbas sonum fluctuum ejus. In the same: Parasti cibum illorum, quoniam ita est præparatio ejus, and you say that your Greek text does not have ejus, although in the Hebrew thechina clearly means præparationem ejus, viz. ejus terræ, of which the Psalmist had earlier said: Visitasti terram et inebriasti eam.
40. Psalm 65: Holocausta medullata offeram tibi cum incenso arietum, for which you say you have found: Cum incensu et arietibus. But that is wrong, for the Hebrew has: em catoroth helim, which means μετὰ θυμιάματος κριῶν, that is, cum incenso arietum. In the same: Propterea exaudivit Deus, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Exaudivit me Deus. Here, me is superfluous.
41. Psalm 67: Et exsultent in conspectu ejus, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Et exsultate in conspectu ejus. This I, too, have translated that way, but I cannot know who has tampered with it in your text. In the same: Etenim non credunt inhabitare Dominum, for which you say you have read in the Greek: καὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι. Both of these versions are wrong, for I translated: Etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum, which is the correct meaning depending upon the preceding: Ascendisti in altum, cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus (et eos qui non credebant Dominum inhabitare posse mortalibus). In the same: Deus benedictus Dominus die cottidie, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Dominus benedictus Deus, benedictus Dominus die cottidie. But the former reading is better and truer. In the same: Viderunt ingressus tui, Deus, for which you say your Greek has: Visi sunt ingressus tui, Deus. The Hebrew has the following: rachua alichatach, which Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the Fifth and Sixth editions have translated: Viderunt itinera tua, Deus, and what follows: Itinera Dei mei regis, qui est in sancto. Hence we should read thus: Viderunt ingressus tuos, Deus, and not imitate the mistake of the transcriber who put the nominative for the accusative, although in the Septuagint and in the Hexapla I have found: ἐθεωρήσαν αἱ πορεῖαί σου, ὁ θεός, and for ἐθεωρήσαν, that is, viderunt, in many texts ἐθεωρήθησαν is found, which reading custom has maintained. In the same: Ingressus Dei mei, regis mei, qui est in sancto, the meaning of which is: Viderunt ingressus Dei mei, regis mei. But your statement that mei is not added in the Greek after rege is clearly erroneous; for both Dei mei and regis mei are used here pleonastically by way of affection to express the fervent desire that he who is God and king of all should in a special sense be the prophets God and king because of his condition as a servant of God. Finally, the Hebrew text has heli melchi, which means Deum meum et regem meum. In the same: Regna terræ, cantate Deo, psallite Domino, and you say that Psallite Domino does not occur in that verse because there follows immediately: Diapsalma. Psallite Deo, qui ascendit super cælum cæli ad orientem, whereas that verse should rather read according to the Hebrew: Cantate Deo, psallite Domino, and what follows at the beginning of the other verse, viz., Psallite Deo, does not occur in the authentic texts, but has an arrow in front of it. Thus you, too, should adhere to the true version lest, while adopting a spurious reading, you lose sight of what the prophet has written.
42. Psalm 68: Laudabo nomen Dei cum cantico. For this you say you have found in your Greek text: Dei mei. But mei is superfluous.
43. Psalm 70: Deus, ne elongeris a me. You say that your Greek text reads: Deus meus, but meus is superfluous. In the same: Deus, docuiste me e juventute mea. Also here meus after Deus, which you say you have found in the Greek, is superfluous. In the same: Donec annuntiem brachium tuum. You say you have found in the Greek: mirabilia tua. This, however, is from the preceding verse: Et usque nunc pronuntiabo mirabilia tua. The word brachium is hence correct here.
44. Psalm 71: Et adorabunt eum omnes reges. You say that you have found in your Greek text: reges terræ, but terræ is superfluous. In the same: Benedictus Dominus Deus, Deus Israël. You say that in your Greek text Deus does not occur twice, although it is in the Hebrew, and the threefold occurrence in the Septuagint of the name of our Lord and God very clearly indicates the mystery of the Holy Trinity.14 In the same: Et benedictum nomen majestatis ejus in æternum. You say that you have found in the Greek: In æternum et in sæculum sæculi. But please remember that the additional words have redundantly been added by the Greeks, as they occur neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint.
45. Psalm 72: prodiet quasi ex adipe, and you say that you have found in the Greek: ἐξελεύσονται, that is, prodient, which is wrong; for also the Septuagint has this: ἐξελεύσεται ὡς ἐκ στέατος ἡ ἀδικία αὐτῶν. In the same: Quomodo scit Deus. You say that the Greek does not have the word Deum, although the Septuagint has: Πῶς ἔγνω ὁ θεός, and all translators have rendered it similarly from the Hebrew. In the same: Intellegam in novissimis eorum, for which you say have read in the Greek: Et intellegam. However, here the conjunction et is superfluous. In the same: Defecit caro mea et cor meum, for which some have changed the word-order in an awkward way, thus: Defecit cor meum et caro mea. In the same: Ut annuntiem omnes prædicationes tuas, for which you say you have read in the Greek: τὰς αἰνέσεις σου, that is, laudes tuas. It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew has malochothach, which Aquila has translated by ἀγγελίας σου, that is, nuntios tuos, the Septuagint by τὰς ἐπαγγελίας σου, that is, prædicationes or promissa, although laus and prædicatio mean one and the same thing.
46. Psalm 73: Ut quid, Deus, reppulisti in finem?, for which the Greek with an awkward word-order says: Ut quid reppulisti, Deus? In the same: Quanta malignatus est inimicus in sancto! I wonder who has corrected a mistake into your copy by substituting sanctis for sancto, since also my copy has the form in sancto. In the same: Incendamus omnes dies festos Dei a terra, for which the Greek has καταπαύσωμεν, and I translated thus: Quiescere faciamus omnes dies festos Dei a terra. I wonder why some rash fellow has thought that the note: the correct form is not καταπαύσωμεν, as some think, but κατακαύσωμεν, that is, incendamus, which was placed by me for the guidance of the reader into the margin, should be put into the body of the text. And since the holy presbyter Firmus, who was in charge of this work, has told me that this question has been discussed by many, I am going to explain it somewhat more in detail. The Hebrew text reads: sarphu chol moedahu hel baares, which Aquila and Symmachus have rendered: ἑνεπύρισαν πάσας τὰς συνταγὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, that is, incenderunt omnes solemnitates Dei in terra. The Fifth Edition renders: κατέκαυσαν, that is, combusserunt, the Sixth: κατακαύσωμεν, that is, comburamus, which also the Septuagint evidently translates according to the copies [by καταπαύσομεν].9 Also Theodotion renders: ἐνεπυρίσαμεν, that is, succendimus {= perfect tense}. From this it is clear that my rendering should be used, although sight should not be lost of the true Hebrew version. For the reading of the Septuagint should be used in the churches, because of its antiquity, whereas the scholars should, for the sake of the accuracy of the Scriptures, not forget the true version. Thus, whenever anything has been added in the margin for the sake of taking note of, this should not be put into the body of the text, in order not to corrupt the original translation according to the whim of the transcribers. In the same: Contribulasti capita draconum in aquis; tu confregisti capita draconis. This is the correct form of the reading; hence tu should not occur in the first verse, but in the second, and aquæ should be in the plural, instead of in the singular, the same as Aquila has translated the Hebrew word ammaim by τῶν ὑδάτων, that is, aquarum. In the same: Ne obliviscaris voces inimicorum tuorum, for which you say the Greek has τῶν ἱκετῶν σου, that is, deprecantium te. In the Hebrew sorarach is used, which Aquila has translated by hostium tuorum, Symmachus by bellantium contra te, the Septuagint and the Sixth Edition by inimicorum tuorum. The meaning is clear from the preceding: Memor esto improperiorum tuorum, eorum, quæ ab insipiente sunt tota die; ne obliviscaris voces inimicorum tuorum (that is, the voices which blaspheme you and disparage against you amongst your people). Whereupon follows: Superbia eorum, qui te oderunt, ascendit semper, that is: while you are deferring the punishment, they increase their blasphemies.
47. Psalm 74: Narrabimus mirabilia tua. For this the Greek has the wrong reading: Narrabo omnia mirabilia tua.
48. Psalm 75: Omnes viri divitiarum manibus suis, and not, as you have read in the text spoiled by, God knows, whom: in manibus suis. In the same: Terribili et ei qui aufert spiritus principum. You say that ei is not in the Greek. Thats true, but unless we add ei, the Latin is not complete. For we cannot say correctly: Terribili et qui aufert spiritus principum.
49. Psalm 76: Et meditatus sum node cum corde meo et exercitabar et scopebam spiritum meum. For this we read in the Hebrew: Recordabar Psalmorum meorum in nocte; cum corde meo loquebar, et scopebam spiritum meum. For exercitatione the Septuagint translates ἀδολεσχίαν, meaning some sort of decantationem and meditationem, and for what we call scopebam, it puts ἔσκαλλον, which Symmachus has translated by ἀνηρεύνων, that is, perscrutabar, or quærebam. The Fifth Edition uses a similar form. Σκαλισμός, however, refers in agriculture properly to the hoeing of the soil for the purpose of destroying the weeds. And as there the weeds which are to be destroyed are loosened with a hoe, so here the Psalmist uses this figure in connection with the imperfect state of his mind. But it is to be noted that ἔσκαλον {aorist tense} refers to one, ἔσκαλλον {imperfect tense} to a repeated occurrence. In the same: A generatione in generationem. You say that this is followed in the Greek by: consummavit verbum. But that would be an error in the Latin text, and no translator has it.
50. Psalm 77: Et narrabunt filiis suis. For this the Greek has ἀναγγελοῦσιν, which means annuntiabunt. It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew has iasaphpheru, which Aquila and Symmachus have translated by narrabunt. In the same: Et occidit pingues eorum. This reading also the Hebrew has, viz. bamasmnehem, which Aquila translated by ἐν λιπαροῖς αὐτῶν, Symmachus by τοὺς λιπαρωτέρους αὐτῶν, the Septuagint, Theodotion and the Fifth Edition by ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν. Some ignorant fellows, however, have supposed that πλείοσιν was written for πίοσιν. In the same: Dilexerunt eum in ore suo et lingua sua mentiti sunt ei. The Hebrew likewise has the same reading, viz. icazbulo, and all have translated similarly: ἐψεύσαντο αὐτῷ, that is, mentiti sunt ei. Who, however, should want to put for ei, eum? I shall, forsooth, not be a party to adulterating the Scriptures. In the same: Et propitius fiet peccatis eorum et non disperdet eos. You say that eos does not occur in the Greek, which is true. I, however, in order to avoid a loose construction, have completed the statement according to Latin usage. If anyone, however, should think that διαφθερεῖ does not mean perditionem, but corruptionem, let him remember the place which reads: εἰς τὸ τέλος μὴ διαφθείρῃς, that is, in finem ne disperdas, and not, as most have translated erroneously, ne corrumpas. In the same: Et induxit eos in montem sanctificationis suæ, montem quem acquisivit dextera ejus. For this the Septuagint has the reading: ὄρος τοῦτο, ὁ ἐκτήσατο ἡ δεξία αὐτοῦ and not, as you write, ὃ ἐκτίσατο [= founded or created]9 , that is, quem acquisivit dextera ejus. Thus Symmachus has translated correctly according to the Hebrew: montem quem acquisivit dextera ejus. In the same: Et averterunt se et non servaverunt pactum, quemadmodum patres eorum. I know that the word pactum does not occur in the Hebrew, but since all have translated in a similar way ἠσυνθέτησαν, and since the Greek form συνθήκη means pactum, the meaning of the whole [i.e. ἠσυνθέτησαν]9 is non servaverunt pactum, although the Septuagint has ἠθέτησαν. In the same: In terra quam fundavit in sæcula, for which you say you have found: In terra fundavit eam in sæcula. The Hebrew has the following version, which also Symmachus renders the same way: εἰσ τὴν γῆν ἣν ἐθεμελίωσεν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. If the statement, however, does not mean that the earth has been created, but something else which is supposed to have been founded on earth, let those who think so prove from the context what the meaning is, as I do not know what which is not expressed should be founded on earth. If they think, however, that a sanctuary has been founded upon the earth, the version should be: in terra fundavit illud in sæcula. In the same: Et in intellectibus manuum suarum deduxit eos. The singular ἐν τῇ συνέσει is not used here, as you say, but ἐν ταῖς συνέσεσιν, which means intelligentias. This idea is contained also in the Hebrew bathabunoth, which means intellectibus.
51. Psalm 78: Posuerunt Hierusalem in pomorum custodiam, which in the Greek means εἰς ὀπωροφυλάκιον and cannot be translated differently from the way I have rendered it. The word indicates a watchtower or lookout, such as the wardens of the fields and orchards were accustomed to have, so that of the extensive city hardly a cottage was left [which was not under their watchful eye].9 This is the sense according to the Greek. Besides, in the Hebrew lichin is written, which Aquila translated by λιθαόριον, that is a pile of stones which the farmers are wont to pick from their vineyards and fields.
52. Psalm 79: Et plantasti radices ejus hinc. You say that hinc does not occur in the Greek. Thats all right, for it does not occur in my texts either, so that I am wondering which dunce has altered your copies.
53. Psalm 82: « Hereditate possideamus sanctuarium Dei! », and you say that the Greek has « Κληρονομήσωμεν ἑαυτοῖς! », that is, possideamus nobis. This is a useless question, for when we say possideamus, nobis is likewise included.
54. Psalm 83: Cor meum et caro mea exsultavit in deum vivum. For this you say the Greek has exsultaverunt. There is no contradiction in this, for when we read exsultavit, the meaning is: cor meum exsultavit et caro mea exsultavit. If, on the other hand, the form exsultaverunt is used, two exult at one and the same time, viz. the heart and the flesh. Let me request you to avoid this type of nonsense and useless questions where there is no difference in the sense. In the same: Beatus vir, cujus est auxilium abs te. You say that you have found in the Greek: cui est auxilium ejus abs te, and I am criticized, as you say, for having avoided this rendering in my Latin translation. However, who does not understand that if we should say cui est auxilium ejus, this would be a manifest error, and that if cui precedes, ejus cannot follow, unless I am criticized for having avoided a mistake. In the same: In valle lacrimarum, for which you say the Greek has κλαυθμῶνος, that is, plorationis. However, it makes no difference whether we say ploratum or planctum or fletum or lacrimas; the meaning remains one and the same, so that I follow the rule that, where there is no change of sense, I write as it sounds best in Latin.
55. Psalm 84: Benedixisti, domine, terram tuam. You say that for benedixisti you have found in the Greek Εὐδόκησας, and you ask how that word should be expressed in Latin. If we want to quibble about words and syllables, we may say: Bene placuit, Domine, terra tua and, while translating words, we lose sight of the sense. At any rate, something should be added to give a proper meaning, and we might say: Complacuit tibi, Domine, terra tua. However, if we do this, some one might ask again why we have added tibi, since it is found neither in the Greek, nor in the Hebrew. However, we should always follow the rule which I have repeated so often, viz., that where there is no difference in the sense, we should translate idiomatically and use a polished language. In the same: Misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi. You say that sibi is not in the Greek. However, it is neither in the Hebrew and is given in the Septuagint under an arrow. When these signs [viz. arrow and asterisk]9 are omitted as superfluous, as it were, through the carelessness of most transcribers, the reader is badly led astray. If sibi were not added, it would be thought that pity and truth had not met each other, but someone else, nor that justice and peace had given a kiss to each other, but to somebody else.
56. Psalm 85: Et non proposuerunt te in conspectu suo. You say that te is not in your text. Add te and thus, while correcting the blunder of the transcriber, you will correct at the same time your own error. In the same: Et tu, Domine Deus, miserator et misericors. You say that you have found in the Greek: Et tu, Domine Deus meus. But meus is superfluous here, as it is neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint.
57. Psalm 88: Magnus et horrendus, for which you say you have found in the Greek φοβερός, which means terribilis, timendus, formidandus. I think it means, in the above expression, just horrendum (not, however, as the common people think, despiciendum and squalidum), according to the following:
Mihi frigidus horror
Membra quatit
(Virgil. Æneid 3:29-30).
and:
Horror ubique animo, simul ipsa silentia terrent
(Virgil. Æneid 2:755)
and:
Monstrum horrendum, ingens
(Virgil. Æneid 3:658)
as well as in many similar places. In the same: Tunc locutus es in visione sanctis tuis, for which you say you have found in the Greek filiis tuis. It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew has here laasidach, which all have translated by τοῖς ὁσίοις σου, that is, sanctis tuis, except the Sixth Edition, which translates prophetis tuis, expressing the sense rather than the words. In the κοινῇ only, however, I have found filios for sanctis. In the same: Tu vero reppulisti et respexisti, for which you say you have found in the Greek ἐξουδένωσας. How big an error has resulted here from the change of one letter! for I did not translate respexisti, but despexisti et pro nihilo duxisti unless perchance you think that ἐξουδένωσας should not be rendered by despexisti but, according to the most learned translator of those times, by annihilasti, or annullasti, or nullificasti, or by any other word-monster which the inexpert may invent. 58. Psalm 89: A sæculo et usque in sæculum tu es, Deus, and you say that the word Deus is not contained in the Greek. It is clear that it is missing there, since it is in the Hebrew. Besides, all other translators and the Septuagint have the corresponding rendering: ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ, ὁ Θεός, which means in the Hebrew: meolam ad olam atah el. In the same: Quoniam superuenit mansuetudo, et corripiemur. You say that you have found in the Greek: Mansuetudo super nos. But super nos is superfluous. 59. Psalm 90: Dicet Domino, « Susceptor meus es tu », and you say that in the Greek text es does not occur. But let me reply to you that in the Hebrew neither es occurs nor tu, but that the Septuagint and the Latin texts use these words idiomatically. 60. Psalm 93: Beatus homo quem tu erudieris, Domine. You say that in the Greek tu does not occur, which is true. The Latin texts, however, use it idiomatically. For if we say: Beatus homo quem erudieris, Domine, the rendering does not sound so well. And when we say Domine, addressing the Lord, the sense is not perverted by the addition of tu. In the same: Et in malitia eorum disperdet eos. You say that the preposition in is absent from the Greek, and that the reading is: Malitiam eorum disperdet. It is to be noted, however, that both the Hebrew and all the translators have: In malitia eorum disperdet eos. But if we should want to read Malitiam eorum disperdet, then the word eos, which follows in the Septuagint at the end of the verse, would be superfluous and wrong. 61. Psalm 97: Recordatus est misericordiæ suæ, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Misericordiæ suæ Jacob. However, the name Jacob is superfluous here. 62. Psalm 100: Oculi mei ad fideles terræ, ut sederent mecum, for which you say you have found in the Greek: τοῦ συγκαθῆσθαι αὐτοὺς μετ εμοῦ. Who, however, would not avoid such a translation that, rendering verbatim, he would say: Ut consederent ipsi mecum? 63. Psalm 101: Vigilavi et factus sum sicut passer solitarius in tecto. You say you have found in the Greek ἐπὶ δώματι, which the ancient Latin texts have rendered by in ædificio. Δῶμα has in the regions of the Orient the same meaning as tectum in Latin; for in Palestine and Egypt, where the Divine Books were either written or translated, the roofs have no tops but δώματα, which at Rome are called either solaria or Mæniana, that is, flat roofs which are supported by transverse beams. Further, when Peter in the Acts of the Apostles ascended unto the δῶμα, he is to be believed to have ascended to the roof of the building, and when we are told to put a coronam on our δώματι, it means that we should place a railing around it in order to avoid falling down. Likewise in the Gospel the statement, Quæ, says he, auditis in aure, dicite super δώματα, means on the roof. The same in Isaiah: Quid vobis est, quod omnes ascendistis in tecta vana?; and in many other similar places. In the same: Factus sum sicut νυκτικόραξ in domicilio, which is expressed in the same way in the Greek, and you ask what the word νυκτικόραξ means in Latin. In the Hebrew the word bos is written for nycticorace. This Aquila, the Septuagint, Theodotion and the Fifth Edition have translated by nycticoracem, Symmachus upupam, the Sixth Edition by noctuam, which I, too, rather follow. Further, where in the Latin and Greek the reading: Factus sum sicut νυκτικόραξ in domicilio, occurs, the Hebrew says: Factus sum sicut noctua in ruinosis. The majority think the word bubonem to have an ambiguous meaning. In the same: A facie iræ et indignationis tuæ. For this you say you have found in the Greek: A facie iræ tuæ, although it is clear that both the Hebrew and the Septuagint have the following version: ἁπὸ προσώπου τῆς ὁργῆς σου καὶ τοῦ θυμοῦ σου. In the same: Quoniam placuerunt servis tuis lapides ejus, et terræ ejus miserebuntur. For terra the word afar is used in the Hebrew, which all have translated by χοῦν, and which may mean either pulvis or humus, that is, terra. 64. Psalm 102: Non in perpetuo irascetur, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Non in finem. However, the Hebrew word nese may mean either perpetuum or finis or victoria, depending upon the context. 65. Psalm 103: Qui facis angelos tuos spiritus, for which you say you have found in the Greek: ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ, that is, Qui facit angelos suos. In this connection examine why, since God is being addressed, the prophet suddenly changes, as though talking to some one else, especially as he begins thus: Domine, Deus meus, magnificatus es vehementer. Confessionem et decorem induisti, and: Qui tegis in aquis superiora ejus that is to say, of the sky Qui ponis nubem ascensum tuum, qui ambulas super pennas ventorum; and then immediately continues: Qui facis angelos tuos spiritus, et ministros tuos ignem urentem. Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam; and a little further: Ab increpatione tua fugient; a voce tonitrui tui formidabunt; and: In loco quem fundasti eis. Qui emittis fontes in convallibus; and then: Ut educas panem de terra. If, thus, all this is addressed to the Second Person that is, to God , why is in one verse the Third Person suddenly and without connection introduced? In the same: A voce tonitrui tui formidabunt. The Hebrew, too, has here tonitrui tui, so that I am wondering how it has been omitted in the Latin texts through an error of the transcribers. In the same: Hoc mare magnum et spatiosum manibus. You say that in the Greek the word manibus is lacking. I know it, but it has been added in the Septuagint under an asterisk from the Hebrew and Theodotions edition. Furthermore, the Hebrew also has this reading: ze haiam gadol uarab idaim, which Aquila has translated thus: αὐλὴ καὶ πλατεῖα χερσίν, while all translators say, according to the Hebrew text, metaphorically: αὕτη ἡ θάλασσα ἡ μεγάλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος χερσίν, as though the sea with outstretched hands were taking everything unto itself. In the same: Ut educas panem de terra, for which you say you have found: Ut educat. However, one thing cannot be addressed to God, and the other said about him. The prophet either addresses everything to God, or he says it to some one else about him. Since, however, the larger part is addressed to God, also the doubtful portions are to be addressed to his person. In the same: Herodii domus dux est eorum. For herodio [heron],9 which in the Hebrew is asida, Symmachus uses ἰκτῖνα, that is, milvum [kite].9 I, too, have translated thus into the Latin: Ibi aves nidificabunt; milvi abies domus est, viz., because it is accustomed to build its nest always in high and inaccessible trees. Hence the Sixth Edition translates with greater clarity yet: Milvo cupressi ad nidificandum. The Hebrew, however, uses for abietibus and cupressis barusim, which means abietes rather than κυπαρίσσους. In the same: Petra refugium erinaciis [hedgehogs],9 for which the Hebrew has sphannim, and all have used the similar form τοῖς χοιρογρυλλίοις [porcupines],9 excepting the Septuagint, which uses lepores [hares, rabbits].9 It is to be noted, however, that reference is had to an animal not larger than the hedgehog, which has characteristics of both the mouse and the bear, for which reason it is called in Palestine ἀρκτόμῡς [marmot].9 These animals are very abundant in those regions and are wont to live in recesses of rocks or in holes in the ground. 66. Psalm 104: Dedit terra eorum ranas, for which you say you have read in the Greek ἐξῆρψεν, which may be translated thus: Ebullivit terra eorum ranas. However, in this there is no difference of meaning either, so that I, following the ancient version, did not want to change what was not wrong. In the same: Et contrivit lignum finium eorum, for which you say you have found in the Greek: omne lignum. But here omne has been added and is superfluous. In the same: Quoniam memor fuit verbi sancti sui, quod habuit ad Abraham, puerum suum, for which you say you have found in the Greek ὃν διέθετο, that is, quod disposuit. The Hebrew and the Septuagint, however, have the following reading: ἐμνήσθη τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἁγίου αὐτοῦ, τοῦ πρὸς Ἀβραὰμ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ. Hence the Greek words ὃν διέθετο are wrong in this place and should be erased. 67. Psalm 105: Confitemini Domino, quoniam bonus, for which you say you have found in the Greek: Quoniam χρηστός, that is, suavis. It is to be noted, however, that χρηστός may be translated either by bonum or by suave. Furthermore, the Hebrew also has the reading: chi tob, which all have translated similarly: quia bonus, from which it is clear that also χρηστός is meant to stand for bonus. In the same: Non fuerunt memores multitudinis misericordiae tuæ. You say that you have found in the Greek: Et non fuerunt memores. But the conjunction et is superfluous. In the same: Et irritaverunt ascendentes in mare, Mare Rubrum, for which you say you have found in the Greek: καὶ παραπίκραναν, and you think that the expression has to be translated literally: et amaricaverunt. But this rendering is similar to annullationi or annihilationi.15 Read Ezechiel and you will find that παραπικρασμός always stands for irritationem et exacerbationem where the expression οἶκος παραπικραίνων, that is, domus exasperans, occurs. In the same: Et vidit, quum tribularentur, et audivit orationem eorum. What you say you have found in the Greek besides this is superfluous. 68. Psalm 106: Et statuit procellam ejus in auram et siluerunt fluctus ejus. What you say you have found in the Greek for this, viz.: καὶ ἐπετίμησεν τῇ καταιγίδι αὐτῆς, καὶ ἔστη εἰς αὔραν, is wrong. In the same: Et deduxit eos in portum voluntatis eorum. For this you say you have found: In portum voluntatis suæ. However, the Hebrew does not have ephsau, which means voluntatis suæ, but ephsam, which stands for voluntatis eorum. 69. Psalm 107: Exsurge, gloria mea. What you say does not occur in the Latin is rightly not in this Psalm, because it is neither found in the Hebrew, nor in any translation, but is contained in the 56th Psalm, and it seems to me that somebody has transferred it from that place to this. In the same: Mihi alienigenæ amici facti sunt. For this you say you have found in the Greek ὑπετάγησαν, that is, subditi sunt. This, however, occurs in the 59th Psalm. In the present Psalm, however, we find in all translations the reading: ἐμοὶ ἀλλόφυλοι ἐφιλίασαν, which means: amici facti sunt, and is expressed in the Hebrew by ethrohe.70. Psalm 109: Virgam virtutis tuæ emittet Dominus e Sion. You say that virtutis tuæ does not occur in your Greek texts. It occurs, however, evidently in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint. In the same: Dominare in medio inimicorum tuorum. You say that the Greek has: et dominare. But the conjunction et is neither in the Hebrew nor in the Septuagint and is superfluous. 71. Psalm 110: Confitebor tibi, Domine, in toto corde. In the Greek you say you have found: in toto corde meo. But meo, too, is here superfluous. 72. Psalm 113: Deus autem noster in cælo, for which you say you have read in the Greek: in cælo et in terra. But the addition et in terra is superfluous. 73. Psalm 114: Et in diebus meis invocabo te. You say that te is not in the Greek, and thats all right. Hence it should be erased from your copies. In the same: Placebo Domino in regione vivorum, for which you say you have read in the Greek: Placebo in conspectu Domini. But this is wrong. 74. Psalm 117: Et in nomine Domini, quia ultus sum in eos. You say that quia is not found in the Greek texts. It should be added, however, in the Latin copies under an asterisk. 75. Psalm 118: Et meditabar in mandatis tuis quæ dilexi. You say that in the Greek the word vehementer is added. But this is superfluous. In the same: Levavi manus meas ad mandata tua quæ dilexi. You say that you have read in the Greek, ad mandata tua quæ dilexi [vehementer]12; but vehementer is superfluous. In the same: Cogitavi vias meas. You say that you have read in the Greek, [juxta]12 vias tuas, but juxta is superfluous and meas is more correct. In the same: Et verti pedes meos in testimonia tua. You say you have read in the Greek, et averti; but the prefix is superfluous. In the same: Ego autem in toto corde scrutabor mandata tua. You say that you have read in the Greek, in toto corde meo; but meo is superfluous here. In the same: anima mea in manibus meis semper; et legem tuam non sum oblitus. For this you say you have read in the Greek, Anima mea in manibus tuis semper. It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew the Septuagint and all other translators have here in manibus meis, and not in manibus tuis, which is in the Hebrew bachaffi. All ecclesiastical writers among the Greeks interpret this place that way, and its sense is briefly the following: I am daily in danger and hold my life, as it were, in my very hands, and yet I do not forget your law. In the same: Exitus aquarum deduxerunt oculi mei, quia non custodierunt legem tuam. For this you say you have read in the Greek, quia non custodivi legem tuam. But this is wrong because also the Hebrew text has: Rivi aquarum fluebant de oculis meis, quia non custodierunt legem tuam. In the same: Pronuntiabit lingua mea eloquium tuum. You say that you have read in the Greek for pronuntiabit φθέγξεται, which word means either pronuntiabit, effabitur, or loquetur, as these are synonymous. Finally, from the Hebrew I have also translated thus: Loquetur lingua mea sermonem tuum. 76. Psalm 119: Domine, libera animam meam a labiis iniquis, a lingua dolosa. You say you have read in the Greek, et a lingua dolosa; but et is superfluous. 77. Psalm 126: Beatus vir qui implebit desiderium suum ex ipsis. You say that in your Greek text the word vir does not occur. It is, however, clearly expressed in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint. 78. Psalm 129: Propter legem tuam sustinui te, Domine. You say that you have found in the Greek: Propter nomen tuum. I confess that a number of texts have that reading. But since we are investigating the truth, we simply must adhere to what we find in the Hebrew. And there we find for nomine or lege the word thira, which Aquila translates by φόβον, that is, timorem, Symmachus and Theodotion by νόμον, that is legem, thinking, as they did, that the Hebrew had the word thora on account of the similarity between jod { י } and waw { ו }, which differ only in size. The Fifth Edition has terrorem, the Sixth verbum. 79. Psalm 131: Sicut juravit Domino, votum vovit Deo Jacob. You say that you have found in the Greek, for my rendering votum vovit, the form ηὔξατο, and you think that I should have translated oravit! This, however, is wrong, for εὐχή means either orationem or votum, according to the context, as in: Redde Deo vota tua, that is: τὰς εὐχάς σου. 80. Psalm 135: Qui fecit luminaria magna. You say that you have found in the Greek: magna solus. But solus has been added from a preceding verse, where we read: Qui fecit mirabilia magna solus. Hence you should insert it there and omit it here as superfluous. 81. Psalm 137: Quoniam magnificasti super omne, nomen sanctum tuum. You say that you have found in the Greek: super omnes. The Septuagint, however, has: ὅτι ἐμεγάλυνας ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἅγιόν σου, as I, too, have translated into the Latin. Besides, remember that the Hebrew has this reading: Quia magnificasti super omne nomen tuum, Verbum tuum. According to the Latin version, however, the meaning is: Quoniam magnificasti super omne nomen that is, above everything that may be called holy in Heaven and on earth filium tuum. 82. Psalm 138: Quia non est sermo in lingua mea. For this you say you have read in the Greek: Quia non est dolus in lingua mea. But only the Sixth Edition has this reading. Besides, both the Septuagint and all translators and the very Hebrew text have either λαλιὰν or λόγον, that is, eloquium and verbum. The Hebrew word in question is mala.83. Psalm 139: Funes extenderunt in laqueum. For this you say the Greek has: Funes extenderunt laqueum pedibus meis. But that is wrong in this place. In the same: You say that you have found in the Greek, for Habitabunt recti cum vultu tuo, the reading: Et habitabunt. But the conjunction et is superfluous here. 84. Psalm 140: Dissipata sunt ossa nostra secus infernum, for which you say you have read in the Greek: ossa eorum. That reading, however, is wrong, too. 85. Psalm 146: Nec in tibiis viri beneplacitum erit ei. You say that for ei you have read Domino, which does not occur. 86. And since you are asking at the end of your missive, and my holy son Avitus likewise has requested me often, how certain Greek words should be translated, I shall note these briefly. Νεομηνία is the beginning of the month, which in Latin we may properly call kalendas. However, since the Hebrews calculate the month on the basis of the revolution of the moon around the earth, and since the Greeks call the moon μήνη, νεομηνία means, as it were, new moon; ἐρῆμος means desertum or solitudinem; θρόνος signifies sedem or solium, νυκτικόραξ, as I have said already,16 noctuam; κυνόμυϊα is wrongly written with the Greek letter υ and consequently translated by the Latins as musca canina, whereas it should be written, according to the Hebrew, with the diphthong οι, so that the form becomes κοινόμυϊα, which means omne muscarum genus; this Aquila translated by πάνμικτον, that is, omnimodam muscam. Finally, the word λαξευτήριον, which has been rendered into the Latin by asciam, I consider a type of tool with which stone is worked. Thus, translating from the Hebrew, I said: Et nunc sculpturas ejus pariter bipenne et dolatoriis deraserunt. Hence λαξευτήριον may be rendered by dolatorium.
This text was copied by Roger Pearse, 2017. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. A fuller version of the article with parallel Latin may be found
here. I have not transcribed the footnotes.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_letter_120.htm
Jerome. Letter 120 (Ad Hedibiam). To Hedibia, on biblical problems (Excerpts)
Jerome. Letter 120 (Ad Hedibiam). To Hedibia, on biblical problems (Excerpts)
Preface
Although I have never seen your face, you are very well known to me by the ardour of your faith. And you have written to me from the far end of Gaul and come to search me out in my hiding-place in the wilds of Bethlehem, to get me to respond to some little questions on holy scripture, ending me a little text by the man of God, my son Apodemius; as if you do not have anyone in your province competent and perfect in the law of God. But perhaps you don't seek me so much for your own instruction as to test my ability; and after having consulted others on the difficulties that have stopped you, still you want to know what I think about it. Your ancestors Paterus and Delphidus, of whom the former taught rhetoric at Rome before I was born, and the other during my youth shone among all the Gauls by power of his prose and verse, both now dead, silently reproach me for the liberty that I take to give instructions to a member of their family. They excelled, I admit, in eloquence and litterae humaniores; but they were less versed in the science of the law of God, in which no-one can be instructed except by the Father of Lights, who enlightens every man coming in this world (John 1) and who is found in the middle of the faithful who are gathered in his name. (Matt. 18).
So I tell you then, without fear that I shall be accused of vanity, that in this letter I shall not use any pompous terminology, which belongs to the human wisdom that God must destroy one day, but instead the language of faith, treating spiritually spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:23), so that the "deep" of the Old Testament "calls to the deep" of the Gospel "with the roar of the waterfall," (Ps. 42) i.e. the prophets and the apostles, and that the truth of the Lord shall rise up to the "clouds" which he has commanded not to rain on the unbelieving Jews and instead to water the lands of the gentiles, and soften the torrent of thorns and the Dead Sea.
So pray that the true Elijah will make living the dead and sterile waters in me and to season the meats that I present to you with the salt of the apostles, to whom he said, "You are the salt of the earth" because nothing can be offered to God that is not seasoned with salt. (Lev. 2:13) Don't look here for the thunder of that worldly eloquence that Jesus Christ saw fall from heaven like lightening (Luke 10); cast your eyes rather on He who had neither beauty nor attraction (Is. 53), the man trapped in misfortune, and who understands infirmity. In responding to the questions that you put to me, you may know that I do not count on my own erudition and ability, but on the promise of he that said, "Open your mouth and I will fill it" (Ps 81:10).
Question 1.
You ask me how one can become perfect, and how a widow should live who has no children.
In the gospel a teacher of the law put this to Jesus Christ. "Master", he said, "what must I do to gain eternal life?" The Lord answered him, "Do you know the commandments?"
"Which commandments?" he said. But Jesus said, "Do not kill; do not commit adultery; do not rob; do not bear false witness. Honour your father and mother, and love your neighbour as yourself." When he replied, "I have kept all these commandments from my youth," the Lord added, "You lack still one thing: if you want to be perfect, go, sell all that you have and give it to the poor; then come and follow me" (Matt. 19:16-21).
And so I will respond to you with the words of our Lord: if you want to be perfect, to carry your cross, to follow the Saviour, and imitate Peter who said, "You see, Lord, that we have left everything to follow you," (Matt.10:28) go, sell all that you have and give it to the poor, and follow the Saviour.
He did not say, Give it to your children, your brothers, your parents -- by this rule, the Lord must come first -- but "Give it to the poor," or rather to Christ, whom you help in the person of the poor; he, being rich, made himself poor for the love of us, and who says in the 39th psalm, "For me, I was poor and destitute, and the Lord took care of me." (Ps. 40:17) And immediately at the beginning of the 40th psalm, "Happy is he who understands the needs of the poor and indigent." (Ps.41:1)
He does not mean those who live in beggary and squalor and at the same time in their vices; but those of whom the apostle Paul spoke when he said, "They only asked us not to forget the poor." (Gal. 2:10) It was for the relief of these poor that Paul and Barnabas undertook to collect money on the first day of the week in the congregations of (believing) gentiles, and that they hurried themselves, not sending others, to take it to those who had been stripped of their goods for Christ, who were suffering persecution and who had said to their father and mother, to their wife and children, "We do not know you." (Deut. 33:9) These carry out the wish of the Father and of whom the Lord Saviour said, "These are my mother and my brothers, those who carry out the will of my father." (Matt. 12:50, Luke 8:21)
I say this, not because we should not be charitable to Jews, gentiles, and to all the other poor, of whatever nation they may be; but we must always prefer Christians to unbelievers, and even among the Christians we should put a great distance between a man who is a sinner and one who is holy. This is why the apostle, who exhorts charity to all in many places, recommends them to do so mainly towards fellow believers (Gal. 6:10). This is one with whom we are linked by religion, and who is not separated by sin from the brotherhood. If we are called to give food to our enemies when they are hungry, to give them drink when they are thirsty, and so to pour coals of fire on their head (Rom. 12:10), how much more towards those who are not our enemies, and who are Christians and holy? Note that it is necessary to take in a good way and not in a bad sense what is said, "In so doing you will pour coals of fire on his head." He means that by doing good to our enemies we will overcome their malice and hate with our goodness, we will soften the hardness (of their heart), we will deflect the angry soul towards amity and benevolence, and thus pour on their head these "coals" of which it is written, "The sharp arrows of the mighty, with the coals that lay waste." (Ps.120:4) Because, just as the Seraph of whom Isaiah speaks purified the lips of this prophet with a coal of fire which he had taken from the altar (Is.6:6-7), so we will purify the sins of our enemies, overcoming evil with good (Rom.12:21), blessing those who curse us, and imitating our Father who "makes the sun rise on the good and on the wicked, and make it rain on the just and on sinners." (Matt. 5:45) As you don't have small children, "use riches from swindling to make yourself many friends who will receive you into the eternal tabernacles." (Luke 16:9) Rightly it speaks of swindling, because all riches arise from swindles, and unless someone loses out, no-one can gain. So this proverb appears very true to me, that a rich man is either a swindler, or the heir of a swindler.
The teacher of the law heard this and could not (bring himself to do this), because he had great riches, and the Saviour, turning to his disciples, said to them, "How difficult is it for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven!" (Matt.19:23, Mark 10:23, Luke 18:24) He did not say, 'impossible', but, 'difficult', although the example that he gives shows an absolute impossibility. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Now this is more impossible than difficult, because it will never be possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, and in consequence never will a rich man enter into the kingdom of heaven. But the camel is a twisted and hunchbacked animal, and it usually carries heavy burdens, so we, when we involve ourselves in unfortunate ways which lead to sin, when we wander off the straight road of the Lord, and when we are loaded with the burden of riches or the weight of our sins, it is impossible that we could enter into the kingdom of God. But if we rid ourselves of this overwhelming weight, and take on the wings of a dove, then we will fly away ourselves, we will find rest, and it is said to us, "When you can sleep in the middle of the campfires, you will become like the dove, whose wings are silver and whose back is as bright as gold." (Ps.67:14) Our back which was ugly and the heavy burden are crushing us; cover us with this "bright gold" that represents the spiritual sense of the divine scriptures, and these "silver wings" which signify the literal sense; and then we will be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The apostles said that they had abandoned all that they possessed and boldly demanded from him recompense for this virtue, and the Lord responded to them, "Whoever shall abandon for my name his house, or his brothers, or his sisters, or his father, or his mother, or his wife, or his children, or his lands, he will receive a hundred-fold, and will possess eternal life." What happiness to receive much in return for little things, the eternal in return for the temporary, ever-living in return for the perishable, and to have the Lord in your debt!
So if a widow has children, especially if she is of an upper-class family, she must not leave them destitute, but let her love them equally, and take care of the interests of her soul, and regard it like one of her children. She must split with them what she gives them and not abandon everything to them; or rather, she must make Christ a co-heir. You will tell me that this is difficult, and hard, and against nature. But you will hear the Lord reply, "He that is able to perform such a thing, let him do so;" (Matt.19:12) "If you want to be perfect, go, sell all that you possess, etc." And if you want to be perfect, he does not make this a forced yoke, but concedes the choice to your children.
Do you want to be perfect and raise yourself to the height of virtue? Imitate the apostles, sell all that you have, give it to the poor and follow the Saviour, let you follow him with nothing, with only a cross, with nothing and alone.
Do you not wish to be perfect, and are you content to remain in the second degree of virtue? Relinquish all that you have, give it to your children and parents. None will reprehend you, if you follow this lesser way, provided that you also accept that it is with justice that that which tends to perfection is preferred to you.
You will tell me that this can only be for apostles, but that it is impossible for a gentlewoman, who needs a thousand things to exist in her walk in life. So listen to what the apostle says: "I do not mean that the others are helped and that you are overloaded, but that, to remove inequality, your abundance compensates for their poverty, so that your poverty also is relieved by their abundance." (2 Cor. 8:14) This is why the Lord says: "Let him who has two coats gives one to he that has none at all." (Luke 3:11) But if we lived among the ice of Scythia and the snows of the Alps, where not only two and three coats, but the very skins of animals are scarcely enough to protect them from the cold of such a severe climate, would we be obliged to strip ourselves in order to clothe others? By "a coat" we must understand all this that is necessary to clothe us and to provide for the necessities of the nature, since we are born naked; and by "the provisions of a single day" we must understand all this that is necessary to nourish us.
This is the sense in which it is taught: "Do not worry about tomorrow," (Matt. 6:34) i.e. for the future, and what the apostle says, "While we have enough to eat and to cover us, we must be content." (1 Tim. 6:8) If you have more than enough food and clothing than you need, spend that, and know that you are in that respect a debtor (repaying a debt). Ananias and Saphira deserved to be condemned because they had quietly put to one side part of their goods. (Acts 5) Is it a crime, you will ask, not to donate one's all? No, but the apostle punished them because they tried to lie to the Holy Spirit, and that while reserving for themselves what they needed to live they were pretending to perfectly renounce everything of the world, they were only seeking the approval and pointless praise of men. Otherwise we are free to give or not to give, but he that renounces all his goods in order to be perfect must expect to see a day when his poverty is rewarded with the possession of future wealth.
As for the life that a widow must live, the apostle prescribes this in a few words when he says, "The widow that lives in luxury is dead, even while she lives," (1 Tim. 5:6) and we have dealt with this matter thoroughly in the two books which we have written to Furia and Salvina.
Question 2: How must we understand what the Saviour says in Matthew: "But I say to you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of my Father"? (Matth. 26. 29).
This passage is the origin of a certain fable of a thousand years, in which they say that Christ will reign in the flesh and will drink that wine which he has not drunk since that time until the end of the world. But we think that the bread that the Lord broke and gave to his disciples is the body of our Lord and Saviour, when he himself said to them, "Take, eat, this is my body: and that the chalice is the one about which he said, "Drink of this, all of you: for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many." (Matth. 26. 26. 27. 28; Marc. 14. 22. 24) This is the chalice of which we read in the prophet, "I take the chalice of salvation" (Ps. 115. 4). And elsewhere, "How admirable is your chalice which makes me drunk!" (Ps. 23. 5).
So if the bread that came down from heaven is the body of the Lord, and the wine that he gave to his disciples is his blood, the blood of the new covenant, that was shed for many for the remission of sins, let us reject the fables of the Jews, and ascend with the Lord into this chamber all furnished and prepared, and there receive from his hand the chalice of the New Covenant; and there celebrating Easter with him, let us get drunk with that wine of sobriety. For the kingdom of God isn't food and drink, but justice, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14. 17). It wasn't Moses who gave us the true bread, but the Lord Jesus, himself the diner and the dined-up, the eater and that which is eaten. We drink his blood, and cannot drink it without him, and every day in his sacrifices we press the grapes of the true vine and of the vine of Sorec, which means "chosen", and we drink in this wine of the kingdom of the Father, not in the literal old way, but in the newness of the spirit: singing a new canticle, which no-one can sing except in the kingdom of the church (Rev. 14. 3), which is the kingdom of the Father. The patriarch Jacob also wanted to eat this bread, saying, "If the Lord God is with me, and gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear, etc" (Gen. 28. 20).
For when we are baptised in Christ we put on Christ (Gal. 3. 27) and we eat the bread of angels, and we hear the Lord saying, "My food is to do the will of the Father who sent me and to carry out his work" (John 4:34). Let us therefore do the will of the Father who sent us, and carry out his work; and Christ will drink his blood in the kingdom of the church with us.
Question 3: What is the reason that the Evangelists spoke about the resurrection and appearance of the Lord differently?
Here you ask first why Matthew said that, "But when the evening of the Sabbath had begun to dawn, on the first day of the following week the Lord rose again", and Mark relates that his resurrection happened in the morning, thus writing, "However when he rose again, on the first day of the week, in the morning Mary Magdalen arrived, from whom he had expelled seven demons: and she departing announced to those who were mourning and weeping with her. And these hearing that he was alive, and that she had seen him, did not believe in him".
The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week.
For so it must be distinguished: for when he had risen again, and being for a short while restricted by the spirit, it must be supposed, on the first day of the week in the morning he appeared to Mary Magdalen, so he had risen again on the evening of the sabbath (according to Matthew), [but] he appeared to Mary Magdalen on the morning of the first day of the week (according to Mark).
Which indeed John the Evangelist also signifies, stating that he was seen on the morning of the second day.
Question 4: TBA
How is it that according to Matthew Mary Magdalene saw the Lord rising again on the evening of the Sabbath, while the evangelist John says that she was weeping next to the tomb on the morning of the first day of the week? (John 20)
By "the first day of the week? one must understand the day of the Lord, because the Jews counted the week by the day of the sabbath, and by the first one, the second, the third one, the fourth one, the fifth one and the sixth day of the sabbath, which the pagans mark by the name of idols and planets. From this the holy apostle Paul orders the faithful at Corinth to store up on "the first day of the week" the alms that they intended for the relief of the poor....
This text was translated by Roger Pearse, 2007. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
The bible numbering is as for Protestant bibles, but Jerome refers to the arrangement of the Vulgate (see English version).
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: jerome_hedibia_2_trans.htm
Jerome, Letter 120: To Hedibia (2009)
Jerome, Letter 120: To Hedibia (2009)
Jerome — Epistle 120 — To Hedibia
English translation by James Snapp, Jr. via Google Translate
This English translation is hereby released into the public domain.
July 20, 2009
Having found, side-by-side at http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/eglise/jerome/hedibia.htm, the Latin text of Jerome's Epistle 120 — To Hedibia, I used the online Google Translate tool to render the French text into a mechanical sort of English. I then took my best guesses about what the text meant. In the Preface and in the first three questions, I consulted the English translation already made by Roger Pearse, and Burgon's rendering of part of the text, found on pages 53-54 of his 1871 The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.
What you read here should not be considered completely reliable as far as details are concerned, and here and there I suspect that I completely obscured the actual meaning of Jerome's statements. Nevertheless, this rough English text has some value because it is, as far as I know, currently the only complete English translation of Jerome's Epistle 120. Also, by comparing this material to James Kelhoffer's English translation of Ad Marinum, anyone can see that Jerome, as he dictated this letter, depended heavily and extensively upon Ad Marinum. For example, in the first paragraph of Jerome's reply to Question #4; he seeks to resolve a perceived discrepancy by asserting that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and that an interpreter is responsible for changing a precise and harmonious Hebrew expression into a less appropriate term. This is exactly what Eusebius does in his reply to the second question of Marinus (cf. Kelhoffer, The Witness of Eusebius' ad Marinum, p. 88).
Gratitude is expressed to the creators of the Remacle website, Roger Pearse for announcing the existence of this material at the Remacle website, and to Stephen Carlson, who told Roger about the site.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Jerome — Epistle 120 — To Hedibia
PREFACE
Although I have never had the honor of seeing your face, I know very well the reputation that you have gained in the world by your ardent faith. So, from far-off Gaul you have written to me, coming to seek me in my solitary repose in the wilderness near Bethlehem, so that I may respond to some little questions on Holy Scripture. And you come on the recommendation of the man of God, my son Apodemius, as if there was not anyone in your province suitably knowledgeable about God's law who could instruct you to see the way through your doubts.
But perhaps, instead of seeking to be instructed yourself, you seek me in order to test my ability, and after having consulted others on the difficulties that have caused you to hesitate, you still want to know what I think. Your ancestors Paterus and Delphidus — the first of whom taught rhetoric at Rome before I was born, and the second of whom, during my youth, was illustrious among all the Gauls due to the power of his prose and poetry — both now dead, may not validly chasten me for the liberty I take by instructing a member of their family. They excelled, I admit, in eloquence and in the literature of the humanities, but I daresay, without fear of stealing their glory, that they were less knowledgeable about God's law, in which no one can be instructed except by the Father of lights, who enlightens every man coming into this world, and who is found in the midst of the faithful who are gathered in his name.
So I declare, without fear of being accused of vanity, that in this letter I will not use any pompous words, which belong to the human wisdom that God must destroy one day, but instead the language of faith, treating spiritually spiritual things. Thus the deep of the Old Testament calls to the deep of the gospel with the noise of the waterfall, that is, the prophets and the apostles, and the truth of the Lord shall rise up to the clouds, which He has forbidden to shed rain upon the unbelieving Jews, but rather to water the lands of the Gentiles, and to soften the torrent of thorns, and to sooth the waters of the Dead Sea.
So pray that the true Elijah will invigorate the dead and sterile waters within me, and season the meats that I present to you with the salt of the apostles, to whom He said, "You are the salt of the earth." For nothing can be offered to God that is not seasoned with salt. Do not look here for the thunder of that worldly eloquence that Jesus Christ saw fall from heaven like lightning; instead cast your eyes upon this man acquainted with sorrow, who had neither beauty nor attraction, who understands infirmity. And believe that as I respond to your questions, I do not depend on my own training and ability, but on the promise of Him who said, "Open your mouth and I will fill it."
QUESTION #1
You ask me how a person can become perfect, and how a childless widow should manage her life.
Such a question was put to Jesus Christ by a doctor of the law: "Master," he said to him, "what is it that I do to gain eternal life?" The Lord replied, "Do you know the commandments?" "Which commandments?" replied the doctor. Jesus said, "Do not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother, and love your neighbor as yourself." This doctor answered him, "I kept all these commandments since my youth." Jesus Christ said, "You still lack one thing: if you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor; then come and follow me."
So, madam, in response to the question you pose, I will employ the words of Jesus: if you want to be perfect, carry your cross, follow the Savior, emulating Saint Peter, who said, "You see, Lord, that we have left everything to follow you." Go, sell everything you have, give to the poor and follow the Savior.
Christ does not say, "Give it to your children, your brothers, your parents," for by this standard, even if you had such, the Lord must have first preference: "Give it to the poor," or rather, to Christ, whom you assist in the person of the poor. He, being rich, became poor due to love of us — He who said in the thirty-ninth Psalm, "As for me, I was poor and needy, and the Lord took care of me." And, at the beginning of the following psalm, "Blessed is he who is attentive to the needs of the poor and the needy."
Indeed attentiveness is needed to discern the poor from the many people who live in their sins as much as in squalor and poverty; what is meant is those of the sort of whom the apostle Paul spoke when he says, "They only asked us not to forget the poor." It was for the relief of these poor people that Paul and Barnabas carefully collected alms on the first day of the week in the congregations of the Gentile converts to the faith, and they disciplined themselves, not sending others, to bring it to those who had been stripped of their property for Jesus Christ — those who suffered persecution, and who told their father and their mother, their wives and their children, "We do not know you." These are the authentic poor, who have performed the will of the heavenly Father, and of the Savior who said, "These are my mother and my brothers: those who carry out the will of My Father."
In saying this, I do not mean that to prevent alms-giving to Jews, to Gentiles, and to all other poor people of any nation whatsoever. But we must always prefer the Christian to the unbeliever, and among the Christians themselves, we must make a great distinction between a poor man whose life is pure and innocent and one whose life is corrupt and disorderly. For this reason the Apostle Paul, who in many places in his epistles urges the faithful to exercise charity toward the poor, recommends that they do so primarily to fellow believers — to one with whom we are united in the same religion, and who is not separated from the brotherhood by disruptive and corruptive immorality. Inasmuch as Saint Paul commands us to give food to our enemies when they are hungry, and to give them something to drink when thirsty, and thereby to pour coals of fire upon their head, how much more ought we to do so for those who are not our enemies, and who profess a holy Christian life?
It is necessary to take in a beneficial way, and not in a bad sense, what is said by the apostle: "Thereby you pour coals of fire on his head." He meant that in doing good to our enemies, we overcome their malice and hatred with our expressions of goodness, and thus we will soften their adamancy; we banish the bitterness and fury to make room for friendship and affection. Thus we pour upon their heads those coals about which it is written, "A mighty hand launches sharp arrows with devouring coals." For, just as the seraph of whom Isaiah speaks purified the prophet's lips with a fiery coal which he had taken from the altar, we shall purify the sins of our enemies, overcoming evil with good, blessing those who curse us, and imitating our Father in heaven, who "makes his sun rise on the good and the evil, and sends rain on the just and the sinners."
Since you have no little children, "use the wealth from swindling to make more friends for yourself, that you may be received in the eternal dwelling-places." It is not for no reason that the Gospel refers to the earthly riches of wealth as unjust, because they have no source other than the injustice of men, and one cannot gain unless someone else loses. So I consider the axiom to be true, that those with much property are either swindlers, or the heirs of swindlers.
This doctor of the law, being told by Jesus Christ that to be perfect we should renounce all the wealth we possess, could not resolve to do so, because he was rich. Then the Savior, turning to His disciples, said, "How difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven!" He does not say it is impossible, but it is difficult, although the example that He gives shows an absolute impossibility: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." But this is impossible rather than difficult, for it will never be possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle; therefore a rich man can never enter the kingdom of heaven. But the camel is a terribly hunchbacked animal, and it usually carries heavy burdens. And when we wander off the path that Jesus Christ blazed, and follow bad paths that lead to sin, we are loaded with the burden of riches or the weight of our sins, and it is impossible for us to enter the kingdom of God. But if we unload this oppressive weight, and put on the wings of a dove, then we will fly away ourselves; we will find rest, and we will say, "When you can sleep in the middle of the campfires, you will become like the dove, whose wings are silver, and whose back is as bright as gold." With our back, which was deformed by the heavy burden that was crushing us, covered with this bright gold, representing the spiritual sense of the divine Scriptures, and with these "silver wings," which signify the literal sense, we will be able to enter into the kingdom of God.
The apostles, saying that they had abandoned all their possessions, boldly sought from Jesus Christ a proper reward for this virtue, and the Lord replied, "Whoever, for My name, shall abandon his house, or his brothers, or his sisters, or his father or mother, or wife, or children, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life." What blessedness to have Jesus Christ himself as your debtor, and to receive much in return for little things — the eternal in exchange for the temporary, and durable and strong goods in exchange for our fragile and perishable wealth.
So, if a widow has children, especially if her family is upper-class, she must not leave them in poverty. Let her love them equally, and have regard for her soul, treating it like one of her own children. She must apportion the property together with them, and not abandon everything to them; rather, she must make Christ a fellow-heir. You could perhaps say that this is difficult, and revolting, and that such treatment of children opposes your tender instincts. But you will hear the Lord reply: "The one who is able to perform such a thing, let him do so," "If you want to be perfect, go, sell all that you possess," etc. In saying, "If you want to be perfect," He does not make this burden a requirement, but allows freedom to pursue either course regarding children. Do you want to be perfect and raise yourself to the highest level of virtue? Imitate the apostles, sell everything you have, give to the poor, and follow the Lord. Separated from all creatures and stripped of everything that you own in the world, follow Him bare, with only a cross. Or, are you content not to be perfect, and to remain in the second-highest level of virtue? Then abandon everything you have, and give it to your children and parents. No one will rebuke you, if you follow this lesser way, provided that you also agree that it is fair that you defer to one whose way tends toward perfection.
You will want to tell me that such sublime virtue is for the men and apostles, but it is impossible for a refined woman, who needs a thousand things to maintain her way of life. Hear therefore what the apostle Paul says: "I do not mean that others are helped and that you are overburdened, but that, to relieve inequality, your abundance compensates for their poverty, so that your poverty is also relieved by their abundance." That is why the Lord says in the Gospel, "Whoever has two coats, let him give to him who has none."
Now, if we lived among the ice of Scythia and the snow of the Alps, where not only two and three coats, but even the animal-skins are scarcely sufficient protection from the harsh cold climate, would we be obliged to strip ourselves to clothe others? We must understand "coat" to mean all that is necessary to clothe us and provide what is naturally required, since we are born naked. And by "the provisions of a single day" is meant, whatever is necessary to feed ourselves. In this sense we fathom the commandment in the Gospel, "Do not worry about tomorrow," that is, about the future, and the apostle's statement, "While we have food and covering, we must be content."
If you have more than you need, give to the poor, and know that you are thus paying a debt. Ananias and Sapphira deserved to be condemned by the apostle Saint Peter, because they had quietly set aside part of their property. Is it a crime, you might ask, not to donate everything one has? No, but the apostle punished them with the death penalty because they had lied to the Holy Spirit, for while reserving for themselves what they needed to live, they pretended to surrender completely all earthly things — thus seeking, in vain, only the approval and esteem of men. Notwithstanding that we are free to give or not to give, he who renounces all his goods in order to be perfect must expect that one day in the future his poverty will be rewarded with property.
Regarding the life that a widow must lead, the apostle sets the rules in a few words, when he says, "The widow who lives in luxury is dead, although she seems alive." I have dealt with this matter thoroughly in the two books that I have dedicated to Furia and Salvina.
QUESTION #2
How shall we understand what the Savior said in Saint Matthew: "And I tell you that henceforth I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink with you again in the kingdom of My Father"?
This passage has caused some authors to invent a certain fable, claiming that Christ will reign in the flesh for a thousand years, and will drink the wine which He has not drunk from that time until the end of the world. But as for us, we believe about the bread, which the Lord broke and gave to His disciples, is nothing but the body of our Lord and Savior, as He Himself said to them, "Take, eat, this is my body." And the cup is the one about which He said, "Drink of this, all of you, for this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many." This is the cup of which we read in the prophet, "I take the cup of salvation," and elsewhere, "How admirable is your cup which overwhelms me!"
So, inasmuch as "the bread which came down from heaven" is the body of the Lord, and if the wine He gave to His disciples is his blood, "the blood of the new covenant, which was poured out for many for the remission of sins," let us reject the Jewish fables, and assemble with the Lord in this great upper room, furnished and prepared, in which He kept the Passover with His apostles, and there, receiving from His hand the cup of the new covenant, and celebrating Easter with Him, let us become intoxicated with that wine of sobriety. For the kingdom of God is not drink and food, but justice, and joy, and peace in the Holy Spirit.
It was not Moses, but our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave us the true bread — He who is both the diner and the dinner, the eater and that which is to be eaten. It is His blood we drink, and we cannot drink it without Him. Every day in His sacrifices, we press the grapes of the true vine, and of the vine of Sorek, which means "Chosen," and we drink in this wine of the kingdom of the Father, not according to the letter, but in the newness of the spirit, singing a new song which no one can sing except in the kingdom of the church, which is the kingdom of the Father. The patriarch Jacob desired to eat this bread, saying, "If the Lord God is with me, and gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear," and so forth. "For when we are baptized into Jesus Christ, we are protected by Christ. We eat the bread of angels, and we heard the Lord telling us, "My food is to do the will of my Father who sent Me, and to accomplish His work." Let us therefore also do the will of the Father who sent us, and carry out His work, and Christ will drink His blood in the kingdom of the church with us.
QUESTION #3
Why do the evangelists speak differently about the resurrection of our Lord, and how He appeared to His apostles?
Here you first ask why Matthew says that our Lord rose "on the evening of the Sabbath, when the first day of the following week was just beginning to shine," and Saint Mark, on the contrary, said that He arose in the morning, "Jesus arising on the first day of the week in the morning appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had expelled seven demons. And she, departing, told those who were His companions, as they mourned and wept. And these, hearing that He was alive, and that she had seen Him, did not believe in Him."
This problem has a twofold solution. Either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, because this final portion is not contained in most of the Gospels that bear his name — almost all the Greek codices lacking it — or else must affirm that Matthew and Mark have both told the truth, that our Lord rose on the evening of the Sabbath, and that He was seen by Mary Magdalene in the morning of the first day of the following week.
So this is how this passage of Saint Mark should be read: "Jesus arising," place a little pause here, then add, "on the first day of the week in the morning appeared to Mary Magdalene," so that, being raised, according to Saint Matthew, in the evening of the last day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, according to Saint Mark, "the morning of the first day of the week," which is how John also represents the events, stating that He was seen on the morning of the next day.
[Hort, Notes, p. 32, describing the parallel to Question #4 in Eusebius' Ad Marinum: "Strangely enough, the answer given by Eusebius to the next question, relating to a supposed contradiction between Mt xxviii 1 and Jo xx 1, is, taken by itself, inconsistent with his former answer: it implicitly excludes that interpretation of οψε σαββατου in Mt which had been there assumed as a standard for correcting the construction of Mc xvi 9. This second answer, evidently founded on the Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria to Basilides, is however in effect, though not in form, a third alternative to the first difficulty. It thus merely affords an additional demonstration of the indecision often displayed by Eusebius, especially in presence of a conflict of traditional authorities."]
QUESTION #4
How can what Saint Matthew says — that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus Christ "on the evening of the last day of the week" — agree with what John said, that "the morning of the first day of the week," she wept at the tomb?
By "the first day of the week" is meant Sunday, because the Jews concluded the week on the Sabbath, and pagans marked the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days of the week with the names of idols and planets. So the apostle Paul instructs the believers in Corinth to collect, on "the first day of the week," the alms they designated for the relief of the poor. So do not imagine that Saint Matthew and Saint John do not agree together: they supply different names for only one hour, which is midnight and the singing of the rooster. For Saint Matthew said that our Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene "on the evening of the last day of the week," that is, when it was already late and the night was not only underway, but even far advanced, almost gone. And he adds, in further explanation, that the first day of the week was already approaching. As for John, he does not only say, "The first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came early in the morning to the tomb," but adds, "When it was still unclear." So they both agree about the time, which is the rooster-song and midnight; one of which marked the beginning and the other marked the end. It seems to me that the text of Saint Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, is, "When it was already late," and not "evening," which the interpreter, who was not aware of the true meaning of this word, translated as "evening" instead of saying, "When it was already late." In the ordinary use of the Latin language, the word means "elgonza," late [sero], and we can use it when, for example, we say to someone, "You came too late," meaning that a prearranged meeting-time has passed long ago.
Now we meet the objection, "How can Mary Magdalene, after seeing the risen Lord, come again to the tomb, as the Gospel says, weeping?" We must answer, according to a keen sense of perception, that in accordance with all the gifts that Christ had given, she ran several times to his tomb, either alone or in the company of other women, and that sometimes she gazed adoringly at what she saw, and sometimes she wept as she waited.
Some believe, however, that there were two Mary Magdalenes, both natives of the village of Magdelon, and the one who met the risen Christ, according to Saint Matthew, is different from the one which, according to Saint John, appeared so forlorn. What is certain is that the Gospel makes mention of four women called Mary: the first is the mother of our Lord, and the second is Mary, wife of Cleophas and aunt of Jesus Christ, being His mother's sister, and the third is Mary, mother of James and Joses, and the fourth is Mary Magdalene. Some, however, confused the mother of James and Joses with the aunt of Jesus Christ.
Others, to get rid of this difficulty, say that the true reading speaks of Saint Mary, and that he did not include the name of Magdalene, but the scribes have added it inappropriately. As for me, it seems to me that we can meet this challenge in a simpler and less embarrassing way, by saying that these holy women, unable to bear the absence of Jesus Christ, were in transit all night, and went to observe His grave not only once and twice, but constantly, especially as their sleep was disturbed and interrupted by the earthquake, by the sound of splitting stones, by the eclipse of the sun, by all sorts of confusion and inconvenience, and especially by the desire they had to see the Savior.
QUESTION #5
How can we reconcile what Saint Matthew says, that on the evening of the last day of the week, Mary Magdalene, along with another Mary, bowed at the feet of the Savior, and what we read in John, that Jesus said, "Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father?"
Mary Magdalene, with the other one, had already seen the risen Christ Jesus, and had fallen prostrate at His feet, but the concern that she felt due to the absence of the Savior did not permit her to remain quiet in her house. She returned to the tomb during the night and, seeing that the stone had been removed which was previously used to close the tomb, she ran to tell Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus dearly loved that they had taken the Lord's body, and she did not know where he was laid. The woman was simultaneously subject to her piety and her error: her piety, as she sought with such eagerness to seek after the King, and her error, as she said that they had removed the Lord.
Saint Peter and Saint John then went into the tomb, and having seen on one side the body-wrappings, and the other on the shroud that had enveloped the head of the Savior, they were convinced of the resurrection of their divine master, whose body was no longer in the tomb. But Mary stood outside, near the tomb weeping, and bending down to look inside, she saw two angels dressed in white, seated in the place where the body of Jesus had been, one at the head and one at the feet, so that she might observe that it was impossible that men had been capable of removing a body that angels had been guarding, and thus she should have been overjoyed to see these famous and powerful protectors.
These angels, when she saw them, said, "Woman, why do you weep?", as Jesus Christ had once said to his mother, "Woman, what is common between you and me? My time is not yet come." They address her as "Woman," and in saying, "Why do you weep?" they point out the uselessness of her tears. But the Magdalene was so beside herself, not knowing what to believe, and full of awe at the wonders she saw — wrapped in a cloud, as it were, which was so thick that without realizing that she was speaking to angels, she replied, "I weep because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they laid him." O Mary, if you are convinced he is the Lord, and your Lord in particular, how can you believe they have removed Him? You do not know, you say, where they have gone? How can you ignore what you gaze at, this very moment? She sees angels without realizing it, caught up in fear and amazement, and occupied only by the desire to see the Lord; she turns her head and casts her eyes all around.
Finally, having looked behind her, she saw Jesus standing, without realizing, however, that it was Him. Not that Jesus Christ, as some claim — Manes and other heretics — had changed his figure so as to appear when he wanted in different forms, but rather, the Magdalene, surprised and amazed at all the wonders, thought she was seeing a gardener, such was her anxiety and eagerness. Jesus therefore said to her, as the angels had said, "Woman, why do you weep?" And He added, "Who are you looking for?" Mary replied, "Lord, if you have removed Him, tell me where you put Him and I will take Him thence." It is an expression of a truly humble faith when she calls to the Savior, "Lord," an address which would require a gardener to respond with respect and honesty.
But notice, please, the extent of her error and her blindness: she imagines that the gardener was able to remove only the body of Jesus Christ, which was guarded by a company of soldiers, whose tomb was under the protection of angels, and forgetting her inherent weakness, she is persuaded that, alone and frightened as she is, she nevertheless has enough strength to transport the body of a man of full age, and who, never mind the rest, had been embalmed with a hundred pounds of myrrh. Jesus having called by name, so that she knew at least the voice of Him whose face she did not perceive, the woman, still occupied her mistake, said not "Lord," but "Rabboni," that is to say, "Teacher." What reversal of mind! What a way of thinking! She bestows upon a gardener the title of "Lord," and calls Jesus Christ as "Teacher."
After she had sought among the dead for a man full of life, and she and the other one had run away, without her weakness, her wandering imagination guided her to seek for the dead body of Him whom she had seen alive, whose feet she had fallen before, worshiping Him. So the Lord said to her, "Do not touch me, because I am not yet ascended to my Father." That is, since you are seeking a dead man, you do not deserve to touch my life. If you believe that I am not yet ascended to my Father, and that men came stealthily to remove my body, you are unworthy to touch me." Jesus told her this, not to cool her zeal or to prevent the confirmation which she sought, but to show her that this fragile and mortal body which He had occupied was surrounded by all the glory and all the radiance of divinity, and that she would not have wished to see the Lord in a tangible and material body, if her faith had been better cultivated, and if she had learned that He would now be with His Father. Indeed, the faith of the apostles seems much more lively and more vibrant, because, unlike the Magdalene, without having seen the angels or the Savior, they merely found the contents of the tomb where His body had been, and they immediately thought that he was truly resurrected. Some believe that Mary Magdalene, as reported by Saint John, first came to the tomb and saw that the stone which had closed its entrance had been removed, and then, after going back to tell Saint Peter and Saint John, she remained alone, and they see this as a lack of faith, which justly attracted the Lord's rebuke. After they had returned to their homes, she returned again to the tomb with the other Mary, with whom she met the angel who told her that Jesus had risen. Then she left the place of His burial, and bowed at His feet in adoration, as it says, "You will be given salvation." "They came to the Savior," says the Gospel, "and held His feet and worshiped Him." At this time their faith became so strong and so ardent that they were considered worthy to go to the apostles and tell them this happy and pleasant news: Jesus said first, "Do not be afraid," and then, "God tell my brethren that they are to go into Galilee, where they will see Me."
QUESTION #6
How could Saint Peter and Saint John have so easily entered the tomb, which was guarded by a company of soldiers, without any of these guards attempting to defend against their entry?
Here is the reason that Saint Matthew gives us: "The Sabbath being past," he says, "and the first day of the next week just beginning to shine, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, and an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came to turn the stone which closed the tomb, and sat on it. His face was shining like lightning and his clothing was white as snow, and the guards were so seized with fear that they turned dead-like.
Consider these soldiers, consumed by a fear so great that they seemed dead: we ought to believe that they left the tomb, or that they were so stunned and mortified that they did not dare to object. I do not say their non-objection was against men, but to the women who wanted to enter. For this very large stone that had been removed from the tomb's entrance to the tomb, and the earthquake that seemed to threaten the universe with a general upheaval, and the angel who had descended from heaven, and whose face was so bright that it did not resemble the artificial torches that men are accustomed to turn to their uses, but was like a flash of light that spreads its brightness everywhere — with all these frightening objects, they could easily see through the night, and their souls had been thrown into fear and dread. Thus Saint Peter and Saint John came easily and without hindrance into the tomb.
In fact Mary Magdalene, who had learned the news of the Savior's resurrection, had already noticed that His body was removed from the tomb, and that the stone which had closed the entrance was removed. Moreover we must not imagine that the angel descended from heaven expressly to remove the stone and open the tomb for Jesus Christ, but the Lord had arisen when He wanted to, without any man knowing, and this heavenly spirit came to teach the faithful what had happened, and to show the evidence, the stone was overthrown; the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb, and this could be easily discovered through the bright light coming out of his face, removing all the horror of the darkness of the night.
QUESTION #7
How should we understand what we read in Saint Matthew and Saint Mark, that the women who went to the tomb were ordered to tell the apostles that they had to go to Galilee, and there they saw the Lord, along with what is said by Saint Luke and Saint John, that He was seen in Jerusalem?
There are many differences in the ways in which the Savior appeared to the eleven apostles. When, out of fear of the Jews' forcefulness, they remained in hiding, He entered the place where they were, the doors being closed, and "He showed them the wounds of his hands and his side" to convince them that it was not a spirit as they imagined, and besides, He showed Himself alive to them when He saw fit, as Luke said, "by overwhelming evidence that He was alive, being seen for forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God," and, "Eating with them, He ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father." For in this way, by appearing and conversing with His disciples and eating the same normal food that they ate, He was consoling His apostles and dispelling their fear, anticipating that He would shortly disappear suddenly from before their eyes. That is why the Apostle Paul says that Jesus Christ appeared at the same time to more than five hundred of His followers. We also read in John that as the apostles were fishing, He appeared on the shore and ate "a piece of roasted fish and a honeycomb," so that He was seen by them to have truly risen in a physical form. And can we not see that He did something similar in Jerusalem?
[Latin text of the last two sentences: "And in Joanne legimus, quod piscantibus apostolis, in steterit littorea and assi partem pisces, favumque comederit resurrectionis indicia quae vera sunt. In Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur."]
QUESTION #8 How should we account for these words of Saint Matthew: "Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, yielded up His spirit, and at the same time the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, the earth shook, the rocks were split, the graves were opened, and many bodies of saints who were in the sleep of death revived, and exiting out of their tombs after His resurrection, they came to the holy city, and were seen by many people"?
I have already explained this passage in my comments on Saint Matthew. It should be noted first that God is the only one who can stop and start living a physical life as He pleases. For this reason the centurion, when he saw that Jesus, after saying, "Father, I commend my soul into Your hands," had immediately given up the spirit, was touched by this great miracle, and he said, "This man was really the son of God."
This phrase, "The veil of the temple was torn in two," verifies what was told to Joseph, that the angels guarding the temple said, "Go out of here." The Gospel that Saint Matthew wrote in Hebrew does not say that the veil was torn, but that the top of the portal, which was of prodigious size, was completely reversed. "The earth shook," because it could not support the weight attached to its God on the cross. "The stones split," to see how far was the hardness of the Jews who refused to recognize the Son of God they saw with their eyes. "The tombs were opened," to signify that we must be resurrected one day. "And many bodies of saints out of their tombs, came to the holy city, and were seen by several people." By this "holy city" Jerusalem is meant, and it must not be confused with all the other cities where people adored idols, because in that city alone the people had a temple dedicated the Lord, and where true religion was professed, in which God alone is worshipped. These saints, who "came out of their tombs," did not appear indiscriminately to everyone, but only to numerous people who were committed to Jesus Christ. Now to explain this place in a spiritual sense: "Jesus Christ died, with a loud cry, and at the same time the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." This was so that all nations could see uncovered all the mysteries of the law, before they were hidden. The veil is torn "in two," to tell us that everything is bound up in the Old and New Testaments. It is torn "from the top down," to make manifest what has happened since the beginning of the world and the creation of man, and the sacred history we reported, and all that will be until the consummation of the world.
But we must consider whether it is the first veil, on the outside, or the veil inside, that was torn at the death of the Savior.2 To me, it seems to me that whoever was within the temple at the entrance of the tabernacle, is at what is called the outer veil, because "now we can see and do things very imperfectly, but when we are in a perfect state," then the outer veil tears, and all the mysteries of the house of God, which are now hidden, will be revealed to us. And we will know what is signified by these two cherubim, the oracle, and the golden vase that contained the manna. "We now see as though in a mirror, darkly." Indeed, the veil there, which hid from us the stories of Scripture, is torn, and we can enter the courtyard of the tabernacle of the Lord. But all the secrets and mysteries of the heavenly Jerusalem are always veiled, and we cannot enter there.
The earth shook at the death of the Savior, and we saw the fulfillment of what the prophet Haggai: "A little time and I will shake heaven and earth, and all desired nations will come," so that "many come from east and west and take their place in the kingdom of heaven with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "The stones split," that is, that the death of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles pierced and broke the hardness of their hearts. For these "stones" can still hear the prophets, which as well as the apostles carried this name in relation to Jesus Christ, who is the true "stone." These stones are "split," so that the saints may unlock, release, and discover all the prophecies that had been obscured from them by the thick veil of the law. These "tombs" are like those about which Jesus spoke in the Gospel, "You are like whitewashed tombs on the outside, but inside are full of dead bones." "These graves," I said, "opened," so that those who had died earlier in their infidelity, "leaving their tombs," and being given a new life with Christ, arise and enter into the heavenly Jerusalem, to be citizens of heaven rather than of earth, and thus the man who died in an earthly manner is raised in a heavenly manner.
Moreover, to return to the literal meaning of this passage, we must not be surprised that after the death of the Savior, Jerusalem is called "the holy city," since, until its complete collapse, the apostles are shown to have had no apprehension about entering the temple, and even observe the ceremonies of the law for fear of scandalizing those of Jews who had embraced the faith of Jesus Christ. We even see that the Savior loved this city so much that the misfortunes which threatened it elicited tears from His eyes; when He was crucified, He said to His Father, "Forgive them, Father, because they do know what they do." His prayer was answered, for shortly after His death the Jews believed in Him by thousands, and God gave to this unfortunate city forty-two years to do penance. But finally its citizens, having failed to benefit, and still persisting in their wickedness — Vespasian and Titus together formed an anti-type of what is mentioned in our Scriptures, when they came out of the woods and killed and mauled these "children," because of their blasphemous insults to the real Elisha when ascending to the house of God (for that is what "Bethel" means in Hebrew).3
Since that time, Jerusalem has been called "the holy city," but having lost the holiness implied by the name she bore before, it has been called in a spiritual sense "Egypt" and "Sodom," and in its place we have built a new city, "a river delighted by the abundance of its waters," and the center of which releases a spring that has purified the bitterness of the waters of all the earth, so that the unfortunate Jews, stripped of their former glories, are reduced to whining on the ruins of their temple, while Christians have the pleasure of seeing new churches being built every day, and they say to the people of Zion, "The place where I am is too narrow." In this we see the fulfillment of the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah: "His grave will be glorious."
QUESTION #9
How is it that Saint John reports that the Savior gave that Holy Spirit to His apostles by blowing on them, which according to Luke, He promised to send to them after His ascension?
One can easily solve this problem if one considers, as Saint Paul says, that the Holy Spirit gives us many kinds of grace. "There are a variety of spiritual gifts," says the apostle in his first epistle to the faithful of Corinth, "but they have the same Spirit. There are diversities of ministries, but there is a single Lord. There are diversities of supernatural works, but there is only one God who works all in all. But the gifts which testify to the Holy Spirit are given out to everyone for the profit of the Church. One receives from the Holy Spirit the gift of speaking with exalted wisdom; another, by the same Spirit, is given the gift of speaking with knowledge; another receives faith by the same Spirit; another, through the same Spirit, has the gift of healing disease, and another the gift of working miracles, another the gift of prophecy, another the discernment of spirits, and another the gift of speaking different languages, another the interpretation of languages. Yet it is one and the same Spirit at work in all these things, distributing these gifts to each individual as He pleases."
For this reason the Lord, as reported in Luke's Gospel, said to His apostles after His resurrection, "I will send you the promised gift from My Father, but continue living in the city until you are protected by the power from on high." And in Acts of the Apostles, according to the same evangelist, "He ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to 'Wait until the promise of the Father, which,' He said, 'you have heard of from My mouth. For John baptized in water, but in a few days you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.'" Saint John also reported in the end of his Gospel, about the day when Jesus Christ rose, that is, on Sunday, He entered into the place where the apostles were, the doors being closed, and that they have it said to them for the second time, "Peace be with you." He said, "As my Father sent me, so I send you also." "After which He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; the sins of those whom you forgive are forgiven, and they are retained of those whose you retain.'"
On the first day, therefore, when the Savior was resurrected, the apostles received the grace of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins, to baptize, to make men into children of God, and to share with the faithful the spirit of adoption, even as Jesus Christ himself had said, "The sins are forgiven to those whom you forgive, and the sins of those whose sins you retain, they shall be retained." But on the day of Pentecost, the Savior promised more excellent gifts excellent, so that they would be baptized in the Holy Spirit and bear the power from above to preach the gospel to all nations, as we read at the sixty-seventh Psalm: "The Lord will give his heralds the floor of his glory so they will proclaim with great power." Thus they would then receive the gift of healing diseases, performing miracles, and speaking different languages, for they were destined to preach the gospel to many nations, and in this way the people could listen to what each of the apostles was proclaiming about the truth of the gospel. Hence the Apostle Paul, who brought the Gospel in this vast tract of country which is from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and who was to go through Rome to go to Spain, thanked God because he had received the gift of tongues more than all the other apostles, because in order to preach the gospel to many nations, he should also speak multiple languages.
However, it was on the tenth day after His ascension, as Luke relates, that the Savior fulfilled the promise He made to His apostles to send them the Holy Spirit. "When the days of Pentecost were accomplished," says the sacred historian, "the disciples were all together in one place, and we suddenly heard a loud noise like a violent and impetuous wind that came from heaven, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. At the same time they saw what looked like divided tongues of fire, standing on each one. Immediately they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak different languages, as the Holy Spirit put words in their mouths." And then we saw the fulfillment of what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "In the end-times," says the Lord, "I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh: your son and your daughters shall prophesy; your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions." This word, "I will pour out," involves an abundance of graces, and goes back to what the Lord had promised His apostles: that in a few days they would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Indeed this baptism was so abundant that it filled all the house where the disciples were sitting, and He provided the fire of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, in accordance with His designs, and sent them the gift of tongues, and their lips were purified to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in all its purity, as a seraph had purified those of Isaiah, who complained of having unclean and dirty lips.
We read in the prophet about the shouts of two seraphim who were around the throne of God, and about the posts of the temple door being shaken, "and the whole house was filled with smoke," that is, with the error of darkness and ignorance. But at the beginning of the gospel, and therefore the birth of Christianity, the Holy Spirit fills the whole Church, to purify its fervor and by His grace to purge away all the sins of the faithful by fire, even by the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ had promised to His apostles, by whose lips His name has been carried and shared throughout the world.
Although John said that the Savior gave the Holy Spirit to His apostles on the first day of his resurrection, and Saint Luke said that He was sent to them fifty days later, we should not imagine that these two evangelists are at odds: they only desired to make distinctions between degrees of the grace that Jesus Christ communicated to His apostles, who, having first received the power to forgive sins, then received the power to perform miracles, and all other gifts detailed by Saint Paul, of which we spoke about above — but particularly to speak various languages, which was even more necessary than others so that, in the ministry which they were expected to announce the gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations of the earth, they would not need to use an interpreter. Because of this the Lycaonians, after hearing Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas speak their language, considered them gods bearing a human form.
With regard to this virtue from on high that Jesus Christ had promised to bestow upon His disciples, this is nothing more than the grace of the Holy Spirit, who, having taken possession of the hearts of the apostles, inspired both their strength and courage; they feared neither the courts, nor judges, nor the purple of kings. That is what the Savior had promised before his passion, saying, "When you are delivered into the hands of men, do not worry about how or what you shall say, because what you need to say will be given at that very time, for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of Your Father who speaks in you." For me, I am not afraid to say that since the apostles had believed in Jesus Christ, they always had the Holy Spirit, for without this the gift they could never have done all the miracles they did; but those deeds were the expressions and results of this gift.
That is why Jesus Christ said aloud in the temple, "'If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink, and if someone believes in me, rivers of living water will come out of his heart,' as Scripture says. He meant by this the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were yet to receive," and the evangelist adds in the same place, "For the Holy Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." This is not to say there was no Holy Spirit, for the Savior Himself said, "If I cast out demons by speaking through the Holy Spirit," but what is meant is that this Holy Spirit who was in the Son of God had not yet entirely filled the hearts of the apostles. For from their hearts there came the fear with which they were seized at the Passion of the Savior, and on account of this was that renunciation with an oath against knowing Him at all. But after being baptized in the Holy Spirit, they were filled with grace that was prevalent in their hearts; they boldly tell the rulers of the Jews, "We must obey God rather than men." So they can resurrect the dead, triumph in the midst of turmoil, spread their blood for Jesus Christ, and be crowned via their own torments.
So the apostles had the Holy Spirit; yet spiritual graces were not flowing from their heart, because the Lord was not yet glorified. And what is the glory that He expected? He explains himself in the Gospel, when He says, "My Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world was." The glory of the Savior is the cross where He triumphed; there He was crucified as a man, and is glorified as God. Do you want proof of His glory? Observe that there the sun disappears, the moon changes to blood, the earth is shaken by an extraordinary earthquake; the graves are opened, the dead walk; the rocks split. This glory of Jesus Christ is what was foretold through the mouth of the prophet-king when he says, "Arise, my glory; awaken, my lute and my harp," and the glory, that is, the holy humanity, replied: "I will adjourn the morning," to thus verify the title of the twenty-first Psalm, which reads, "For the relief of the morning."
When I say this, I do not separate Jesus Christ into two different people, one divine and one human, as the new heretics falsely accuse us. There is in Jesus Christ one and the same person, who is both Son of God and Son of Man, but in all that has been said about the divine Savior, there are some who recorded His divine glory, and others who did not guard their own salvation. It is to us that it was written: "He did not believe it was for Him a theft be equal to God, but He has nevertheless humbled Himself, and taking up the form and nature of a servant, He became obedient, to the point of death, even the death of the cross," and to us it is said that "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."
Therefore the Lord told his disciples, "I am departing, and I will send you another Comforter." Luke also records that this assuring promise was given by Jesus Christ to the apostles. I am surprised that Montanus and the two crazy women accompanying his sect and his errors, who are only failed prophets, argue that this promise of the Savior was not fulfilled until them, long after it was given, because it was to the apostles that the Savior said, "I will send you the promised gift of my Father. But live in the city until you are clothed with the power from on high." It was upon the apostles, not Montanus, Prisca, and Maxilla, that Jesus Christ has breathed, thus giving them the Holy Spirit. To the apostles it is said, "The sins of those whom you forgive are forgiven, and they will be retained of those whose you retain." It is the apostles that He ordered not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for the promise of His Father, a promise that Luke allows us to see being fulfilled, when he said, "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak different languages, as the Holy Spirit put their words in their mouths," because The Holy Spirit "blows where He wills." When Jesus Christ promised His apostles that He would send to send them "another Comforter," it was already satisfying to know that He was himself the consolation of his apostles, and to know the apostle Paul's concept of God the Father, when he calls Him the "God of mercy and all comfort." But if the Father is "Comforter," if the Son is "Comforter," if the Holy Spirit is "Comforter," and if we baptize the faithful in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are only one God, it follows that, having the same name of God, even "Consolation," they also have a similar nature.
Besides, the prophets received the Holy Spirit as well as the apostles. This is why David said, "Do not remove me from your Holy Spirit." We also read in Scripture that Daniel was animated by the Spirit of God, and that it was through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that David said, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool." Only by the illumination of the Holy Spirit could the prophets have predicted things to come. "By the word of the Lord," said the Psalmist, "the heavens were consolidated, and by the breath of His mouth all their virtue was founded." All the substance possessed by the Father and the Son is also the substance of the Holy Spirit. When He is sent, it is the Father and Son who send Him. The Scripture calls Him in a thousand places "the Spirit of God the Father" and "the Spirit of Jesus Christ." Hence, as was reported in the Acts of the Apostles, that those who had received the baptism of John, and who believed in God the Father and Jesus Christ, but who did not even know there was a Holy Spirit, were baptized again, and we can say that this was the occasion when they truly baptized, because without the Holy Spirit the Trinity cannot exist. We read again in the same place, where Saint Peter said to Ananias and Sapphira, who had lied to the Holy Spirit, that it was to God and not to men that they had lied.
QUESTION #10
How do we understand what the Apostle Paul says to the Romans, from the place, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid that we have this thought!" To the place, "If the Lord of hosts had not left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom and Gomorrah"?
The entire epistle to the Romans needs careful explanation, because it is full of obscure difficulties that cannot be understood without the help of the Holy Spirit who has Himself guided the mouth of the apostle. But the most difficult and most embarrassing passage is the one you have asked about. Some, to maintain whole the righteousness of God, claim that if Jacob was selected and Esau was rejected when they were still in the Rebecca's womb, this could only be for reasons that have preceded their birth. Similarly He also chose Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the wombs of their mothers, and the Apostle Paul was chosen before he was born, to preach the Gospel.
For me, I can only agree with what is received by all the faithful, and what I teach, I can teach publicly without fear in the church, without fear of falling into the illusions and dreams of Pythagoras, Plato, and those disciples who wished to mold the opinions of the pagans into the dogmas of religion, saying that souls are fallen from heaven, and that their individual merits have been expressed together in their bodies so as to compensate for their past sins. I think it is much better to forthrightly admit our ignorance, and to categorize this passage of Saint Paul among the deep mysteries which we cannot fathom. This admission is preferable to the option, taken under the pretext of justifying the conduct of God, of embracing the heresy of Basilides and Manès, teaching monstrous opinions asserted by a certain Egyptian, and the chimerical visions with which he has misled the Spaniards.5 Therefore I shall explain this passage the best I can, and objectively follow Saint Paul's footprints as far as I can, objectively.
This apostle, having taken even the Holy Spirit as a witness to the sincere pain which penetrated his heart, first lamented about the blindness of his brothers and his parents according to the flesh, that is, the Israelites who had failed and rejected the Son of God, to whom belonged the adoption, his glory, his covenant, his law, his worship, and his promises, and which Jesus Christ Himself received, coming forth in the flesh, being born of Mary. And the pressure of the pain he feels is so strong that he desired for himself to become anathema, and to be separated from Christ, that is, to die alone, if it would in any way prevent Israel from perishing. Here the objecting reader could not fail to tell him, "What is this? Are all the Israelites lost? Have not you yourself recognized Jesus Christ as the Son of God? Have not the other apostles and an infinite number of Jewish people also recognized this?" And here is his response to this objection. The Scripture depicts two different concepts of Israel, expressed under the figure of two children, one of which is in the flesh and the other in the spirit and promise. Abraham had two children, Ishmael and Isaac. The one who was born there according to the flesh did not share the legacy of his father, but the one who was born of Sarah, as promised, is the child called by God, according to what Scripture says: "This is Isaac, which will be called your son." That is, those that are "children in the flesh" are not therefore God's children, but those are the "children of promise" who are considered to be children of Abraham.
This truth seems to apply not only to Ishmael and Isaac, but also to the two children who were within Rebecca, Esau and Jacob: of whom God chose one, and rejected the other. Saint Paul claims to see than in the elder members of these pairs of brothers, Ishmael and Esau, is the representation of the reprobation of the Jewish people, and that in the younger of the pairs, Isaac and Jacob, we see a representation of the favorable choice that God has made, and those Jews who have believed in Jesus Christ. But in order to make his meaning clear, he used the example of two twin brothers, Esau and Jacob, of which it is written, "The older will be subject to the younger," and taking what was said by the prophet Malachi, "Jacob have I loved, and Esau I hated," he adapted it to counter the objection, and having addressed it in this way, he refuted it.
If it is true, says the apostle, that Jacob received election and Esau disapproval, "not yet being born, nor having done good nor evil," and the reception of the kindnesss or the wrath of God is not an effect of their own merits, but it depends on the will of the One who chose one and rejected the other, "What shall we say then? Is it that God is unfair?" According to what He Himself said to Moses, "I will have upon whom I bestow mercy, and I will pity whoever it pleases Me to pity." If we believe that God does whatever He wants, and chooses one and rejects the other without any regard to their merit and their works, "it is not of those who desire, or of those running, but of God who shows mercy," as indeed appears to be the true sense of these words that the same God says, in Scripture, to Pharaoh: "For I have prepared you to display My power in you, and to make My name famous throughout the world." But if this is so, and if God, as He pleases, shows mercy to Israel and hardens Pharaoh, is it not therefore wrong when, pointing out errors, He blames us for not doing well, of for doing evil? For without regard either to our good or our evil deeds, He can, when He pleases, choose one and condemn others, especially the man was too weak to oppose His will.
But this is what the apostle Paul responds to this argument, though it was intrinsically very strong and, being supported on the authority of Scripture, seemed almost invincible: "O man, who are you to challenge with God?" That is, since you do not agree with God, you rise up against Him, and consult the holy Scriptures to find authoritative evidence to condemn His conduct. But by acting on this sinful desire to accuse God, it is manifest that you have free will, and that you can do whatever you want, and it is in your power to keep silent or to talk when you please. If you are convinced that God has acted in the same way as a potter who makes a vase of clay, and you can not resist his will, reflect that a vase of clay does not tell the one who made it, "'Why did you make me this way?' because the potter has the power to make the same lump or mass of clay, into a clay vase for to honorable use, and another for uses vile and shameful." But God made all men of the same nature and in the same condition: He gave them, via their training, the freedom to do what they please, and to freely take their stand for good or evil, and this freedom is so full and so complete that they are displaying their impiety by challenging their Creator and examining the reasons for His conduct.
"Who can complain," continues the apostle, "if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, tolerated with extreme patience vessels of wrath destined for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy He has destined for His glory — on those whom He called, even us, not of Jews only but also of the Gentiles? As He Himself said through the mouth of the prophet Hosea, 'I will call them My people who were not My people, "My beloved" one I had not loved, and the time shall come in the same place where I had once said, "You are not My people," they shall be called children of the living God,"'" and so on. Inasmuch as the patience of God, says Saint Paul, served only to harden the heart of Pharaoh, and since the Lord delayed so long to punish the Israelites, you thus have a sound justification to conclude that His toleration of those impious people was not infinite; He tolerated their impiety, and in His extreme patience did not condemn those who were so condemnable, so that even those who were lost He might make use of to display His anointed kindness and His mercies.
Consider that the sun's heat is always the same, but it produces different effects depending on the nature of different subjects upon which it acts: some are softened, others besides these are firmed up, being tightened; the wax is melted and the mud is hardened, although the heat never changes its nature. The same is true of God, for by His goodness and mercy He hardens vases of wrath, that is, those who are lost among the people of Israel, but concerning vessels of mercy, He has called us to His glory, that is, us, whom He called not only of Jews but also from the Gentiles. He does not save without reason and without equitable discernment; His reasons for acting this way consist of what has happened; some have rejected the Son of God and others were willing to receive Him.
However, by "these vessels of mercy" is meant not only the Gentiles but also those of Jews who wanted to believe in Jesus Christ, and being joined together with them, they are to be one faithful people, which shows that God does not choose nationalities, but according to the wills of men. And this was the essence of the performance of what the prophet Hosea said: "I will call them My people who were not My people," namely, the Gentiles, "and those to whom I once said, 'You are not My people,' will now be called the children of the living God." And we apprehend that this prediction does not apply exclusively to the Gentiles, for Saint Paul also called "vessels of election and mercy" those Jews who believed in Jesus Christ, because, "When it comes to Israel," says the apostle, "Isaiah cries out, 'Although the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, there will be a small remnant saved,'" that is, although all the children of Israel do not believe in Jesus Christ, there are yet a few, very few, who believe in Him, "For God in His justice will make an end and cut off His people," having saved by the incarnation and humiliation of Jesus Christ those who wanted to believe in Him. That is why the prophet Isaiah says in another place: "If the Lord of hosts had not preserved a few of our race, we would have become like Sodom and Gomorrah."
Saint Paul, continuing in this passage of Scripture which describes what the prophets have predicted about the dual vocation of the Gentiles and Jews, goes on to say that Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have nevertheless embraced it, because they believed in Jesus Christ without the vanity of their works, while, contrary to this, most Israelites were lost because they "stumbled at that stumbling-stone," and, "Not knowing the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own justice, they have not submitted to the righteousness of God," that is, Jesus Christ, who has been given to us by God to be our righteousness.
I have read the comments of a certain author who was claiming that he was rather embarrassed by Saint Paul's response, because this issue was not explained, where, after having proposed the objection, "What shall we say then? Is there injustice in God?", and after having said, "It does not depend on any who desire or upon those running, but of God who shows mercy," and "God will have mercy upon him whom He favors, and He hardens whom he pleases," and again, "Who can resist his will?", "Here," says the author, is what the apostle says: "O man, who are only earth and ash, how dare you question God? Do you want to rebel against that which you did, you who are also a fragile clay vase? Can a vase of earth say to those who made it, 'Why did you do me this way?' Does not the potter have the power to make of one part of the same mass of clay a vessel intended for honorable use, and another for uses vile and shameful?" Therefore remain in eternal silence; acknowledge your own weakness, and put an end to asking God to account for His actions, because by dealing mercifully with one and in severity with others, He did what He wanted to do.
QUESTION #11
What is the meaning of these words of the Apostle Paul, in his second epistle to the faithful of Corinth: "We are to the one, the smell of death that causes them to die, and to the other, the smell of life, which leads to life. And who is capable of these things"?
The full passage from which these words are taken should be cited here, so that by considering their context, and their relationship with what precedes and what follows, we can better understand what is the true meaning. "Being come to Troas," says the Apostle, "to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, although the Lord had given me great opportunities to successfully fulfill my ministry, I had no peace of mind, because I had not found my brother Titus, but having taken leave of them, I went into Macedonia. But I thank God that we always triumph in Christ, who through us spreads everywhere the aroma of the knowledge of His name. For we are before God the aroma of Jesus Christ, among those who are being saved, or to those who are lost: to some, the smell of death that causes them to die, and to the other, the smells of life that gives life. And who is capable of such things? For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God, but we preach with complete sincerity, as from God, in God's presence, and in the name of Jesus Christ."
Saint Paul instructed the faithful of Corinth about everything he did and everything he has suffered, and how he always gave thanks to God in any situation he found himself in, leading them by his ample resolve to contend for the interests of faith. "I came," he says, "to Troas," which previously was called Troy, "to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in Asia, but although the Lord had given me great openings to fulfill my ministry successfully," — that is, although many people were believing in miracles and wonders that God works by my administration, and had believed in Jesus Christ, and I had every reason to hope to see the faith of these people rise and increase by the grace of the Lord, nevertheless "I had no rest in my spirit," that is, I could not enjoy the consolation that I hoped to find, because I did not meet my brother Titus, as I was expecting, having heard that he was there, or that he himself had promised to go and rendezvous there.
But what great consolation and rest of mind could Saint Paul receive from the presence of Titus, and why did his absence force him to depart from the inhabitants of Troas to go into Macedonia? I have noted on occasion that the apostle Paul was very wise, having been educated "at the feet of Gamaliel," who, according to the Acts of the Apostles, said in the council of the Jews, "Why not keep away from these people? For if what they preach is the work of God, you cannot destroy it, and if it is the work of man, it will fall by itself." Now, Saint Paul had a perfect knowledge of the holy Scriptures, he was naturally eloquent, and he possessed the gift of speaking in tongues, as he prides himself in the Lord, saying, "I praise my God that I speak through the gift of tongues more than all of you." Nevertheless he could not speak Greek in a manner worthy of the majesty and grandeur of our mysteries. Therefore Titus served as an interpreter, as Saint Mark used to serve Saint Peter, with whom he wrote his Gospel. Also we see that the two epistles attributed to Saint Peter have different styles and turn phrases differently, by which it is discerned that it was sometimes necessary for him to use different interpreters.
Saint Paul, therefore, sorry that he had not met at Troas the one by whose mouth he was to preach the gospel, took the party to go to Macedonia, the place from which a Macedonian had appeared during the night, inviting him to go, saying, "Go to Macedonia and help us successfully." He also hoped to find Titus, and indeed he had planned to visit the brethren or face the persecution of unbelievers, for that is what he means by these words: "But I thank God that we always triumph in Christ, who spreads by us everywhere the odor of the knowledge of His name." "We always triumph," that is, "He triumphs in us," or, "He triumphs by us," as the apostle says in another place, "God made us a spectacle to the world, to angels and men." This is why he says the following: "Coming from Macedonia, we had no relief for our bodies, but we were constantly suffering, with conflicts on the outside and fears within. But God, who consoles the humble and the afflicted, consoled us by the arrival of Titus, and not only by his arrival, but by the consolation that he himself received from you."
Having thus taken leave of the inhabitants of Troy or Troas, he went to Macedonia in the hope of finding Titus, and to use him in the functions of his ministry, but it is easy to discern that they did not meet there, and that Titus arrived there only after Saint Paul had suffered many punishments and persecution. And because he suffered so much before the arrival of Titus, he gives thanks to God in the name of Jesus Christ that he preached to the nations, because He desired to use him for the triumph of His Son.
Indeed, the martyrs' endurance of torments, the blood that is spilt for the name of Jesus Christ, the joy that they display in the midst of the cruelest tortures — all this is a triumph for God. When the martyrs' strength and consistency are seen, as they undergo the horror and cruelty of the most horrific torment, and express all their joy in light of the fact that that they are suffering under torment, the smell of the knowledge of God is spreading among the Gentiles, who feel persuaded by the testimony of their own conscience that if the gospel was not true, no one would desire to shed his blood for his defense. For it is not in the midst of the delights and pleasures of the world — including the concern to amass wealth — or in the midst of a soft and undisturbed life, that we confess the name of Jesus Christ; it is in prisons, in wounds, in persecutions, in nakedness, in hunger and thirst. That is the triumph of God and the victory of the apostles.
But one might post this objection to Saint Paul: How, with all that he had done, can there still be those who did not believe in Jesus Christ? The apostle, according to his custom, prevents disputes about this matter. It is true that we are, to God, the aroma of the name of Jesus Christ, and the gospel that we preach, like a pleasant scent, is spreading on all sides. But God has allowed men to use their free will so that, doing good voluntarily and not by necessity, He may reward the faithful and punish the unbelieving. Therefore sometimes the smell that we spread, though intrinsically good, provides either life or death, depending on the good or bad dispositions of those who receive or reject the gospel. Thus those who believe in Jesus Christ, He saves, and those who do not believe in Him will not ever come into contact with Him. Moreover it is not surprising that the preaching of the apostle Paul produced such diverse effects among the people, since the gospel says about Jesus Christ Himself, "This child shall be for the fall and resurrection of many in Israel, and shall be spoken against by men."
Every location, whether clean or dirty, receives direct sunlight, and this star, without concern for the purity of its light, shines indiscriminately upon flowers and manure alike. The same is true of the aroma of Jesus Christ: it is not likely to change or to cease to be what it is; however, it becomes for the faithful a principle of life, and for the unbelievers a principle of death. This is not referring to the death of this physical body, which is common with the animals, but to spiritual death, about which it is written: "The soul who sins, it will die." And when the faithful, who benefit from the aroma of Jesus Christ, hear this, they must not think of this physical breath that animates us, and which is the force behind all our actions and movements, but instead think of the life referred to by the prophet-king when he says, "I firmly believe that I shall behold the Lord in the land of the living," (because God is the God of the living and not dead) and about which Saint Paul said, "Our life is hidden with God in Jesus Christ, but when Christ, who is our life, appears, then we will be partakers with Him in glory."
The apostle instructs the Corinthians not to let it bother them — for it is not our main concern — that some receive the truth that we preach and others reject it; the many die a real death, and a few experience the life of which it is said, "I am the life." For if we did not announce the gospel, the unbelievers would still die, and none would have the life of the faithful. It is not easy to find a man worthy to proclaim the wonders of Jesus Christ; yet, the minister's glory does not emanate from the minister, but from what he preaches. When Saint Paul said he does not conduct himself like so many who peddle the word of God, it shows that there are many who imagine that their godliness serves as a way to get gain; these individuals have a shameful agenda in everything they do; they are those "who devour widows' houses." But the one who preaches the gospel "with full sincerity, as from God," and in the presence of Him who sent him, not preaching this Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ, will exercise his ministry in order to overcome through Jesus Christ, and to obtain his glory. It should be noted that here we bring this chapter in the Apostle to a close, mentioning the mystery of the Holy Trinity and saying, "We preach the gospel from God, in the Holy Spirit, in the presence of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ."
We said that Saint Paul went to Macedonia from Troas; here is the evidence from the Acts of the Apostles: "Having passed by Mysia, they went down to Troas, where during the night Paul had this vision: a man of Macedonia appeared to him and told him this request: 'Go to Macedonia and succeed in helping us.' As soon as he had this vision, we sought to go to Macedonia, persuaded that God had indeed called us to preach the gospel."
QUESTION #12 How should we understand these words of the apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Thessalonians: "May the God of peace Himself sanctify you in all ways, so that everything that is in you, the spirit, the soul and body, may be kept spotless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Although this question is very famous, it must be explained in few words. Saint Paul said a little earlier: "Do not quench the spirit." If we understand the true meaning of these words, we understand together the nature of the spirit that we must keep unsullied with the soul and body for the day of the Lord's coming. For who would imagine that the Holy Spirit may be extinguished like a flame, which when extinguished ceases to be what it was? Who could imagine that someone would destroy the Holy Spirit — who in the old law, speaking by the mouth of Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets, "Here is what the Lord says," and who said, in the new, by the prophet Agabus, "These things says the Holy Spirit."
"There are many kinds of spiritual gifts, but there is only one Spirit; there are numerous kinds of ministries, but there is only one Lord; there are several kinds of supernatural acts, but there is only one God who works all in all. But the gifts which make the Holy Spirit manifest are distributed to everyone for the good of the Church: one receives the gift of speaking wisdom by the Holy Spirit, while another received, through the same Spirit, a gift of speaking with knowledge; another, by the same Spirit, receives faith; another, the gift of working miracles; another received, through the same Spirit, the gift of healing disease; another the gift of prophecy; another the discernment of spirits. Yet one and the same Spirit is producing all these things, distributing gifts to these people as He pleases." In regard to this Spirit, David, when he realized his isolation, said to God, "Do not remove from me Your Holy Spirit." When God withdraws the Spirit, He does not diminish His substance, but extinguishes Him for the souls that deprive themselves of His light. For me, I believe that by these words, "Do not quench the spirit," the apostle means the same thing by these, "Keep yourselves in the fervor of the spirit" because the Spirit is never extinguished, except in a soul whose fervor has slowed to a stop by indulgence in crime, or in a love, once warm, which has grown cold and languid.
Now to this phrase, "May the God of peace sanctify you in all ways," or "in all things," or, if we flex the Greek text, "give you a full and perfect holiness;" He is called "God of peace," because we were reconciled to him through Jesus Christ, "who is our peace, who has made the two peoples one," and, as the apostle said in another place, is "the peace of God which surpasses all comprehension, that keeps the hearts and minds of the saints." But he who was sanctified and is perfect in all things, "keeps his spirit, his soul, and his body without blemish for the day of the coming of the Lord," and uses his bodily members for the purposes for which they exist: his hands to work, his feet to walk, his eyes to see, his ears to hear, his teeth to eat, his stomach to digest meat, his bowels to order to avoid what is naturally leftover. Thus it is when all members of one's body are whole and perfect.
But is it credible that Paul, in making this blessing-vow to heaven, expects Jesus Christ, on judgment day, to find the faithful individual's body entirely intact? Does not death reduce everything to dust? Or if there are still a few, as some authors claim, that are still alive and kicking, do they not invariably have some defect? Consider especially the bodies of martyrs, even those whose eyes, or nose, or hands have been torn or cut off, for the sake of Christ. Therefore what the apostle meant by a "whole body" is, as I have said elsewhere, that which remains attached to the head, verily, the leader from whom all parts of the body are united and bound together, according to the effective increase of the body of Jesus Christ. But this body is none other than the Church, and anyone who has a close union with the head of this body must also assist in the maintenance of all other members in the whole body, as far as human frailty can afford. And to do that, they must maintain the integrity of the soul, so as to say, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, who heals all your infirmities," and it is written, "He sent his word and He healed." We also maintain the integrity of the mind when we live according to spiritual things; we live by the Spirit, and thus we follow with docility the guidance and impressions from the Spirit, so that we may mortify by the mind the works of the flesh, and so that we produce the fruits of the Spirit, by which I mean love, joy, peace, and so forth.
Here is another explanation that we can give to the words of the Apostle Paul. As Solomon set forth a proverb by describing things in three ways, so our teachings and applications, conducted thoughtfully and carefully, may be set forth to expound the truth for those who question us. We can describe the three ways by which the instructions and regulations of Scripture are set forth in our hearts. First there is the literal and historical sense. Second, there is the moral sense. And, finally, it may be taken in the spiritual sense. In the literal sense, we are dealing simply with the facts of the story as we follow a sequence of events being narrated. In the moral sense, we leave the literal meaning and consider larger and nobler ideas that are expressed for the regulation of our morals, and for our edification, though grounded in physical matters pertaining to the Jewish people. In the spiritual sense our objective is something even more sublime; we abandon all the earthly things, and simply look for what is said about the heavenly things, and the joy that is prepared for us; looking at all the good things in life is like a shadow in comparison to the adamantine happiness that is ours in that day. Jesus Christ, by His peace, will sanctify and perfect those who are happy in this situation, that is, those whose sole occupation is to take care to preserve the integrity of their body, their soul and their spirit, and to acquire a perfect knowledge of truth, and the triple-knowledge of which Solomon speaks.
Many, focusing simply on the letter, understand as pertaining to the resurrection what the Apostle Paul says, that we must keep our mind, our soul, and our body spotless for the day of the coming of the Lord. Some of them have claimed that this passage proves that man is composed of three kinds of substances: a spirit, which is the principle of their feelings and their thoughts, a soul, which is the source of his life, and of a body, which serves as an instrument for all external actions. There are others who claim that man is composed of a core and a body, and that the "spirit" that we add is not a substance but a principle which, according the different effects it produces, is sometimes called spirit, or feeling, or thought, because there is no man in so many different substances that give them different names. And when they encounter the passage of Scripture, "Spirits and souls of the righteous, bless the Lord," they reject it by saying that these words are not found in the Hebrew text. For me, as I said earlier, I think that the "spirit" which remains blameless with soul and body, must not be interpreted by us to mean the Holy Spirit, whose substance is imperishable, bur rather His gifts and graces, which lights are capable of being extinguished in us, if we make a poor, rather than good, use of them.
(1) The word "capitulum," which is in the Latin text, we have translated by "portion." This should not be understood to mean all of Mark chapter 16, but only the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark.
(2) One veil separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. The outer veil was outside, at the entrance of the tabernacle.
(3) Jerome here refers to what is written in II Kings 2:23-25, where as Elisha goes to Bethel, he is mocked by small children outside the city, who are saying, "Go up, baldy, go up, baldy," and after the prophet declares a curse upon them, two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of these children.
(4) Prisca and Maxilla
(5) This means that some Marcionite heresies which had begun in Egyptian had spread to Spain and Portugal.
This text was translated and placed in the public domain by James Snapp, 2009. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: augustine_enchiridion_02_trans.htm
St. Augustine, Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope, and Love (1955). English translation
St. Augustine, Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope, and Love (1955). English translation
Enchiridion
On Faith, Hope, and Love
Saint Augustine
Newly translated and edited
by
ALBERT C. OUTLER, Ph.D., D.D.
Professor of Theology
Perkins School of Theology
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas
First published MCMLV
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 55-5021
1. The Occasion and Purpose of this "Manual"
2. The Creed and the Lord's Prayer as Guides to the Interpretation of the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love
3. God the Creator of All; and the Goodness of All Creation
4. The Problem of Evil
5. The Kinds and Degrees of Error
6. The Problem of Lying
7. Disputed Questions about the Limits of Knowledge and Certainty in Various Matters
8. The Plight of Man After the Fall
9. The Replacement of the Fallen Angels By Elect Men (28-30); The Necessity of Grace (30-32)
10. Jesus Christ the Mediator
11. The Incarnation as Prime Example of the Action of God's Grace
12. The Role of the Holy Spirit
13. Baptism and Original Sin
14. The Mysteries of Christ's Mediatorial Work (48-49) and Justification (50-55)
15. The Holy Spirit (56) and the Church (57-60)
16. Problems About Heavenly and Earthly Divisions of the Church
17. Forgiveness of Sins in the Church
18. Faith and Works
19. Almsgiving and Forgiveness
20. Spiritual Almsgiving
21. Problems of Casuistry
22. The Two Causes of Sin
23. The Reality of the Resurrection
24. The Solution to Present Spiritual Enigmas to Be Awaited in the Life of the World To Come
25. Predestination and the Justice of God
26. The Triumph of God's Sovereign Good Will
27. Limits of God's Plan for Human Salvation
28. The Destiny of Man
29. "The Last Things"
30. The Principles of Christian Living: Faith and Hope
31. Love
32. The End of All the Law
33. Conclusion
CHAPTER I. The Occasion and Purpose of this "Manual"
1. I cannot say, my dearest son Laurence, how much your learning pleases me, and how much I desire that you should be wise--though not one of those of whom it is said: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputant of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"1 Rather, you should be one of those of whom it is written, "The multitude of the wise is the health of the world"2; and also you should be the kind of man the apostle wishes those men to be to whom he said,3 "I would have you be wise in goodness and simple in evil."4
2. Human wisdom consists in piety. This you have in the book of the saintly Job, for there he writes that Wisdom herself said to man, "Behold, piety is wisdom."5 If, then, you ask what kind of piety she was speaking of, you will find it more distinctly designated by the Greek term qeosebeia, literally, "the service of God." The Greek has still another word for "piety," εὐσέβεια, which also signifies "proper service." This too refers chiefly to the service of God. But no term is better than θεοσέβεια, which clearly expresses the idea of the man's service of God as the source of human wisdom.
When you ask me to be brief, you do not expect me to speak of great issues in a few sentences, do you? Is not this rather what you desire: a brief summary or a short treatise on the proper mode of worshipping serving God?
3. If I should answer, "God should be worshipped in faith, hope, love," you would doubtless reply that this was shorter than you wished, and might then beg for a brief explication of what each of these three means: What should be believed, what should be hoped for, and what should be loved? If I should answer these questions, you would then have everything you asked for in your letter. If you have kept a copy of it, you can easily refer to it. If not, recall your questions as I discuss them.
4. It is your desire, as you wrote, to have from me a book, a sort of enchiridion,6 as it might be called--something to have "at hand"--that deals with your questions. What is to be sought after above all else? What, in view of the divers heresies, is to be avoided above all else? How far does reason support religion; or what happens to reason when the issues involved concern faith alone; what is the beginning and end of our endeavor? What is the most comprehensive of all explanations? What is the certain and distinctive foundation of the catholic faith? You would have the answers to all these questions if you really understood what a man should believe, what he should hope for, and what he ought to love. For these are the chief things--indeed, the only things--to seek for in religion. He who turns away from them is either a complete stranger to the name of Christ or else he is a heretic. Things that arise in sensory experience, or that are analyzed by the intellect, may be demonstrated by the reason. But in matters that pass beyond the scope of the physical senses, which we have not settled by our own understanding, and cannot--here we must believe, without hesitation, the witness of those men by whom the Scriptures (rightly called divine) were composed, men who were divinely aided in their senses and their minds to see and even to foresee the things about which they testify.
5. But, as this faith, which works by love,7 begins to penetrate the soul, it tends, through the vital power of goodness, to change into sight, so that the holy and perfect in heart catch glimpses of that ineffable beauty whose full vision is our highest happiness. Here, then, surely, is the answer to your question about the beginning and the end of our endeavor. We begin in faith, we are perfected in sight.8 This likewise is the most comprehensive of all explanations. As for the certain and distinctive foundation of the catholic faith, it is Christ. "For other foundation," said the apostle, "can no man lay save that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus."9 Nor should it be denied that this is the distinctive basis of the catholic faith, just because it appears that it is common to us and to certain heretics as well. For if we think carefully about the meaning of Christ, we shall see that among some of the heretics who wish to be called Christians, the name of Christ is held in honor, but the reality itself is not among them. To make all this plain would take too long--because we would then have to review all the heresies that have been, the ones that now exist, and those which could exist under the label "Christian," and we would have to show that what we have said of all is true of each of them. Such a discussion would take so many volumes as to make it seem endless.10
6. You have asked for an enchiridion, something you could carry around, not just baggage for your bookshelf. Therefore we may return to these three ways in which, as we said, God should be served: faith, hope, love. It is easy to say what one ought to believe, what to hope for, and what to love. But to defend our doctrines against the calumnies of those who think differently is a more difficult and detailed task. If one is to have this wisdom, it is not enough just to put an enchiridion in the hand. It is also necessary that a great zeal be kindled in the heart.
CHAPTER II. The Creed and the Lord's Prayer as Guides to the Interpretation of the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love
7. Let us begin, for example, with the Symbol11 and the Lord's Prayer. What is shorter to hear or to read? What is more easily memorized? Since through sin the human race stood grievously burdened by great misery and in deep need of mercy, a prophet, preaching of the time of God's grace, said, "And it shall be that all who invoke the Lord's name will be saved."12 Thus, we have the Lord's Prayer. Later, the apostle, when he wished to commend this same grace, remembered this prophetic testimony and promptly added, "But how shall they invoke him in whom they have not believed?"13 Thus, we have the Symbol. In these two we have the three theological virtues working together: faith believes; hope and love pray. Yet without faith nothing else is possible; thus faith prays too. This, then, is the meaning of the saying, "How shall they invoke him in whom they have not believed?"
8. Now, is it possible to hope for what we do not believe in? We can, of course, believe in something that we do not hope for. Who among the faithful does not believe in the punishment of the impious? Yet he does not hope for it, and whoever believes that such a punishment is threatening him and draws back in horror from it is more rightly said to fear than to hope. A poet, distinguishing between these two feelings, said,
"Let those who dread be allowed to hope,"14
but another poet, and a better one, did not put it rightly:
"Here, if I could have hoped for (i.e., foreseen)
such a grievous blow..." 15
Indeed, some grammarians use this as an example of inaccurate language and comment, "He said 'to hope' when he should have said 'to fear.'"
Therefore faith may refer to evil things as well as to good, since we believe in both the good and evil. Yet faith is good, not evil. Moreover, faith refers to things past and present and future. For we believe that Christ died; this is a past event. We believe that he sitteth at the Father's right hand; this is present. We believe that he will come as our judge; this is future. Again, faith has to do with our own affairs and with those of others. For everyone believes, both about himself and other persons--and about things as well--that at some time he began to exist and that he has not existed forever. Thus, not only about men, but even about angels, we believe many things that have a bearing on religion.
But hope deals only with good things, and only with those which lie in the future, and which pertain to the man who cherishes the hope. Since this is so, faith must be distinguished from hope: they are different terms and likewise different concepts. Yet faith and hope have this in common: they refer to what is not seen, whether this unseen is believed in or hoped for. Thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is used by the enlightened defenders of the catholic rule of faith, faith is said to be "the conviction of things not seen."16 However, when a man maintains that neither words nor witnesses nor even arguments, but only the evidence of present experience, determine his faith, he still ought not to be called absurd or told, "You have seen; therefore you have not believed." For it does not follow that unless a thing is not seen it cannot be believed. Still it is better for us to use the term "faith," as we are taught in "the sacred eloquence,"17 to refer to things not seen. And as for hope, the apostle says: "Hope that is seen is not hope. For if a man sees a thing, why does he hope for it? If, however, we hope for what we do not see, we then wait for it in patience."18 When, therefore, our good is believed to be future, this is the same thing as hoping for it.
What, then, shall I say of love, without which faith can do nothing? There can be no true hope without love. Indeed, as the apostle James says, "Even the demons believe and tremble."19
Yet they neither hope nor love. Instead, believing as we do that what we hope for and love is coming to pass, they tremble. Therefore, the apostle Paul approves and commends the faith that works by love and that cannot exist without hope. Thus it is that love is not without hope, hope is not without love, and neither hope nor love are without faith.
CHAPTER III. God the Creator of All; and the Goodness of All Creation
9. Wherefore, when it is asked what we ought to believe in matters of religion, the answer is not to be sought in the exploration of the nature of things rerum natura, after the manner of those whom the Greeks called "physicists."20 Nor should we be dismayed if Christians are ignorant about the properties and the number of the basic elements of nature, or about the motion, order, and deviations of the stars, the map of the heavens, the kinds and nature of animals, plants, stones, springs, rivers, and mountains; about the divisions of space and time, about the signs of impending storms, and the myriad other things which these "physicists" have come to understand, or think they have. For even these men, gifted with such superior insight, with their ardor in study and their abundant leisure, exploring some of these matters by human conjecture and others through historical inquiry, have not yet learned everything there is to know. For that matter, many of the things they are so proud to have discovered are more often matters of opinion than of verified knowledge.
For the Christian, it is enough to believe that the cause of all created things, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator, who is the one and the true God.21 Further, the Christian believes that nothing exists save God himself and what comes from him; and he believes that God is triune, i.e., the Father, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father, but one and the same Spirit of the Father and the Son.
10. By this Trinity, supremely and equally and immutably good, were all things created. But they were not created supremely, equally, nor immutably good. Still, each single created thing is good, and taken as a whole they are very good, because together they constitute a universe of admirable beauty.
11. In this universe, even what is called evil, when it is rightly ordered and kept in its place, commends the good more eminently, since good things yield greater pleasure and praise when compared to the bad things. For the Omnipotent God, whom even the heathen acknowledge as the Supreme Power over all, would not allow any evil in his works, unless in his omnipotence and goodness, as the Supreme Good, he is able to bring forth good out of evil. What, after all, is anything we call evil except the privation of good? In animal bodies, for instance, sickness and wounds are nothing but the privation of health. When a cure is effected, the evils which were present (i.e., the sickness and the wounds) do not retreat and go elsewhere. Rather, they simply do not exist any more. For such evil is not a substance; the wound or the disease is a defect of the bodily substance which, as a substance, is good. Evil, then, is an accident, i.e., a privation of that good which is called health. Thus, whatever defects there are in a soul are privations of a natural good. When a cure takes place, they are not transferred elsewhere but, since they are no longer present in the state of health, they no longer exist at all.22
CHAPTER IV. The Problem of Evil
12. All of nature, therefore, is good, since the Creator of all nature is supremely good. But nature is not supremely and immutably good as is the Creator of it. Thus the good in created things can be diminished and augmented. For good to be diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished, something must remain of its original nature as long as it exists at all. For no matter what kind or however insignificant a thing may be, the good which is its "nature" cannot be destroyed without the thing itself being destroyed. There is good reason, therefore, to praise an uncorrupted thing, and if it were indeed an incorruptible thing which could not be destroyed, it would doubtless be all the more worthy of praise. When, however, a thing is corrupted, its corruption is an evil because it is, by just so much, a privation of the good. Where there is no privation of the good, there is no evil. Where there is evil, there is a corresponding diminution of the good. As long, then, as a thing is being corrupted, there is good in it of which it is being deprived; and in this process, if something of its being remains that cannot be further corrupted, this will then be an incorruptible entity natura incorruptibilis, and to this great good it will have come through the process of corruption. But even if the corruption is not arrested, it still does not cease having some good of which it cannot be further deprived. If, however, the corruption comes to be total and entire, there is no good left either, because it is no longer an entity at all. Wherefore corruption cannot consume the good without also consuming the thing itself. Every actual entity natura is therefore good; a greater good if it cannot be corrupted, a lesser good if it can be. Yet only the foolish and unknowing can deny that it is still good even when corrupted. Whenever a thing is consumed by corruption, not even the corruption remains, for it is nothing in itself, having no subsistent being in which to exist.
13. From this it follows that there is nothing to be called evil if there is nothing good. A good that wholly lacks an evil aspect is entirely good. Where there is some evil in a thing, its good is defective or defectible. Thus there can be no evil where there is no good. This leads us to a surprising conclusion: that, since every being, in so far as it is a being, is good, if we then say that a defective thing is bad, it would seem to mean that we are saying that what is evil is good, that only what is good is ever evil and that there is no evil apart from something good. This is because every actual entity is good omnis natura bonum est. Nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity. Therefore, there can be nothing evil except something good. Absurd as this sounds, nevertheless the logical connections of the argument compel us to it as inevitable. At the same time, we must take warning lest we incur the prophetic judgment which reads: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil: who call darkness light and light darkness; who call the bitter sweet and the sweet bitter."23 Moreover the Lord himself saith: "An evil man brings forth evil out of the evil treasure of his heart."24 What, then, is an evil man but an evil entity natura mala, since man is an entity? Now, if a man is something good because he is an entity, what, then, is a bad man except an evil good? When, however, we distinguish between these two concepts, we find that the bad man is not bad because he is a man, nor is he good because he is wicked. Rather, he is a good entity in so far as he is a man, evil in so far as he is wicked. Therefore, if anyone says that simply to be a man is evil, or that to be a wicked man is good, he rightly falls under the prophetic judgment: "Woe to him who calls evil good and good evil." For this amounts to finding fault with God's work, because man is an entity of God's creation. It also means that we are praising the defects in this particular man because he is a wicked person. Thus, every entity, even if it is a defective one, in so far as it is an entity, is good. In so far as it is defective, it is evil.
14. Actually, then, in these two contraries we call evil and good, the rule of the logicians fails to apply.25 No weather is both dark and bright at the same time; no food or drink is both sweet and sour at the same time; no body is, at the same time and place, both white and black, nor deformed and well-formed at the same time. This principle is found to apply in almost all disjunctions: two contraries cannot coexist in a single thing. Nevertheless, while no one maintains that good and evil are not contraries, they can not only coexist, but the evil cannot exist at all without the good, or in a thing that is not a good. On the other hand, the good can exist without evil. For a man or an angel could exist and yet not be wicked, whereas there cannot be wickedness except in a man or an angel. It is good to be a man, good to be an angel; but evil to be wicked. These two contraries are thus coexistent, so that if there were no good in what is evil, then the evil simply could not be, since it can have no mode in which to exist, nor any source from which corruption springs, unless it be something corruptible. Unless this something is good, it cannot be corrupted, because corruption is nothing more than the deprivation of the good. Evils, therefore, have their source in the good, and unless they are parasitic on something good, they are not anything at all. There is no other source whence an evil thing can come to be. If this is the case, then, in so far as a thing is an entity, it is unquestionably good. If it is an incorruptible entity, it is a great good. But even if it is a corruptible entity, it still has no mode of existence except as an aspect of something that is good. Only by corrupting something good can corruption inflict injury.
15. But when we say that evil has its source in the good, do not suppose that this denies our Lord's judgment: "A good tree cannot bear evil fruit."26 This cannot be, even as the Truth himself declareth: "Men do not gather grapes from thorns," since thorns cannot bear grapes. Nevertheless, from good soil we can see both vines and thorns spring up. Likewise, just as a bad tree does not grow good fruit, so also an evil will does not produce good deeds. From a human nature, which is good in itself, there can spring forth either a good or an evil will. There was no other place from whence evil could have arisen in the first place except from the nature--good in itself--of an angel or a man. This is what our Lord himself most clearly shows in the passage about the trees and the fruits, for he said: "Make the tree good and the fruits will be good, or make the tree bad and its fruits will be bad."27 This is warning enough that bad fruit cannot grow on a good tree nor good fruit on a bad one. Yet from that same earth to which he was referring, both sorts of trees can grow.
CHAPTER V. The Kinds and Degrees of Error
16. This being the case, when that verse of Maro's gives us pleasure,
"Happy is he who can understand the causes of things,"28
it still does not follow that our felicity depends upon our knowing the causes of the great physical processes in the world, which are hidden in the secret maze of nature,
"Whence earthquakes, whose force swells the sea to flood,
so that they burst their bounds and then subside again,"29
and other such things as this.
But we ought to know the causes of good and evil in things, at least as far as men may do so in this life, filled as it is with errors and distress, in order to avoid these errors and distresses. We must always aim at that true felicity wherein misery does not distract, nor error mislead. If it is a good thing to understand the causes of physical motion, there is nothing of greater concern in these matters which we ought to understand than our own health. But when we are in ignorance of such things, we seek out a physician, who has seen how the secrets of heaven and earth still remain hidden from us, and what patience there must be in unknowing.
17. Although we should beware of error wherever possible, not only in great matters but in small ones as well, it is impossible not to be ignorant of many things. Yet it does not follow that one falls into error out of ignorance alone. If someone thinks he knows what he does not know, if he approves as true what is actually false, this then is error, in the proper sense of the term. Obviously, much depends on the question involved in the error, for in one and the same question one naturally prefers the instructed to the ignorant, the expert to the blunderer, and this with good reason. In a complex issue, however, as when one man knows one thing and another man knows something else, if the former knowledge is more useful and the latter is less useful or even harmful, who in this latter case would not prefer ignorance? There are some things, after all, that it is better not to know than to know. Likewise, there is sometimes profit in error--but on a journey, not in morals.30 This sort of thing happened to us once, when we mistook the way at a crossroads and did not go by the place where an armed gang of Donatists lay in wait to ambush us. We finally arrived at the place where we were going, but only by a roundabout way, and upon learning of the ambush, we were glad to have erred and gave thanks to God for our error. Who would doubt, in such a situation, that the erring traveler is better off than the unerring brigand? This perhaps explains the meaning of our finest poet, when he speaks for an unhappy lover:
"When I saw her I was undone,
and fatal error swept me away,"31
for there is such a thing as a fortunate mistake which not only does no harm but actually does some good.
But now for a more careful consideration of the truth in this business. To err means nothing more than to judge as true what is in fact false, and as false what is true. It means to be certain about the uncertain, uncertain about the certain, whether it be certainly true or certainly false. This sort of error in the mind is deforming and improper, since the fitting and proper thing would be to be able to say, in speech or judgment: "Yes, yes. No, no."32 Actually, the wretched lives we lead come partly from this: that sometimes if they are not to be entirely lost, error is unavoidable. It is different in that higher life where Truth itself is the life of our souls, where none deceives and none is deceived. In this life men deceive and are deceived, and are actually worse off when they deceive by lying than when they are deceived by believing lies. Yet our rational mind shrinks from falsehood, and naturally avoids error as much as it can, so that even a deceiver is unwilling to be deceived by somebody else.33 For the liar thinks he does not deceive himself and that he deceives only those who believe him. Indeed, he does not err in his lying, if he himself knows what the truth is. But he is deceived in this, that he supposes that his lie does no harm to himself, when actually every sin harms the one who commits it more that it does the one who suffers it.
CHAPTER VI. The Problem of Lying
18. Here a most difficult and complex issue arises which I once dealt with in a large book, in response to the urgent question whether it is ever the duty of a righteous man to lie.34 Some go so far as to contend that in cases concerning the worship of God or even the nature of God, it is sometimes a good and pious deed to speak falsely. It seems to me, however, that every lie is a sin, albeit there is a great difference depending on the intention and the topic of the lie. He does not sin as much who lies in the attempt to be helpful as the man who lies as a part of a deliberate wickedness. Nor does one who, by lying, sets a traveler on the wrong road do as much harm as one who, by a deceitful lie, perverts the way of a life. Obviously, no one should be adjudged a liar who speaks falsely what he sincerely supposes is the truth, since in his case he does not deceive but rather is deceived. Likewise, a man is not a liar, though he could be charged with rashness, when he incautiously accepts as true what is false. On the other hand, however, that man is a liar in his own conscience who speaks the truth supposing that it is a falsehood. For as far as his soul is concerned, since he did not say what he believed, he did not tell the truth, even though the truth did come out in what he said. Nor is a man to be cleared of the charge of lying whose mouth unknowingly speaks the truth while his conscious intention is to lie. If we do not consider the things spoken of, but only the intentions of the one speaking, he is the better man who unknowingly speaks falsely--because he judges his statement to be true--than the one who unknowingly speaks the truth while in his heart he is attempting to deceive. For the first man does not have one intention in his heart and another in his word, whereas the other, whatever be the facts in his statement, still "has one thought locked in his heart, another ready on his tongue,"35 which is the very essence of lying. But when we do consider the things spoken of, it makes a great difference in what respect one is deceived or lies. To be deceived is a lesser evil than to lie, as far as a man's intentions are concerned. But it is far more tolerable that a man should lie about things not connected with religion than for one to be deceived in matters where faith and knowledge are prerequisite to the proper service of God. To illustrate what I mean by examples: If one man lies by saying that a dead man is alive, and another man, being deceived, believes that Christ will die again after some extended future period--would it not be incomparably better to lie in the first case than to be deceived in the second? And would it not be a lesser evil to lead someone into the former error than to be led by someone into the latter?
19. In some things, then, we are deceived in great matters; in others, small. In some of them no harm is done; in others, even good results. It is a great evil for a man to be deceived so as not to believe what would lead him to life eternal, or what would lead to eternal death. But it is a small evil to be deceived by crediting a falsehood as the truth in a matter where one brings on himself some temporal setback which can then be turned to good use by being borne in faithful patience--as for example, when someone judges a man to be good who is actually bad, and consequently has to suffer evil on his account. Or, take the man who believes a bad man to be good, yet suffers no harm at his hand. He is not badly deceived nor would the prophetic condemnation fall on him: "Woe to those who call evil good." For we should understand that this saying refers to the things in which men are evil and not to the men themselves. Hence, he who calls adultery a good thing may be rightly accused by the prophetic word. But if he calls a man good supposing him to be chaste and not knowing that he is an adulterer, such a man is not deceived in his doctrine of good and evil, but only as to the secrets of human conduct. He calls the man good on the basis of what he supposed him to be, and this is undoubtedly a good thing. Moreover, he calls adultery bad and chastity good. But he calls this particular man good in ignorance of the fact that he is an adulterer and not chaste. In similar fashion, if one escapes an injury through an error, as I mentioned before happened to me on that journey, there is even something good that accrues to a man through his mistakes. But when I say that in such a case a man may be deceived without suffering harm therefrom, or even may gain some benefit thereby, I am not saying that error is not a bad thing, nor that it is a positively good thing. I speak only of the evil which did not happen or the good which did happen, through the error, which was not caused by the error itself but which came out of it. Error, in itself and by itself, whether a great error in great matters or a small error in small affairs, is always a bad thing. For who, except in error, denies that it is bad to approve the false as though it were the truth, or to disapprove the truth as though it were falsehood, or to hold what is certain as if it were uncertain, or what is uncertain as if it were certain? It is one thing to judge a man good who is actually bad--this is an error. It is quite another thing not to suffer harm from something evil if the wicked man whom we supposed to be good actually does nothing harmful to us. It is one thing to suppose that this particular road is the right one when it is not. It is quite another thing that, from this error--which is a bad thing--something good actually turns out, such as being saved from the onslaught of wicked men.
CHAPTER VII. Disputed Questions about the Limits of Knowledge and Certainty in Various Matters
20. I do not rightly know whether errors of this sort should be called sins--when one thinks well of a wicked man, not knowing what his character really is, or when, instead of our physical perception, similar perceptions occur which we experience in the spirit (such as the illusion of the apostle Peter when he thought he was seeing a vision but was actually being liberated from fetters and chains by the angel36 ) Or in perceptual illusions when we think something is smooth which is actually rough, or something sweet which is bitter, something fragrant which is putrid, that a noise is thunder when it is actually a wagon passing by, when one takes this man for that, or when two men look alike, as happens in the case of twins--whence our poet speaks of "a pleasant error for parents"37 --I say I do not know whether these and other such errors should be called sins.
Nor am I at the moment trying to deal with that knottiest of questions which baffled the most acute men of the Academy, whether a wise man ought ever to affirm anything positively lest he be involved in the error of affirming as true what may be false, since all questions, as they assert, are either mysterious occulta or uncertain. On these points I wrote three books in the early stages of my conversion because my further progress was being blocked by objections like this which stood at the very threshold of my understanding.38 It was necessary to overcome the despair of being unable to attain to truth, which is what their arguments seemed to lead one to. Among them every error is deemed a sin, and this can be warded off only by a systematic suspension of positive assent. Indeed they say it is an error if someone believes in what is uncertain. For them, however, nothing is certain in human experience, because of the deceitful likeness of falsehood to the truth, so that even if what appears to be true turns out to be true indeed, they will still dispute it with the most acute and even shameless arguments.
Among us, on the other hand, "the righteous man lives by faith."39 Now, if you take away positive affirmation,40 you take away faith, for without positive affirmation nothing is believed. And there are truths about things unseen, and unless they are believed, we cannot attain to the happy life, which is nothing less than life eternal. It is a question whether we ought to argue with those who profess themselves ignorant not only about the eternity yet to come but also about their present existence, for they the Academics even argue that they do not know what they cannot help knowing. For no one can "not know" that he himself is alive. If he is not alive, he cannot "not know" about it or anything else at all, because either to know or to "not know" implies a living subject. But, in such a case, by not positively affirming that they are alive, the skeptics ward off the appearance of error in themselves, yet they do make errors simply by showing themselves alive; one cannot err who is not alive. That we live is therefore not only true, but it is altogether certain as well. And there are many things that are thus true and certain concerning which, if we withhold positive assent, this ought not to be regarded as a higher wisdom but actually a sort of dementia.
21. In those things which do not concern our attainment of the Kingdom of God, it does not matter whether they are believed in or not, or whether they are true or are supposed to be true or false. To err in such questions, to mistake one thing for another, is not to be judged as a sin or, if it is, as a small and light one. In sum, whatever kind or how much of an error these miscues may be, it does not involve the way that leads to God, which is the faith of Christ which works through love. This way of life was not abandoned in that error so dear to parents concerning the twins.41 Nor did the apostle Peter deviate from this way when he thought he saw a vision and so mistook one thing for something else. In his case, he did not discover the actual situation until after the angel, by whom he was freed, had departed from him. Nor did the patriarch Jacob deviate from this way when he believed that his son, who was in fact alive, had been devoured by a wild beast. We may err through false impressions of this kind, with our faith in God still safe, nor do we thus leave the way that leads us to him. Nevertheless, such mistakes, even if they are not sins, must still be listed among the evils of this life, which is so readily subject to vanity that we judge the false for true, reject the true for the false, and hold as uncertain what is actually certain. For even if these mistakes do not affect that faith by which we move forward to affirm truth and eternal beatitude, yet they are not unrelated to the misery in which we still exist. Actually, of course, we would be deceived in nothing at all, either in our souls or our physical senses, if we were already enjoying that true and perfected happiness.
22. Every lie, then, must be called a sin, because every man ought to speak what is in his heart--not only when he himself knows the truth, but even when he errs and is deceived, as a man may be. This is so whether it be true or is only supposed to be true when it is not. But a man who lies says the opposite of what is in his heart, with the deliberate intent to deceive. Now clearly, language, in its proper function, was developed not as a means whereby men could deceive one another, but as a medium through which a man could communicate his thought to others. Wherefore to use language in order to deceive, and not as it was designed to be used, is a sin.
Nor should we suppose that there is any such thing as a lie that is not a sin, just because we suppose that we can sometimes help somebody by lying. For we could also do this by stealing, as when a secret theft from a rich man who does not feel the loss is openly given to a pauper who greatly appreciates the gain. Yet no one would say that such a theft was not a sin. Or again, we could also "help" by committing adultery, if someone appeared to be dying for love if we would not consent to her desire and who, if she lived, might be purified by repentance. But it cannot be denied that such an adultery would be a sin. If, then, we hold chastity in such high regard, wherein has truth offended us so that although chastity must not be violated by adultery, even for the sake of some other good, yet truth may be violated by lying? That men have made progress toward the good, when they will not lie save for the sake of human values, is not to be denied. But what is rightly praised in such a forward step, and perhaps even rewarded, is their good will and not their deceit. The deceit may be pardoned, but certainly ought not to be praised, especially among the heirs of the New Covenant to whom it has been said, "Let your speech be yes, yes; no, no: for what is more than this comes from evil."42 Yet because of what this evil does, never ceasing to subvert this mortality of ours, even the joint heirs of Christ themselves pray, "Forgive us our debts."43
CHAPTER VIII. The Plight of Man After the Fall
23. With this much said, within the necessary brevity of this kind of treatise, as to what we need to know about the causes of good and evil--enough to lead us in the way toward the Kingdom, where there will be life without death, truth without error, happiness without anxiety--we ought not to doubt in any way that the cause of everything pertaining to our good is nothing other than the bountiful goodness of God himself. The cause of evil is the defection of the will of a being who is mutably good from the Good which is immutable. This happened first in the case of the angels and, afterward, that of man.
24. This was the primal lapse of the rational creature, that is, his first privation of the good. In train of this there crept in, even without his willing it, ignorance of the right things to do and also an appetite for noxious things. And these brought along with them, as their companions, error and misery. When these two evils are felt to be imminent, the soul's motion in flight from them is called fear. Moreover, as the soul's appetites are satisfied by things harmful or at least inane--and as it fails to recognize the error of its ways--it falls victim to unwholesome pleasures or may even be exhilarated by vain joys. From these tainted springs of action--moved by the lash of appetite rather than a feeling of plenty--there flows out every kind of misery which is now the lot of rational natures.
25. Yet such a nature, even in its evil state, could not lose its appetite for blessedness. There are the evils that both men and angels have in common, for whose wickedness God hath condemned them in simple justice. But man has a unique penalty as well: he is also punished by the death of the body. God had indeed threatened man with death as penalty if he should sin. He endowed him with freedom of the will in order that he might rule him by rational command and deter him by the threat of death. He even placed him in the happiness of paradise in a sheltered nook of life in umbra vitae where, by being a good steward of righteousness, he would rise to better things.
26. From this state, after he had sinned, man was banished, and through his sin he subjected his descendants to the punishment of sin and damnation, for he had radically corrupted them, in himself, by his sinning. As a consequence of this, all those descended from him and his wife (who had prompted him to sin and who was condemned along with him at the same time)--all those born through carnal lust, on whom the same penalty is visited as for disobedience--all these entered into the inheritance of original sin. Through this involvement they were led, through divers errors and sufferings (along with the rebel angels, their corruptors and possessors and companions), to that final stage of punishment without end. "Thus by one man, sin entered into the world and death through sin; and thus death came upon all men, since all men have sinned."44 By "the world" in this passage the apostle is, of course, referring to the whole human race.
27. This, then, was the situation: the whole mass of the human race stood condemned, lying ruined and wallowing in evil, being plunged from evil into evil and, having joined causes with the angels who had sinned, it was paying the fully deserved penalty for impious desertion. Certainly the anger of God rests, in full justice, on the deeds that the wicked do freely in blind and unbridled lust; and it is manifest in whatever penalties they are called on to suffer, both openly and secretly. Yet the Creator's goodness does not cease to sustain life and vitality even in the evil angels, for were this sustenance withdrawn, they would simply cease to exist. As for mankind, although born of a corrupted and condemned stock, he still retains the power to form and animate his seed, to direct his members in their temporal order, to enliven his senses in their spatial relations, and to provide bodily nourishment. For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist. And if he had willed that there should be no reformation in the case of men, as there is none for the wicked angels, would it not have been just if the nature that deserted God and, through the evil use of his powers, trampled and transgressed the precepts of his Creator, which could have been easily kept--the same creature who stubbornly turned away from His Light and violated the image of the Creator in himself, who had in the evil use of his free will broken away from the wholesome discipline of God's law--would it not have been just if such a being had been abandoned by God wholly and forever and laid under the everlasting punishment which he deserved? Clearly God would have done this if he were only just and not also merciful and if he had not willed to show far more striking evidence of his mercy by pardoning some who were unworthy of it.
CHAPTER IX. The Replacement of the Fallen Angels By Elect Men (28-30); The Necessity of Grace (30-32)
28. While some of the angels deserted God in impious pride and were cast into the lowest darkness from the brightness of their heavenly home, the remaining number of the angels persevered in eternal bliss and holiness with God. For these faithful angels were not descended from a single angel, lapsed and damned. Hence, the original evil did not bind them in the fetters of inherited guilt, nor did it hand the whole company over to a deserved punishment, as is the human lot. Instead, when he who became the devil first rose in rebellion with his impious company and was then with them prostrated, the rest of the angels stood fast in pious obedience to the Lord and so received what the others had not had--a sure knowledge of their everlasting security in his unfailing steadfastness.
29. Thus it pleased God, Creator and Governor of the universe, that since the whole multitude of the angels had not perished in this desertion of him, those who had perished would remain forever in perdition, but those who had remained loyal through the revolt should go on rejoicing in the certain knowledge of the bliss forever theirs. From the other part of the rational creation--that is, mankind--although it had perished as a whole through sins and punishments, both original and personal, God had determined that a portion of it would be restored and would fill up the loss which that diabolical disaster had caused in the angelic society. For this is the promise to the saints at the resurrection, that they shall be equal to the angels of God.45
Thus the heavenly Jerusalem, our mother and the commonwealth of God, shall not be defrauded of her full quota of citizens, but perhaps will rule over an even larger number. We know neither the number of holy men nor of the filthy demons, whose places are to be filled by the sons of the holy mother, who seemed barren in the earth, but whose sons will abide time without end in the peace the demons lost. But the number of those citizens, whether those who now belong or those who will in the future, is known to the mind of the Maker, "who calleth into existence things which are not, as though they were,"46 and "ordereth all things in measure and number and weight."47
30. But now, can that part of the human race to whom God hath promised deliverance and a place in the eternal Kingdom be restored through the merits of their own works? Of course not! For what good works could a lost soul do except as he had been rescued from his lostness? Could he do this by the determination of his free will? Of course not! For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself and his will at the same time. For as a man who kills himself is still alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his own life--so also sin which arises from the action of the free will turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed. "By whom a man is overcome, to this one he then is bound as slave."48 This is clearly the judgment of the apostle Peter. And since it is true, I ask you what kind of liberty can one have who is bound as a slave except the liberty that loves to sin?
He serves freely who freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin is free to sin. But thereafter he will not be free to do right unless he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant of righteousness. This, then, is true liberty: the joy that comes in doing what is right. At the same time, it is also devoted service in obedience to righteous precept.
But how would a man, bound and sold, get back his liberty to do good, unless he could regain it from Him whose voice saith, "If the Son shall make you free, then you will be free indeed"49? But before this process begins in man, could anyone glory in his good works as if they were acts of his free will, when he is not yet free to act rightly? He could do this only if, puffed up in proud vanity, he were merely boasting. This attitude is what the apostle was reproving when he said, "By grace you have been saved by faith."50
31. And lest men should arrogate to themselves saving faith as their own work and not understand it as a divine gift, the same apostle who says somewhere else that he had "obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy"51 makes here an additional comment: "And this is not of yourselves, rather it is a gift of God--not because of works either, lest any man should boast."52 But then, lest it be supposed that the faithful are lacking in good works, he added further, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God hath prepared beforehand for us to walk in them."53
We are then truly free when God ordereth our lives, that is, formeth and createth us not as men--this he hath already done--but also as good men, which he is now doing by his grace, that we may indeed be new creatures in Christ Jesus.54 Accordingly, the prayer: "Create in me a clean heart, O God."55 This does not mean, as far as the natural human heart is concerned, that God hath not already created this.
32. Once again, lest anyone glory, if not in his own works, at least in the determination of his free will, as if some merit had originated from him and as if the freedom to do good works had been bestowed on him as a kind of reward, let him hear the same herald of grace, announcing: "For it is God who is at work in you both to will and to do according to his good will."56 And, in another place: "It is not therefore a matter of man's willing, or of his running, but of God's showing mercy."57 Still, it is obvious that a man who is old enough to exercise his reason cannot believe, hope, or love unless he wills it, nor could he run for the prize of his high calling in God without a decision of his will. In what sense, therefore, is it "not a matter of human willing or running but of God's showing mercy," unless it be that "the will itself is prepared by the Lord," even as it is written?58 This saying, therefore, that "it is not a matter of human willing or running but of God's showing mercy," means that the action is from both, that is to say, from the will of man and from the mercy of God. Thus we accept the dictum, "It is not a matter of human willing or running but of God's showing mercy," as if it meant, "The will of man is not sufficient by itself unless there is also the mercy of God." By the same token, the mercy of God is not sufficient by itself unless there is also the will of man. But if we say rightly that "it is not a matter of human willing or running but of God's showing mercy," because the will of man alone is not enough, why, then, is not the contrary rightly said, "It is not a matter of God's showing mercy but of a man's willing," since the mercy of God by itself alone is not enough? Now, actually, no Christian would dare to say, "It is not a matter of God's showing mercy but of man's willing," lest he explicitly contradict the apostle. The conclusion remains, therefore, that this saying: "Not man's willing or running but God's showing mercy," is to be understood to mean that the whole process is credited to God, who both prepareth the will to receive divine aid and aideth the will which has been thus prepared.59
For a man's good will comes before many other gifts from God, but not all of them. One of the gifts it does not antedate is--just itself! Thus in the Sacred Eloquence we read both, "His mercy goes before me,"60 and also, "His mercy shall follow me."61 It predisposes a man before he wills, to prompt his willing. It follows the act of willing, lest one's will be frustrated. Otherwise, why are we admonished to pray for our enemies,62 who are plainly not now willing to live piously, unless it be that God is even now at work in them and in their wills?63 Or again, why are we admonished to ask in order to receive, unless it be that He who grants us what we will is he through whom it comes to pass that we will? We pray for enemies, therefore, that the mercy of God should go before them, as it goes before us; we pray for ourselves that his mercy shall follow us.
CHAPTER X. Jesus Christ the Mediator
33. Thus it was that the human race was bound in a just doom and all men were children of wrath. Of this wrath it is written: "For all our days are wasted; we are ruined in thy wrath; our years seem like a spider's web."64 Likewise Job spoke of this wrath: "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble."65 And even the Lord Jesus said of it: "He that believes in the Son has life everlasting, but he that believes not does not have life. Instead, the wrath of God abides in him."66 He does not say, "It will come," but, "It now abides." Indeed every man is born into this state. Wherefore the apostle says, "For we too were by nature children of wrath even as the others."67 Since men are in this state of wrath through original sin--a condition made still graver and more pernicious as they compounded more and worse sins with it--a Mediator was required; that is to say, a Reconciler who by offering a unique sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the Law and the Prophets were shadows, should allay that wrath. Thus the apostle says, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, even more now being reconciled by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him."68 However, when God is said to be wrathful, this does not signify any such perturbation in him as there is in the soul of a wrathful man. His verdict, which is always just, takes the name "wrath" as a term borrowed from the language of human feelings. This, then, is the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord--that we are reconciled to God through the Mediator and receive the Holy Spirit so that we may be changed from enemies into sons, "for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."69
34. It would take too long to say all that would be truly worthy of this Mediator. Indeed, men cannot speak properly of such matters. For who can unfold in cogent enough fashion this statement, that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,"70 so that we should then believe in "the only Son of God the Father Almighty, born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin." Yet it is indeed true that the Word was made flesh, the flesh being assumed by the Divinity, not the Divinity being changed into flesh. Of course, by the term "flesh" we ought here to understand "man," an expression in which the part signifies the whole, just as it is said, "Since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified,"71 which is to say, no man shall be justified. Yet certainly we must say that in that assumption nothing was lacking that belongs to human nature.
But it was a nature entirely free from the bonds of all sin. It was not a nature born of both sexes with fleshly desires, with the burden of sin, the guilt of which is washed away in regeneration. Instead, it was the kind of nature that would be fittingly born of a virgin, conceived by His mother's faith and not her fleshly desires. Now if in his being born, her virginity had been destroyed, he would not then have been born of a virgin. It would then be false (which is unthinkable) for the whole Church to confess him "born of the Virgin Mary." This is the Church which, imitating his mother, daily gives birth to his members yet remains virgin. Read, if you please, my letter on the virginity of Saint Mary written to that illustrious man, Volusianus, whom I name with honor and affection.72
35. Christ Jesus, Son of God, is thus both God and man. He was God before all ages; he is man in this age of ours. He is God because he is the Word of God, for "the Word was God."73 Yet he is man also, since in the unity of his Person a rational soul and body is joined to the Word.
Accordingly, in so far as he is God, he and the Father are one. Yet in so far as he is man, the Father is greater than he. Since he was God's only Son--not by grace but by nature--to the end that he might indeed be the fullness of all grace, he was also made Son of Man--and yet he was in the one nature as well as in the other, one Christ. "For being in the form of God, he judged it not a violation to be what he was by nature, the equal of God. Yet he emptied himself, taking on the form of a servant,"74 yet neither losing nor diminishing the form of God.75 Thus he was made less and remained equal, and both these in a unity as we said before. But he is one of these because he is the Word; the other, because he was a man. As the Word, he is the equal of the Father; as a man, he is less. He is the one Son of God, and at the same time Son of Man; the one Son of Man, and at the same time God's Son. These are not two sons of God, one God and the other man, but one Son of God--God without origin, man with a definite origin--our Lord Jesus Christ.
CHAPTER XI. The Incarnation as Prime Example of the Action of God's Grace
36. In this the grace of God is supremely manifest, commended in grand and visible fashion; for what had the human nature in the man Christ merited, that it, and no other, should be assumed into the unity of the Person of the only Son of God? What good will, what zealous strivings, what good works preceded this assumption by which that particular man deserved to become one Person with God? Was he a man before the union, and was this singular grace given him as to one particularly deserving before God? Of course not! For, from the moment he began to be a man, that man began to be nothing other than God's Son, the only Son, and this because the Word of God assuming him became flesh, yet still assuredly remained God. Just as every man is a personal unity--that is, a unity of rational soul and flesh--so also is Christ a personal unity: Word and man.
Why should there be such great glory to a human nature--and this undoubtedly an act of grace, no merit preceding unless it be that those who consider such a question faithfully and soberly might have here a clear manifestation of God's great and sole grace, and this in order that they might understand how they themselves are justified from their sins by the selfsame grace which made it so that the man Christ had no power to sin? Thus indeed the angel hailed his mother when announcing to her the future birth: "Hail," he said, "full of grace." And shortly thereafter, "You have found favor with God."76 And this was said of her, that she was full of grace, since she was to be mother of her Lord, indeed the Lord of all. Yet, concerning Christ himself, when the Evangelist John said, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," he added, "and we beheld his glory, a glory as of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth."77 When he said, "The Word was made flesh," this means, "Full of grace." When he also said, "The glory of the only begotten of the Father," this means, "Full of truth." Indeed it was Truth himself, God's only begotten Son--and, again, this not by grace but by nature--who, by grace, assumed human nature into such a personal unity that he himself became the Son of Man as well.
37. This same Jesus Christ, God's one and only Son our Lord, was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Now obviously the Holy Spirit is God's gift, a gift that is itself equal to the Giver; wherefore the Holy Spirit is God also, not inferior to the Father and the Son. Now what does this mean, that Christ's birth in respect to his human nature was of the Holy Spirit, save that this was itself also a work of grace?
For when the Virgin asked of the angel the manner by which what he announced would come to pass (since she had known no man), the angel answered: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you; therefore the Holy One which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God."78 And when Joseph wished to put her away, suspecting adultery (since he knew she was not pregnant by him), he received a similar answer from the angel: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit"79 --that is, "What you suspect is from another man is of the Holy Spirit."
CHAPTER XII. The Role of the Holy Spirit
38. Are we, then, to say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Christ's human nature, so that as God the Father generated the Word, so the Holy Spirit generated the human nature, and that from both natures Christ came to be one, Son of God the Father as the Word, Son of the Holy Spirit as man? Do we suppose that the Holy Spirit is his Father through begetting him of the Virgin Mary? Who would dare to say such a thing? There is no need to show by argument how many absurd consequences such a notion has, when it is so absurd in itself that no believer's ear can bear to hear it. Actually, then, as we confess our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God from God yet born as man of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, there is in each nature (in both the divine and the human) the only Son of God the Father Almighty, from whom proceeds the Holy Spirit.
How, then, do we say that Christ is born of the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit did not beget him? Is it because he made him? This might be, since through our Lord Jesus Christ--in the form of God--all things were made. Yet in so far as he is man, he himself was made, even as the apostle says: "He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."80 But since that creature which the Virgin conceived and bore, though it was related to the Person of the Son alone, was made by the whole Trinity--for the works of the Trinity are not separable--why is the Holy Spirit named as the One who made it? Is it, perhaps, that when any One of the Three is named in connection with some divine action, the whole Trinity is to be understood as involved in that action? This is true and can be shown by examples, but we should not dwell too long on this kind of solution.
For what still concerns us is how it can be said, "Born of the Holy Spirit," when he is in no wise the Son of the Holy Spirit? Now, just because God made fecit this world, one could not say that the world is the son of God, or that it is "born" of God. Rather, one says it was "made" or "created" or "founded" or "established" by him, or however else one might like to speak of it. So, then, when we confess, "Born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary," the sense in which he is not the Son of the Holy Spirit and yet is the son of the Virgin Mary, when he was born both of him and of her, is difficult to explain. But there is no doubt as to the fact that he was not born from him as Father as he was born of her as mother.
39. Consequently we should not grant that whatever is born of something should therefore be called the son of that thing. Let us pass over the fact that a son is "born" of a man in a different sense than a hair is, or a louse, or a maw worm--none of these is a son. Let us pass over these things, since they are an unfitting analogy in so great a matter. Yet it is certain that those who are born of water and of the Holy Spirit would not properly be called sons of the water by anyone. But it does make sense to call them sons of God the Father and of Mother Church. Thus, therefore, the one born of the Holy Spirit is the son of God the Father, not of the Holy Spirit.
What we said about the hair and the other things has this much relevance, that it reminds us that not everything which is "born" of something is said to be "son" to him from which it is "born." Likewise, it does not follow that those who are called sons of someone are always said to have been born of him, since there are some who are adopted. Even those who are called "sons of Gehenna" are not born of it, but have been destined for it, just as the sons of the Kingdom are destined for that.
40. Wherefore, since a thing may be "born" of something else, yet not in the fashion of a "son," and conversely, since not everyone who is called son is born of him whose son he is called--this is the very mode in which Christ was "born" of the Holy Spirit (yet not as a son), and of the Virgin Mary as a son--this suggests to us the grace of God by which a certain human person, no merit whatever preceding, at the very outset of his existence, was joined to the Word of God in such a unity of person that the selfsame one who is Son of Man should be Son of God, and the one who is Son of God should be Son of Man. Thus, in his assumption of human nature, grace came to be natural to that nature, allowing no power to sin. This is why grace is signified by the Holy Spirit, because he himself is so perfectly God that he is also called God's Gift. Still, to speak adequately of this--even if one could--would call for a very long discussion.
CHAPTER XIII. Baptism and Original Sin
41. Since he was begotten and conceived in no pleasure of carnal appetite--and therefore bore no trace of original sin--he was, by the grace of God (operating in a marvelous and an ineffable manner), joined and united in a personal unity with the only-begotten Word of the Father, a Son not by grace but by nature. And although he himself committed no sin, yet because of "the likeness of sinful flesh"81 in which he came, he was himself called sin and was made a sacrifice for the washing away of sins.
Indeed, under the old law, sacrifices for sins were often called sins.82 Yet he of whom those sacrifices were mere shadows was himself actually made sin. Thus, when the apostle said, "For Christ's sake, we beseech you to be reconciled to God," he straightway added, "Him, who knew no sin, he made to be sin for us that we might be made to be the righteousness of God in him."83 He does not say, as we read in some defective copies, "He who knew no sin did sin for us," as if Christ himself committed sin for our sake. Rather, he says, "He Christ who knew no sin, he God made to be sin for us." The God to whom we are to be reconciled hath thus made him the sacrifice for sin by which we may be reconciled.
He himself is therefore sin as we ourselves are righteousness--not our own but God's, not in ourselves but in him. Just as he was sin--not his own but ours, rooted not in himself but in us--so he showed forth through the likeness of sinful flesh, in which he was crucified, that since sin was not in him he could then, so to say, die to sin by dying in the flesh, which was "the likeness of sin." And since he had never lived in the old manner of sinning, he might, in his resurrection, signify the new life which is ours, which is springing to life anew from the old death in which we had been dead to sin.
42. This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us. All who attain to this grace die thereby to sin--as he himself is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh, that is, "in the likeness of sin"--and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body.
43. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man--since no one should be barred from baptism--just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth.
44. But even these are frequently said to die to sin, when without doubt they die not to one but to many sins, and to all the sins which they have themselves already committed by thought, word, and deed. Actually, by the use of the singular number the plural number is often signified, as the poet said,
"And they fill the belly with the armed warrior,"84
although they did this with many warriors. And in our own Scriptures we read: "Pray therefore to the Lord that he may take from us the serpent."85 It does not say "serpents," as it might, for they were suffering from many serpents. There are, moreover, innumerable other such examples.
Yet, when the original sin is signified by the use of the plural number, as we say when infants are baptized "unto the remission of sins," instead of saying "unto the remission of sin," then we have the converse expression in which the singular is expressed by the plural number. Thus in the Gospel, it is said of Herod's death, "For they are dead who sought the child's life"86; it does not say, "He is dead." And in Exodus: "They made," Moses says, "to themselves gods of gold," when they had made one calf. And of this calf, they said: "These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought you out of the land of Egypt,"87 here also putting the plural for the singular.
45. Still, even in that one sin--which "entered into the world by one man and so spread to all men,"88 and on account of which infants are baptized--one can recognize a plurality of sins, if that single sin is divided, so to say, into its separate elements. For there is pride in it, since man preferred to be under his own rule rather than the rule of God; and sacrilege too, for man did not acknowledge God; and murder, since he cast himself down to death; and spiritual fornication, for the integrity of the human mind was corrupted by the seduction of the serpent; and theft, since the forbidden fruit was snatched; and avarice, since he hungered for more than should have sufficed for him--and whatever other sins that could be discovered in the diligent analysis of that one sin.
46. It is also said--and not without support--that infants are involved in the sins of their parents, not only of the first pair, but even of their own, of whom they were born. Indeed, that divine judgment, "I shall visit the sins of the fathers on their children,"89 definitely applies to them before they come into the New Covenant by regeneration. This Covenant was foretold by Ezekiel when he said that the sons should not bear their fathers' sins, nor the proverb any longer apply in Israel, "Our fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge."90
This is why each one of them must be born again, so that he may thereby be absolved of whatever sin was in him at the time of birth. For the sins committed by evil-doing after birth can be healed by repentance--as, indeed, we see it happen even after baptism. For the new birth regeneratio would not have been instituted except for the fact that the first birth generatio was tainted--and to such a degree that one born of even a lawful wedlock said, "I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother nourish me in her womb."91 Nor did he say "in iniquity" or "in sin," as he might have quite correctly; rather, he preferred to say "iniquities" and "sins," because, as I explained above, there are so many sins in that one sin--which has passed into all men, and which was so great that human nature was changed and by it brought under the necessity of death--and also because there are other sins, such as those of parents, which, even if they cannot change our nature in the same way, still involve the children in guilt, unless the gracious grace and mercy of God interpose.
47. But, in the matter of the sins of one's other parents, those who stand as one's forebears from Adam down to one's own parents, a question might well be raised: whether a man at birth is involved in the evil deeds of all his forebears, and their multiplied original sins, so that the later in time he is born, the worse estate he is born in; or whether, on this very account, God threatens to visit the sins of the parents as far as--but no farther than--the third and fourth generations, because in his mercy he will not continue his wrath beyond that. It is not his purpose that those not given the grace of regeneration be crushed under too heavy a burden in their eternal damnation, as they would be if they were bound to bear, as original guilt, all the sins of their ancestors from the beginning of the human race, and to pay the due penalty for them. Whether yet another solution to so difficult a problem might or might not be found by a more diligent search and interpretation of Holy Scripture, I dare not rashly affirm.
CHAPTER XIV. The Mysteries of Christ's Mediatorial Work (48-49) and Justification (50-55)
48. That one sin, however, committed in a setting of such great happiness, was itself so great that by it, in one man, the whole human race was originally and, so to say, radically condemned. It cannot be pardoned and washed away except through "the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"92 who alone could be born in such a way as not to need to be reborn.
49. They were not reborn, those who were baptized by John's baptism, by which Christ himself was baptized.93 Rather, they were prepared by the ministry of this forerunner, who said, "Prepare a way for the Lord,"94 for Him in whom alone they could be reborn.
For his baptism is not with water alone, as John's was, but with the Holy Spirit as well. Thus, whoever believes in Christ is reborn by that same Spirit, of whom Christ also was born, needing not to be reborn. This is the reason for the Voice of the Father spoken over him at his baptism, "Today have I begotten thee,"95 which pointed not to that particular day on which he was baptized, but to that "day" of changeless eternity, in order to show us that this Man belonged to the personal Unity of the Only Begotten. For a day that neither begins with the close of yesterday nor ends with the beginning of tomorrow is indeed an eternal "today."
Therefore, he chose to be baptized in water by John, not thereby to wash away any sin of his own, but to manifest his great humility. Indeed, baptism found nothing in him to wash away, just as death found nothing to punish. Hence, it was in authentic justice, and not by violent power, that the devil was overcome and conquered: for, as he had most unjustly slain Him who was in no way deserving of death, he also did most justly lose those whom he had justly held in bondage as punishment for their sins. Wherefore, He took upon himself both baptism and death, not out of a piteous necessity but through his own free act of showing mercy--as part of a definite plan whereby One might take away the sin of the world, just as one man had brought sin into the world, that is, the whole human race.
50. There is a difference, however. The first man brought sin into the world, whereas this One took away not only that one sin but also all the others which he found added to it. Hence, the apostle says, "And the gift of grace is not like the effect of the one that sinned: for the judgment on that one trespass was condemnation; but the gift of grace is for many offenses, and brings justification."96 Now it is clear that the one sin originally inherited, even if it were the only one involved, makes men liable to condemnation. Yet grace justifies a man for many offenses, both the sin which he originally inherited in common with all the others and also the multitude of sins which he has committed on his own.
51. However, when he the apostle says, shortly after, "Therefore, as the offense of one man led all men to condemnation, so also the righteousness of one man leads all men to the life of justification,"97 he indicates sufficiently that everyone born of Adam is subject to damnation, and no one, unless reborn of Christ, is free from such a damnation.
52. And after this discussion of punishment through one man and grace through the Other, as he deemed sufficient for that part of the epistle, the apostle passes on to speak of the great mystery of holy baptism in the cross of Christ, and to do this so that we may understand nothing other in the baptism of Christ than the likeness of the death of Christ. The death of Christ crucified is nothing other than the likeness of the forgiveness of sins--so that in the very same sense in which the death is real, so also is the forgiveness of our sins real, and in the same sense in which his resurrection is real, so also in us is there authentic justification.
He asks: "What, then, shall we say? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"98 --for he had previously said, "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."99 And therefore he himself raised the question whether, because of the abundance of grace that follows sin, one should then continue in sin. But he answers, "God forbid!" and adds, "How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"100 Then, to show that we are dead to sin, "Do you not know that all we who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"101
If, therefore, the fact that we are baptized into the death of Christ shows that we are dead to sin, then certainly infants who are baptized in Christ die to sin, since they are baptized into his own death. For there is no exception in the saying, "All we who are baptized into Christ Jesus are baptized into his death." And the effect of this is to show that we are dead to sin.
Yet what sin do infants die to in being reborn except that which they inherit in being born? What follows in the epistle also pertains to this: "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death; that, as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in the newness of life. For if we have been united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also united with him in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we are dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more; death has no more dominion over him. For the death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives unto God. So also, reckon yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive unto God through Christ Jesus."102
Now, he had set out to prove that we should not go on sinning, in order that thereby grace might abound, and had said, "If we have died to sin, how, then, shall we go on living in it?" And then to show that we were dead to sin, he had added, "Know you not, that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Thus he concludes the passage as he began it. Indeed, he introduced the death of Christ in order to say that even he died to sin. To what sin, save that of the flesh in which he existed, not as sinner, but in "the likeness of sin" and which was, therefore, called by the name of sin? Thus, to those baptized into the death of Christ--into which not only adults but infants as well are baptized--he says, "So also you should reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus."
53. Whatever was done, therefore, in the crucifixion of Christ, his burial, his resurrection on the third day, his ascension into heaven, his being seated at the Father's right hand--all these things were done thus, that they might not only signify their mystical meanings but also serve as a model for the Christian life which we lead here on the earth. Thus, of his crucifixion it was said, "And they that are Jesus Christ's have crucified their own flesh, with the passions and lusts thereof"103; and of his burial, "For we are buried with Christ by baptism into death"; of his resurrection, "Since Christ is raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk with him in newness of life"; of his ascension and session at the Father's right hand: "But if you have risen again with Christ, seek the things which are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God."104
54. Now what we believe concerning Christ's future actions, since we confess that he will come again from heaven to judge the living and the dead, does not pertain to this life of ours as we live it here on earth, because it belongs not to his deeds already done, but to what he will do at the close of the age. To this the apostle refers and goes on to add, "When Christ, who is your life, shall appear, you shall then also appear with him in glory."105
55. There are two ways to interpret the affirmation that he "shall judge the living and the dead." On the one hand, we may understand by "the living" those who are not yet dead but who will be found living in the flesh when he comes; and we may understand by "the dead" those who have left the body, or who shall have left it before his coming. Or, on the other hand, "the living" may signify "the righteous," and "the dead" may signify "the unrighteous"--since the righteous are to be judged as well as the unrighteous. For sometimes the judgment of God is passed upon the evil, as in the word, "But they who have done evil shall come forth to the resurrection of judgment."106 And sometimes it is passed upon the good, as in the word, "Save me, O God, by thy name, and judge me in thy strength."107 Indeed, it is by the judgment of God that the distinction between good and evil is made, to the end that, being freed from evil and not destroyed with the evildoers, the good may be set apart at his right hand.108 This is why the psalmist cried, "Judge me, O God," and, as if to explain what he had said, "and defend my cause against an unholy nation."109
CHAPTER XV. The Holy Spirit (56) and the Church (57-60)
56. Now, when we have spoken of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God our Lord, in the brevity befitting our confession of faith, we go on to affirm that we believe also in the Holy Spirit, as completing the Trinity which is God; and after that we call to mind our faith "in holy Church." By this we are given to understand that the rational creation belonging to the free Jerusalem ought to be mentioned in a subordinate order to the Creator, that is, the supreme Trinity. For, of course, all that has been said about the man Christ Jesus refers to the unity of the Person of the Only Begotten.
Thus, the right order of the Creed demanded110 that the Church be made subordinate to the Trinity, as a house is subordinate to him who dwells in it, the temple to God, and the city to its founder. By the Church here we are to understand the whole Church, not just the part that journeys here on earth from rising of the sun to its setting, praising the name of the Lord111 and singing a new song of deliverance from its old captivity, but also that part which, in heaven, has always, from creation, held fast to God, and which never experienced the evils of a fall. This part, composed of the holy angels, remains in blessedness, and it gives help, even as it ought, to the other part still on pilgrimage. For both parts together will make one eternal consort, as even now they are one in the bond of love--the whole instituted for the proper worship of the one God.112 Wherefore, neither the whole Church nor any part of it wishes to be worshiped as God nor to be God to anyone belonging to the temple of God--the temple that is being built up of "the gods" whom the uncreated God created.113 Consequently, if the Holy Spirit were creature and not Creator, he would obviously be a rational creature, for this is the highest of the levels of creation. But in this case he would not be set in the rule of faith before the Church, since he would then belong to the Church, in that part of it which is in heaven. He would not have a temple, for he himself would be a temple. Yet, in fact, he hath a temple of which the apostle speaks, "Know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have from God?"114 In another place, he says of this body, "Know you not that your bodies are members of Christ?"115 How, then, is he not God who has a temple? Or how can he be less than Christ whose members are his temple? It is not that he has one temple and God another temple, since the same apostle says: "Know you not that you are the temple of God," and then, as if to prove his point, added, "and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"
God therefore dwelleth in his temple, not the Holy Spirit only, but also Father and Son, who saith of his body--in which he standeth as Head of the Church on earth "that in all things he may be pre-eminent"116 --"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again."117 Therefore, the temple of God---that is, of the supreme Trinity as a whole--is holy Church, the Universal Church in heaven and on the earth.
57. But what can we affirm about that part of the Church in heaven, save that in it no evil is to be found, nor any apostates, nor will there be again, since that time when "God did not spare the sinning angels"--as the apostle Peter writes--"but casting them out, he delivered them into the prisons of darkness in hell, to be reserved for the sentence in the Day of Judgment"118?
58. Still, how is life ordered in that most blessed and supernal society? What differences are there in rank among the angels, so that while all are called by the general title "angels"--as we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "But to which of the angels said he at any time, 'Sit at my right hand'?"119; this expression clearly signifies that all are angels without exception--yet there are archangels there as well? Again, should these archangels be called "powers" virtutes, so that the verse, "Praise him all his angels; praise him, all his powers,"120 would mean the same thing as, "Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his archangels"? Or, what distinctions are implied by the four designations by which the apostle seems to encompass the entire heavenly society, "Be they thrones or dominions, principalities, or powers"121? Let them answer these questions who can, if they can indeed prove their answers. For myself, I confess to ignorance of such matters. I am not even certain about another question: whether the sun and moon and all the stars belong to that same heavenly society--although they seem to be nothing more than luminous bodies, with neither perception nor understanding.
59. Furthermore, who can explain the kind of bodies in which the angels appeared to men, so that they were not only visible, but tangible as well? And, again, how do they, not by impact of physical stimulus but by spiritual force, bring certain visions, not to the physical eyes but to the spiritual eyes of the mind, or speak something, not to the ears, as from outside us, but actually from within the human soul, since they are present within it too? For, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: "And the angel that spoke in me, said to me..."122 He does not say, "Spoke to me" but "Spoke in me." How do they appear to men in sleep, and communicate through dreams, as we read in the Gospel: "Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying..."123? By these various modes of presentation, the angels seem to indicate that they do not have tangible bodies. Yet this raises a very difficult question: How, then, did the patriarchs wash the angels' feet?124 How, also, did Jacob wrestle with the angel in such a tangible fashion?125
To ask such questions as these, and to guess at the answers as one can, is not a useless exercise in speculation, so long as the discussion is moderate and one avoids the mistake of those who think they know what they do not know.
CHAPTER XVI. Problems About Heavenly and Earthly Divisions of the Church
60. It is more important to be able to discern and tell when Satan transforms himself as an angel of light, lest by this deception he should seduce us into harmful acts. For, when he deceives the corporeal senses, and does not thereby turn the mind from that true and right judgment by which one leads the life of faith, there is no danger to religion. Or if, feigning himself to be good, he does or says things that would fit the character of the good angels, even if then we believe him good, the error is neither dangerous nor fatal to the Christian faith. But when, by these alien wiles, he begins to lead us into his own ways, then great vigilance is required to recognize him and not follow after. But how few men are there who are able to avoid his deadly stratagems, unless God guides and preserves them! Yet the very difficulty of this business is useful in this respect: it shows that no man should rest his hopes in himself, nor one man in another, but all who are God's should cast their hopes on him. And that this latter is obviously the best course for us no pious man would deny.
61. This part of the Church, therefore, which is composed of the holy angels and powers of God will become known to us as it really is only when, at the end of the age, we are joined to it, to possess, together with it, eternal bliss. But the other part which, separated from this heavenly company, wanders through the earth is better known to us because we are in it, and because it is composed of men like ourselves. This is the part that has been redeemed from all sin by the blood of the sinless Mediator, and its cry is: "If God be for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all...."126 Now Christ did not die for the angels. But still, what was done for man by his death for man's redemption and his deliverance from evil was done for the angels also, because by it the enmity caused by sin between men and the angels is removed and friendship restored. Moreover, this redemption of mankind serves to repair the ruins left by the angelic apostasy.
62. Of course, the holy angels, taught by God--in the eternal contemplation of whose truth they are blessed--know how many of the human race are required to fill up the full census of that commonwealth. This is why the apostle says "that all things are restored to unity in Christ, both those in heaven and those on the earth in him."127 The part in heaven is indeed restored when the number lost from the angelic apostasy are replaced from the ranks of mankind. The part on earth is restored when those men predestined to eternal life are redeemed from the old state of corruption.
Thus by the single sacrifice, of which the many victims of the law were only shadows, the heavenly part is set at peace with the earthly part and the earthly reconciled to the heavenly. Wherefore, as the same apostle says: "For it pleased God that all plenitude of being should dwell in him and by him to reconcile all things to himself, making peace with them by the blood of his cross, whether those things on earth or those in heaven."128
63. This peace, as it is written, "passes all understanding." It cannot be known by us until we have entered into it. For how is the heavenly realm set at peace, save together with us; that is, by concord with us? For in that realm there is always peace, both among the whole company of rational creatures and between them and their Creator. This is the peace that, as it is said, "passes all understanding." But obviously this means our understanding, not that of those who always see the Father's face. For no matter how great our understanding may be, "we know in part, and we see in a glass darkly."129 But when we shall have become "equal to God's angels,"130 then, even as they do, "we shall see face to face."131 And we shall then have as great amity toward them as they have toward us; for we shall come to love them as much as we are loved by them.
In this way their peace will become known to us, since ours will be like theirs in kind and measure--nor will it then surpass our understanding. But the peace of God, which is there, will still doubtless surpass our understanding and theirs as well. For, of course, in so far as a rational creature is blessed, this blessedness comes, not from himself, but from God. Hence, it follows that it is better to interpret the passage, "The peace of God which passes all understanding," so that from the word "all" not even the understanding of the holy angels should be excepted. Only God's understanding is excepted; for, of course, his peace does not surpass his own understanding.
CHAPTER XVII. Forgiveness of Sins in the Church
64. The angels are in concord with us even now, when our sins are forgiven. Therefore, in the order of the Creed, after the reference to "holy Church" is placed the reference to "forgiveness of sins." For it is by this that the part of the Church on earth stands; it is by this that "what was lost and is found again"132 is not lost again. Of course, the gift of baptism is an exception. It is an antidote given us against original sin, so that what is contracted by birth is removed by the new birth--though it also takes away actual sins as well, whether of heart, word, or deed. But except for this great remission--the beginning point of a man's renewal, in which all guilt, inherited and acquired, is washed away--the rest of life, from the age of accountability (and no matter how vigorously we progress in righteousness), is not without the need for the forgiveness of sins. This is the case because the sons of God, as long as they live this mortal life, are in a conflict with death. And although it is truly said of them, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,"133 yet even as they are being led by the Spirit of God and, as sons of God, advance toward God, they are also being led by their own spirits so that, weighed down by the corruptible body and influenced by certain human feelings, they thus fall away from themselves and commit sin. But it matters how much. Although every crime is a sin, not every sin is a crime. Thus we can say of the life of holy men even while they live in this mortality, that they are found without crime. "But if we say that we have no sin," as the great apostle says, "we deceive even ourselves, and the truth is not in us."134
65. Nevertheless, no matter how great our crimes, their forgiveness should never be despaired of in holy Church for those who truly repent, each according to the measure of his sin. And, in the act of repentance,135 where a crime has been committed of such gravity as also to cut off the sinner from the body of Christ, we should not consider the measure of time as much as the measure of sorrow. For, "a contrite and humbled heart God will not despise."136
Still, since the sorrow of one heart is mostly hid from another, and does not come to notice through words and other such signs--even when it is plain to Him of whom it is said, "My groaning is not hid from thee"137 --times of repentance have been rightly established by those set over the churches, that satisfaction may also be made in the Church, in which the sins are forgiven. For, of course, outside her they are not forgiven. For she alone has received the pledge of the Holy Spirit,138 without whom there is no forgiveness of sins. Those forgiven thus obtain life everlasting.
66. Now the remission of sins has chiefly to do with the future judgment. In this life the Scripture saying holds true: "A heavy yoke is on the sons of Adam, from the day they come forth from their mother's womb till the day of their burial in the mother of us all."139 Thus we see even infants, after the washing of regeneration, tortured by divers evil afflictions. This helps us to understand that the whole import of the sacraments of salvation has to do more with the hope of future goods than with the retaining or attaining of present goods.
Indeed, many sins seem to be ignored and go unpunished; but their punishment is reserved for the future. It is not in vain that the day when the Judge of the living and the dead shall come is rightly called the Day of Judgment. Just so, on the other hand, some sins are punished here, and, if they are forgiven, will certainly bring no harm upon us in the future age. Hence, referring to certain temporal punishments, which are visited upon sinners in this life, the apostle, speaking to those whose sins are blotted out and not reserved to the end, says: "For if we judge ourselves truly we should not be judged by the Lord. But when we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we may not be condemned along with this world."140
CHAPTER XVIII. 141 Faith and Works
67. There are some, indeed, who believe that those who do not abandon the name of Christ, and who are baptized in his laver in the Church, who are not cut off from it by schism or heresy, who may then live in sins however great, not washing them away by repentance, nor redeeming them by alms--and who obstinately persevere in them to life's last day--even these will still be saved, "though as by fire." They believe that such people will be punished by fire, prolonged in proportion to their sins, but still not eternal.
But those who believe thus, and still are Catholics, are deceived, as it seems to me, by a kind of merely human benevolence. For the divine Scripture, when consulted, answers differently. Moreover, I have written a book about this question, entitled Faith and Works,142 in which, with God's help, I have shown as best I could that, according to Holy Scripture, the faith that saves is the faith that the apostle Paul adequately describes when he says, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but the faith which works through love."143 But if faith works evil and not good, then without doubt, according to the apostle James "it is dead in itself."144 He then goes on to say, "If a man says he has faith, yet has not works, can his faith be enough to save him?"145
Now, if the wicked man were to be saved by fire on account of his faith only, and if this is the way the statement of the blessed Paul should be understood--"But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire"146 --then faith without works would be sufficient to salvation. But then what the apostle James said would be false. And also false would be another statement of the same Paul himself: "Do not err," he says; "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the unmanly, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God."147 Now, if those who persist in such crimes as these are nevertheless saved by their faith in Christ, would they not then be in the Kingdom of God?
68. But, since these fully plain and most pertinent apostolic testimonies cannot be false, that one obscure saying about those who build on "the foundation, which is Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay, and stubble"148 --for it is about these it is said that they will be saved as by fire, not perishing on account of the saving worth of their foundation--such a statement must be interpreted so that it does not contradict these fully plain testimonies.
In fact, wood and hay and stubble may be understood, without absurdity, to signify such an attachment to those worldly things--albeit legitimate in themselves--that one cannot suffer their loss without anguish in the soul. Now, when such anguish "burns," and Christ still holds his place as foundation in the heart--that is, if nothing is preferred to him and if the man whose anguish "burns" would still prefer to suffer loss of the things he greatly loves than to lose Christ--then one is saved, "by fire." But if, in time of testing, he should prefer to hold onto these temporal and worldly goods rather than to Christ, he does not have him as foundation--because he has put "things" in the first place--whereas in a building nothing comes before the foundations.
Now, this fire, of which the apostle speaks, should be understood as one through which both kinds of men must pass: that is, the man who builds with gold, silver, and precious stones on this foundation and also the man who builds with wood, hay, and stubble. For, when he had spoken of this, he added: "The fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abides which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burns up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."149 Therefore the fire will test the work, not only of the one, but of both.
The fire is a sort of trial of affliction, concerning which it is clearly written elsewhere: "The furnace tries the potter's vessels and the trial of affliction tests righteous men."150 This kind of fire works in the span of this life, just as the apostle said, as it affects the two different kinds of faithful men. There is, for example, the man who "thinks of the things of God, how he may please God." Such a man builds on Christ the foundation, with gold, silver, and precious stones. The other man "thinks about the things of the world, how he may please his wife"151; that is, he builds upon the same foundation with wood, hay, and stubble. The work of the former is not burned up, since he has not loved those things whose loss brings anguish. But the work of the latter is burned up, since things are not lost without anguish when they have been loved with a possessive love. But because, in this second situation, he prefers to suffer the loss of these things rather than losing Christ, and does not desert Christ from fear of losing such things--even though he may grieve over his loss--"he is saved," indeed, "yet so as by fire." He "burns" with grief, for the things he has loved and lost, but this does not subvert nor consume him, secured as he is by the stability and the indestructibility of his foundation.
69. It is not incredible that something like this should occur after this life, whether or not it is a matter for fruitful inquiry. It may be discovered or remain hidden whether some of the faithful are sooner or later to be saved by a sort of purgatorial fire, in proportion as they have loved the goods that perish, and in proportion to their attachment to them. However, this does not apply to those of whom it was said, "They shall not possess the Kingdom of God,"152 unless their crimes are remitted through due repentance. I say "due repentance" to signify that they must not be barren of almsgiving, on which divine Scripture lays so much stress that our Lord tells us in advance that, on the bare basis of fruitfulness in alms, he will impute merit to those on his right hand; and, on the same basis of unfruitfulness, demerit to those on his left--when he shall say to the former, "Come, blessed of my Father, receive the Kingdom," but to the latter, "Depart into everlasting fire."153
CHAPTER XIX. Almsgiving and Forgiveness
70. We must beware, however, lest anyone suppose that unspeakable crimes such as they commit who "will not possess the Kingdom of God" can be perpetrated daily and then daily redeemed by almsgiving. Of course, life must be changed for the better, and alms should be offered as propitiation to God for our past sins. But he is not somehow to be bought off, as if we always had a license to commit crimes with impunity. For, "he has given no man a license to sin"154 --although, in his mercy, he does blot out sins already committed, if due satisfaction for them is not neglected.
71. For the passing and trivial sins of every day, from which no life is free, the everyday prayer of the faithful makes satisfaction. For they can say, "Our Father who art in heaven," who have already been reborn to such a Father "by water and the Spirit."155 This prayer completely blots out our minor and everyday sins. It also blots out those sins which once made the life of the faithful wicked, but from which, now that they have changed for the better by repentance, they have departed. The condition of this is that just as they truly say, "Forgive us our debts" (since there is no lack of debts to be forgiven), so also they truly say, "As we forgive our debtors"156; that is, if what is said is also done. For to forgive a man who seeks forgiveness is indeed to give alms.
72. Accordingly, what our Lord says--"Give alms and, behold, all things are clean to you"157 --applies to all useful acts of mercy. Therefore, not only the man who gives food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, hospitality to the wayfarer, refuge to the fugitive; who visits the sick and the prisoner, redeems the captive, bears the burdens of the weak, leads the blind, comforts the sorrowful, heals the sick, shows the errant the right way, gives advice to the perplexed, and does whatever is needful for the needy158 --not only does this man give alms, but the man who forgives the trespasser also gives alms as well. He is also a giver of alms who, by blows or other discipline, corrects and restrains those under his command, if at the same time he forgives from the heart the sin by which he has been wronged or offended, or prays that it be forgiven the offender. Such a man gives alms, not only in that he forgives and prays, but also in that he rebukes and administers corrective punishment, since in this he shows mercy.
Now, many benefits are bestowed on the unwilling, when their interests and not their preferences are consulted. And men frequently are found to be their own enemies, while those they suppose to be their enemies are their true friends. And then, by mistake, they return evil for good, when a Christian ought not to return evil even for evil. Thus, there are many kinds of alms, by which, when we do them, we are helped in obtaining forgiveness of our own sins.
73. But none of these alms is greater than the forgiveness from the heart of a sin committed against us by someone else. It is a smaller thing to wish well or even to do well to one who has done you no evil. It is far greater--a sort of magnificent goodness--to love your enemy, and always to wish him well and, as you can, do well to him who wishes you ill and who does you harm when he can. Thus one heeds God's command: "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute you."159
Such counsels are for the perfect sons of God. And although all the faithful should strive toward them and through prayer to God and earnest endeavor bring their souls up to this level, still so high a degree of goodness is not possible for so great a multitude as we believe are heard when, in prayer, they say, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." Accordingly, it cannot be doubted that the terms of this pledge are fulfilled if a man, not yet so perfect that he already loves his enemies, still forgives from the heart one who has sinned against him and who now asks his forgiveness. For he surely seeks forgiveness when he asks for it when he prays, saying, "As we forgive our debtors." For this means, "Forgive us our debts when we ask for forgiveness, as we also forgive our debtors when they ask for forgiveness."
74. Again, if one seeks forgiveness from a man against whom he sinned--moved by his sin to seek it--he should no longer be regarded as an enemy, and it should not now be as difficult to love him as it was when he was actively hostile.
Now, a man who does not forgive from the heart one who asks forgiveness and is repentant of his sins can in no way suppose that his own sins are forgiven by the Lord, since the Truth cannot lie, and what hearer and reader of the gospel has not noted who it was who said, "I am the Truth"160? It is, of course, the One who, when he was teaching the prayer, strongly emphasized this sentence which he put in it, saying: "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you your trespasses. But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offenses."161 He who is not awakened by such great thundering is not asleep, but dead. And yet such a word has power to awaken even the dead.
CHAPTER XX. Spiritual Almsgiving
75. Now, surely, those who live in gross wickedness and take no care to correct their lives and habits, who yet, amid their crimes and misdeeds, continue to multiply their alms, flatter themselves in vain with the Lord's words, "Give alms; and, behold, all things are clean to you." They do not understand how far this saying reaches. In order for them to understand, let them notice to whom it was that he said it. For this is the context of it in the Gospel: "As he was speaking, a certain Pharisee asked him to dine with him. And he went in and reclined at the table. And the Pharisee began to wonder and ask himself why He had not washed himself before dinner. But the Lord said to him: 'Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but within you are still full of extortion and wickedness. Foolish ones! Did not He who made the outside make the inside too? Nevertheless, give for alms what remains within; and, behold, all things are clean to you.'"162 Should we interpret this to mean that to the Pharisees, who had not the faith of Christ, all things are clean if only they give alms, as they deem it right to give them, even if they have not believed in him, nor been reborn of water and the Spirit? But all are unclean who are not made clean by the faith of Christ, of whom it is written, "Cleansing their hearts by faith."163 And as the apostle said, "But to them that are unclean and unbelieving nothing is clean; both their minds and consciences are unclean."164 How, then, should all things be clean to the Pharisees, even if they gave alms, but were not believers? Or, how could they be believers, if they were unwilling to believe in Christ and to be born again in his grace? And yet, what they heard is true: "Give alms; and behold, all things are clean to you."
76. He who would give alms as a set plan of his life should begin with himself and give them to himself. For almsgiving is a work of mercy, and the saying is most true: "Have mercy upon your own soul, pleasing God."165 The purpose of the new birth is that we should become pleasing to God, who is justly displeased with the sin we contracted in birth. This is the first almsgiving, which we give to ourselves--when through the mercy of a merciful God we come to inquire about our wretchedness and come to acknowledge the just verdict by which we were put in need of that mercy, of which the apostle says, "Judgment came by that one trespass to condemnation."166 And the same herald of grace then adds (in a word of thanksgiving for God's great love), "But God commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."167 Thus, when we come to a valid estimate of our wretchedness and begin to love God with the love he himself giveth us, we then begin to live piously and righteously.
But the Pharisees, while they gave as alms a tithing of even the least of their fruits, disregarded this "judgment and love of God." Therefore, they did not begin their almsgiving with themselves, nor did they, first of all, show mercy toward themselves. In reference to this right order of self-love, it was said, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."168
Therefore, when the Lord had reproved the Pharisees for washing themselves on the outside while inwardly they were still full of extortion and wickedness, he then admonished them also to give those alms which a man owes first to himself--to make clean the inner man: "However," he said, "give what remains as alms, and, behold, all things are clean to you." Then, to make plain the import of his admonition, which they had ignored, and to show them that he was not ignorant of their kind of almsgiving, he adds, "But woe to you, Pharisees"169 --as if to say, "I am advising you to give the kind of alms which shall make all things clean to you." "But woe to you, for you tithe mint and rue and every herb"--"I know these alms of yours and you need not think I am admonishing you to give them up"--"and then neglect justice and the love of God." "This kind of almsgiving would make you clean from all inward defilement, just as the bodies which you wash are made clean by you." For the word "all" here means both "inward" and "outward"--as elsewhere we read, "Make clean the inside, and the outside will become clean."170
But, lest it appear that he was rejecting the kind of alms we give of the earth's bounty, he adds, "These things you should do"--that is, pay heed to the judgment and love of God--and "not omit the others"--that is, alms done with the earth's bounty.
77. Therefore, let them not deceive themselves who suppose that by giving alms--however profusely, and whether of their fruits or money or anything else--they purchase impunity to continue in the enormity of their crimes and the grossness of their wickedness. For not only do they do such things, but they also love them so much that they would always choose to continue in them--if they could do so with impunity. "But he who loves iniquity hates his own soul."171 And he who hates his own soul is not merciful but cruel to it. For by loving it after the world's way he hates it according to God's way of judging. Therefore, if one really wished to give alms to himself, that all things might become clean to him, he would hate his soul after the world's way and love it according to God's way. No one, however, gives any alms at all unless he gives from the store of Him who needs not anything. "Accordingly," it is said, "His mercy shall go before me."172
CHAPTER XXI. Problems of Casuistry
78. What sins are trivial and what are grave, however, is not for human but for divine judgment to determine. For we see that, in respect of some sins, even the apostle, by pardoning them, has conceded this point. Such a case is seen in what the venerable Paul says to married folks: "Do not deprive one another, except by consent for a time to give yourselves to prayer, and then return together lest Satan tempt you at the point of self-control."173 One could consider that it is not a sin for a married couple to have intercourse, not only for the sake of procreating children--which is the good of marriage--but also for the sake of the carnal pleasure involved. Thus, those whose self-control is weak could avoid fornication, or adultery, and other kinds of impurity too shameful to name, into which their lust might drag them through Satan's tempting. Therefore one could, as I said, consider this not a sin, had the apostle not added, "But I say this as a concession, not as a rule." Who, then, denies that it is a sin when he agrees that apostolic authority for doing it is given only by "concession"?
Another such case is seen where he says, "Dare any of you, having a case against another, bring it to be judged before the unrighteous and not the saints?"174 And a bit later: "If, therefore, you have cases concerning worldly things," he says, "you appoint those who are contemptible in the Church's eyes. I say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not a wise man among you, who could judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law with brother, and that in the presence of unbelievers."175 And here it might be thought that it was not a sin to bring suit against a brother, and that the only sin consisted in wishing it judged outside the Church, if the apostle had not added immediately, "Now therefore the whole fault among you is that you have lawsuits with one another."176 Then, lest someone excuse himself on this point by saying that he had a just cause and was suffering injustice which he wished removed by judicial sentence, the apostle directly resists such thoughts and excuses by saying: "Why not rather suffer iniquity? Why not rather be defrauded?"177 Thus we are brought back to that saying of the Lord: "If anyone would take your tunic and contend in court with you, let go your cloak also."178 And in another place: "If a man takes away your goods, seek them not back."179 Thus, he forbids his own to go to court with other men in secular suits. And it is because of this teaching that the apostle says that this kind of action is "a fault." Still, when he allows such suits to be decided in the Church, brothers judging brothers, yet sternly forbids such a thing outside the Church, it is clear that some concession is being made here for the infirmities of the weak.
Because of these and similar sins--and of others even less than these, such as offenses in words and thoughts--and because, as the apostle James confesses, "we all offend in many things,"180 it behooves us to pray to the Lord daily and often, and say, "Forgive us our debts," and not lie about what follows this petition, "As we also forgive our debtors."
79. There are, however, some sins that could be deemed quite trifling if the Scriptures did not show that they are more serious than we think. For who would suppose that one saying to his brother, "You fool," is "in danger of hell-fire," if the Truth had not said it? Still, for the hurt he immediately supplied a medicine, adding the precept of brotherly reconciliation: "If, therefore, you are offering a gift at the altar, and remember there that your brother has something against you,"181 etc.
Or who would think how great a sin it is to observe days and months and years and seasons--as those people do who will or will not begin projects on certain days or in certain months or years, because they follow vain human doctrines and suppose that various seasons are lucky or unlucky--if we did not infer the magnitude of this evil from the apostle's fear, in saying to such men, "I fear for you, lest perhaps I have labored among you in vain"182?
80. To this one might add those sins, however grave and terrible, which, when they come to be habitual, are then believed to be trivial or no sins at all. And so far does this go that such sins are not only not kept secret, but are even proclaimed and published abroad--cases of which it is written, "The sinner is praised in the desires of his soul; and he that works iniquity is blessed."183
In the divine books such iniquity is called a "cry" (clamor). You have such a usage in the prophet Isaiah's reference to the evil vineyard: "I looked that he should perform justice, yet he did iniquity; not justice but a cry."184 So also is that passage in Genesis: "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is multiplied,"185 for among these people such crimes were not only unpunished, but were openly committed, as if sanctioned by law.
So also in our times so many evils, even if not like those of old, have come to be public customs that we not only do not dare excommunicate a layman; we do not dare degrade a clergyman for them. Thus, several years ago, when I was expounding the Epistle to the Galatians, where the apostle says, "I fear for you, lest perchance I have labored in vain among you," I was moved to exclaim: "Woe to the sins of men! We shrink from them only when we are not accustomed to them. As for those sins to which we are accustomed--although the blood of the Son of God was shed to wash them away--although they are so great that the Kingdom of God is wholly closed to them, yet, living with them often we come to tolerate them, and, tolerating them, we even practice some of them! But grant, O Lord, that we do not practice any of them which we could prohibit!" I shall someday know whether immoderate indignation moved me here to speak rashly.
CHAPTER XXII. The Two Causes of Sin
81. I shall now mention what I have often discussed before in other places in my short treatises.186 We sin from two causes: either from not seeing what we ought to do, or else from not doing what we have already seen we ought to do. Of these two, the first is ignorance of the evil; the second, weakness.
We must surely fight against both; but we shall as surely be defeated unless we are divinely helped, not only to see what we ought to do, but also, as sound judgment increases, to make our love of righteousness victor over our love of those things because of which--either by desiring to possess them or by fearing to lose them--we fall, open-eyed, into known sin. In this latter case, we are not only sinners--which we are even when we sin through ignorance--but also lawbreakers: for we do not do what we should, and we do what we know already we should not.
Accordingly, we should pray for pardon if we have sinned, as we do when we say, "Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors." But we should also pray that God should guide us away from sin, and this we do when we say, "Lead us not into temptation"--and we should make our petitions to Him of whom it is said in the psalm, "The Lord is my light and my salvation"187; that, as Light, he may take away our ignorance, as Salvation, our weakness.
82. Now, penance itself is often omitted because of weakness, even when in Church custom there is an adequate reason why it should be performed. For shame is the fear of displeasing men, when a man loves their good opinion more than he regards judgment, which would make him humble himself in penitence. Wherefore, not only for one to repent, but also in order that he may be enabled to do so, the mercy of God is prerequisite. Otherwise, the apostle would not say of some men, "In case God giveth them repentance."188 And, similarly, that Peter might be enabled to weep bitterly, the Evangelist tells, "The Lord looked at him."189
83. But the man who does not believe that sins are forgiven in the Church, who despises so great a bounty of the divine gifts and ends, and persists to his last day in such an obstinacy of mind--that man is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit, in whom Christ forgiveth sins.190 I have discussed this difficult question, as clearly as I could, in a little book devoted exclusively to this very point.191
CHAPTER XXIII. The Reality of the Resurrection
84. Now, with respect to the resurrection of the body--and by this I do not mean the cases of resuscitation after which people died again, but a resurrection to eternal life after the fashion of Christ's own body--I have not found a way to discuss it briefly and still give satisfactory answers to all the questions usually raised about it. Yet no Christian should have the slightest doubt as to the fact that the bodies of all men, whether already or yet to be born, whether dead or still to die, will be resurrected.
85. Once this fact is established, then, first of all, comes the question about abortive fetuses, which are indeed "born" in the mother's womb, but are never so that they could be "reborn." For, if we say that there is a resurrection for them, then we can agree that at least as much is true of fetuses that are fully formed. But, with regard to undeveloped fetuses, who would not more readily think that they perish, like seeds that did not germinate?192
But who, then, would dare to deny--though he would not dare to affirm it either--that in the resurrection day what is lacking in the forms of things will be filled out? Thus, the perfection which time would have accomplished will not be lacking, any more than the blemishes wrought by time will still be present. Nature, then, will be cheated of nothing apt and fitting which time's passage would have brought, nor will anything remain disfigured by anything adverse and contrary which time has wrought. But what is not yet a whole will become whole, just as what has been disfigured will be restored to its full figure.
86. On this score, a corollary question may be most carefully discussed by the most learned men, and still I do not know that any man can answer it, namely: When does a human being begin to live in the womb? Is there some form of hidden life, not yet apparent in the motions of a living thing? To deny, for example, that those fetuses ever lived at all which are cut away limb by limb and cast out of the wombs of pregnant women, lest the mothers die also if the fetuses were left there dead, would seem much too rash. But, in any case, once a man begins to live, it is thereafter possible for him to die. And, once dead, wheresoever death overtook him, I cannot find the basis on which he would not have a share in the resurrection of the dead.
87. By the same token, the resurrection is not to be denied in the cases of monsters which are born and live, even if they quickly die, nor should we believe that they will be raised as they were, but rather in an amended nature and free from faults. Far be it from us to say of that double-limbed man recently born in the Orient--about whom most reliable brethren have given eyewitness reports and the presbyter Jerome, of holy memory, has left a written account193 --far be it from us, I say, to suppose that at the resurrection there will be one double man, and not rather two men, as there would have been if they had actually been born twins. So also in other cases, which, because of some excess or defect or gross deformity, are called monsters: at the resurrection they will be restored to the normal human physiognomy, so that every soul will have its own body and not two bodies joined together, even though they were born this way. Every soul will have, as its own, all that is required to complete a whole human body.
88. Moreover, with God, the earthly substance from which the flesh of mortal man is produced does not perish. Instead, whether it be dissolved into dust or ashes, or dispersed into vapors and the winds, or converted into the substance of other bodies (or even back into the basic elements themselves), or has served as food for beasts or even men and been turned into their flesh--in an instant of time this matter returns to the soul that first animated it, and that caused it to become a man, to live and to grow.
89. This earthly matter which becomes a corpse upon the soul's departure will not, at the resurrection, be so restored that the parts into which it was separated and which have become parts of other things must necessarily return to the same parts of the body in which they were situated--though they do return to the body from which they were separated. Otherwise, to suppose that the hair recovers what frequent clippings have taken off, or the nails get back what trimming has pared off, makes for a wild and wholly unbecoming image in the minds of those who speculate this way and leads them thus to disbelieve in the resurrection. But take the example of a statue made of fusible metal: if it were melted by heat or pounded into dust, or reduced to a shapeless mass, and an artist wished to restore it again from the mass of the same material, it would make no difference to the wholeness of the restored statue which part of it was remade of what part of the metal, so long as the statue, as restored, had been given all the material of which it was originally composed. Just so, God--an artist who works in marvelous and mysterious ways--will restore our bodies, with marvelous and mysterious celerity, out of the whole of the matter of which it was originally composed. And it will make no difference, in the restoration, whether hair returns to hair and nails to nails, or whether the part of this original matter that had perished is turned back into flesh and restored to other parts of the body. The main thing is that the providence of the divine Artist takes care that nothing unbecoming will result.
90. Nor does it follow that the stature of each person will be different when brought to life anew because there were differences in stature when first alive, nor that the lean will be raised lean or the fat come back to life in their former obesity. But if this is in the Creator's plan, that each shall retain his special features and the proper and recognizable likeness of his former self--while an equality of physical endowment will be preserved--then the matter of which each resurrection body is composed will be so disposed that none shall be lost, and any defect will be supplied by Him who can create out of nothing as he wills.
But if in the bodies of those rising again there is to be an intelligible inequality, such as between voices that fill out a chorus, this will be managed by disposing the matter of each body so to bring men into their place in the angelic band and impose nothing on their senses that is inharmonious. For surely nothing unseemly will be there, and whatever is there will be fitting, and this because the unfitting will simply not be.
91. The bodies of the saints, then, shall rise again free from blemish and deformity, just as they will be also free from corruption, encumbrance, or handicap. Their facility facilitas will be as complete as their felicity felicitas. This is why their bodies are called "spiritual," though undoubtedly they will be bodies and not spirits. For just as now the body is called "animate" animale, though it is a body and not a "spirit" anima, so then it will be a "spiritual body," but still a body and not a spirit.
Accordingly, then, as far as the corruption which weighs down the soul and the vices through which "the flesh lusts against the spirit"194 are concerned, there will be no "flesh," but only body, since there are bodies that are called "heavenly bodies."195 This is why it is said, "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God," and then, as if to expound what was said, it adds, "Neither shall corruption inherit incorruption."196 What the writer first called "flesh and blood" he later called "corruption," and what he first called "the Kingdom of God" he then later called "incorruption."
But, as far as the substance of the resurrection body is concerned, it will even then still be "flesh." This is why the body of Christ is called "flesh" even after the resurrection. Wherefore the apostle also says, "What is sown a natural body corpus animale rises as a spiritual body corpus spirituale."197 For there will then be such a concord between flesh and spirit--the spirit quickening the servant flesh without any need of sustenance therefrom--that there will be no further conflict within ourselves. And just as there will be no more external enemies to bear with, so neither shall we have to bear with ourselves as enemies within.
92. But whoever are not liberated from that mass of perdition (brought to pass through the first man) by the one Mediator between God and man, they will also rise again, each in his own flesh, but only that they may be punished together with the devil and his angels. Whether these men will rise again with all their faults and deformities, with their diseased and deformed members--is there any reason for us to labor such a question? For obviously the uncertainty about their bodily form and beauty need not weary us, since their damnation is certain and eternal. And let us not be moved to inquire how their body can be incorruptible if it can suffer--or corruptible if it cannot die. For there is no true life unless it be lived in happiness; no true incorruptibility save where health is unscathed by pain. But where an unhappy being is not allowed to die, then death itself, so to say, dies not; and where pain perpetually afflicts but never destroys, corruption goes on endlessly. This state is called, in the Scripture, "the second death."198
93. Yet neither the first death, in which the soul is compelled to leave its body, nor the second death, in which it is not allowed to leave the body undergoing punishment, would have befallen man if no one had sinned. Surely, the lightest of all punishments will be laid on those who have added no further sin to that originally contracted. Among the rest, who have added further Sins to that one, they will suffer a damnation somewhat more tolerable in proportion to the lesser degree of their iniquity.
CHAPTER XXIV. The Solution to Present Spiritual Enigmas to Be Awaited in the Life of the World To Come
94. And thus it will be that while the reprobated angels and men go on in their eternal punishment, the saints will go on learning more fully the blessings which grace has bestowed upon them. Then, through the actual realities of their experience, they will see more clearly the meaning of what is written in The Psalms: "I will sing to thee of mercy and judgment, O Lord"199 --since no one is set free save by unmerited mercy and no one is damned save by a merited condemnation.
95. Then what is now hidden will not be hidden: when one of two infants is taken up by God's mercy and the other abandoned through God's judgment--and when the chosen one knows what would have been his just deserts in judgment--why was the one chosen rather than the other, when the condition of the two was the same? Or again, why were miracles not wrought in the presence of certain people who would have repented in the face of miraculous works, while miracles were wrought in the presence of those who were not about to believe. For our Lord saith most plainly: "Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles done in your midst, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."200 Now, obviously, God did not act unjustly in not willing their salvation, even though they could have been saved, if he willed it so.201
Then, in the clearest light of wisdom, will be seen what now the pious hold by faith, not yet grasping it in clear understanding--how certain, immutable, and effectual is the will of God, how there are things he can do but doth not will to do, yet willeth nothing he cannot do, and how true is what is sung in the psalm: "But our God is above in heaven; in heaven and on earth he hath done all things whatsoever that he would."202 This obviously is not true, if there is anything that he willed to do and did not do, or, what were worse, if he did not do something because man's will prevented him, the Omnipotent, from doing what he willed. Nothing, therefore, happens unless the Omnipotent wills it to happen. He either allows it to happen or he actually causes it to happen.
96. Nor should we doubt that God doth well, even when he alloweth whatever happens ill to happen. For he alloweth it only through a just judgment--and surely all that is just is good. Therefore, although evil, in so far as it is evil, is not good, still it is a good thing that not only good things exist but evil as well. For if it were not good that evil things exist, they would certainly not be allowed to exist by the Omnipotent Good, for whom it is undoubtedly as easy not to allow to exist what he does not will, as it is for him to do what he does will.
Unless we believe this, the very beginning of our Confession of Faith is imperiled--the sentence in which we profess to believe in God the Father Almighty. For he is called Almighty for no other reason than that he can do whatsoever he willeth and because the efficacy of his omnipotent will is not impeded by the will of any creature.
97. Accordingly, we must now inquire about the meaning of what was said most truly by the apostle concerning God, "Who willeth that all men should be saved."203 For since not all--not even a majority--are saved, it would indeed appear that the fact that what God willeth to happen does not happen is due to an embargo on God's will by the human will.
Now, when we ask for the reason why not all are saved, the customary answer is: "Because they themselves have not willed it." But this cannot be said of infants, who have not yet come to the power of willing or not willing. For, if we could attribute to their wills the infant squirmings they make at baptism, when they resist as hard as they can, we would then have to say that they were saved against their will. But the Lord's language is clearer when, in the Gospel, he reproveth the unrighteous city: "How often," he saith, "would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks, and you would not."204 This sounds as if God's will had been overcome by human wills and as if the weakest, by not willing, impeded the Most Powerful so that he could not do what he willed. And where is that omnipotence by which "whatsoever he willed in heaven and on earth, he has done," if he willed to gather the children of Jerusalem together, and did not do so? Or, is it not rather the case that, although Jerusalem did not will that her children be gathered together by him, yet, despite her unwillingness, God did indeed gather together those children of hers whom he would? It is not that "in heaven and on earth" he hath willed and done some things, and willed other things and not done them. Instead, "all things whatsoever he willed, he hath done."
CHAPTER XXV. Predestination and the Justice of God
98. Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God cannot turn the evil wills of men--as he willeth, when he willeth, and where he willeth--toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth."205
Now when the apostle said this, he was commending grace, of which he had just spoken in connection with the twin children in Rebecca's womb: "Before they had yet been born, or had done anything good or bad, in order that the electing purpose of God might continue--not through works but through the divine calling--it was said of them, 'The elder shall serve the younger.' "206 Accordingly, he refers to another prophetic witness, where it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated."207 Then, realizing how what he said could disturb those whose understanding could not penetrate to this depth of grace, he adds: "What therefore shall we say to this? Is there unrighteousness in God? God forbid!"208 Yet it does seem unfair that, without any merit derived from good works or bad, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good deeds of the one, and evil deeds of the other--which God, of course, foreknew--he would never have said "not of good works" but rather "of future works." Thus he would have solved the difficulty; or, rather, he would have left no difficulty to be solved. As it is, however, when he went on to exclaim, "God forbid!"--that is, "God forbid that there should be unfairness in God"--he proceeds immediately to add (to prove that no unfairness in God is involved here), "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show pity to whom I will show pity.'"209 Now, who but a fool would think God unfair either when he imposes penal judgment on the deserving or when he shows mercy to the undeserving? Finally, the apostle concludes and says, "Therefore, it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God's showing mercy."210
Thus, both the twins were "by nature children of wrath,"211 not because of any works of their own, but because they were both bound in the fetters of damnation originally forged by Adam. But He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," loved Jacob in unmerited mercy, yet hated Esau with merited justice. Since this judgment of wrath was due them both, the former learned from what happened to the other that the fact that he had not, with equal merit, incurred the same penalty gave him no ground to boast of his own distinctive merits--but, instead, that he should glory in the abundance of divine grace, because "it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy."212 And, indeed, the whole visage of Scripture and, if I may speak so, the lineaments of its countenance, are found to exhibit a mystery, most profound and salutary, to admonish all who carefully look thereupon "that he who glories, should glory in the Lord."213
99. Now, after the apostle had commended God's mercy in saying, "So then, there is no question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy," next in order he intends to speak also of his judgment--for where his mercy is not shown, it is not unfairness but justice. For with God there is no injustice. Thus, he immediately added, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, that I may show through you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth."214 Then, having said this, he draws a conclusion that looks both ways, that is, toward mercy and toward judgment: "Therefore," he says, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth." He showeth mercy out of his great goodness; he hardeneth out of no unfairness at all. In this way, neither does he who is saved have a basis for glorying in any merit of his own; nor does the man who is damned have a basis for complaining of anything except what he has fully merited. For grace alone separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been mingled together in the one mass of perdition, arising from a common cause which leads back to their common origin. But if any man hears this in such a way as to say: "Why then does he find fault? For who resists his will?"215 --as if to make it seem that man should not therefore be blamed for being evil because God "hath mercy on whom he willeth and whom he willeth he hardeneth"--God forbid that we should be ashamed to give the same reply as we see the apostle giving: "O man, who are you to reply to God? Does the molded object say to the molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Or is not the potter master of his clay, to make from the same mass one vessel for honorable, another for ignoble, use?"216
There are some stupid men who think that in this part of the argument the apostle had no answer to give; and, for lack of a reasonable rejoinder, simply rebuked the audacity of his gainsayer. But what he said--"O man, who are you?"--has actually great weight and in an argument like this recalls man, in a single word, to consider the limits of his capacity and, at the same time, supplies an important explanation.
For if one does not understand these matters, who is he to talk back to God? And if one does understand, he finds no better ground even then for talking back. For if he understands, he sees that the whole human race was condemned in its apostate head by a divine judgment so just that not even if a single member of the race were ever saved from it, no one could rail against God's justice. And he also sees that those who are saved had to be saved on such terms that it would show--by contrast with the greater number of those not saved but simply abandoned to their wholly just damnation--what the whole mass deserved and to what end God's merited judgment would have brought them, had not his undeserved mercy interposed. Thus every mouth of those disposed to glory in their own merits should be stopped, so that "he that glories may glory in the Lord."217
CHAPTER XXVI. The Triumph of God's Sovereign Good Will
100. These are "the great works of the Lord, well-considered in all his acts of will"218 --and so wisely well-considered that when his angelic and human creation sinned (that is, did not do what he willed, but what it willed) he could still accomplish what he himself had willed and this through the same creaturely will by which the first act contrary to the Creator's will had been done. As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace.
For, as far as they were concerned, they did what God did not will that they do, but as far as God's omnipotence is concerned, they were quite unable to achieve their purpose. In their very act of going against his will, his will was thereby accomplished. This is the meaning of the statement, "The works of the Lord are great, well-considered in all his acts of will"--that in a strange and ineffable fashion even that which is done against his will is not done without his will. For it would not be done without his allowing it--and surely his permission is not unwilling but willing--nor would he who is good allow the evil to be done, unless in his omnipotence he could bring good even out of evil.
101. Sometimes, however, a man of good will wills something that God doth not will, even though God's will is much more, and much more certainly, good--for under no circumstances can it ever be evil. For example, it is a good son's will that his father live, whereas it is God's good will that he should die. Or, again, it can happen that a man of evil will can will something that God also willeth with a good will--as, for example, a bad son wills that his father die and this is also God's will. Of course, the former wills what God doth not will, whereas the latter does will what God willeth. Yet the piety of the one, though he wills not what God willeth, is more consonant with God's will than is the impiety of the other, who wills the same thing that God willeth. There is a very great difference between what is fitting for man to will and what is fitting for God--and also between the ends to which a man directs his will--and this difference determines whether an act of will is to be approved or disapproved. Actually, God achieveth some of his purposes--which are, of course, all good--through the evil wills of bad men. For example, it was through the ill will of the Jews that, by the good will of the Father, Christ was slain for us--a deed so good that when the apostle Peter would have nullified it he was called "Satan" by him who had come in order to be slain.219 How good seemed the purposes of the pious faithful who were unwilling that the apostle Paul should go to Jerusalem, lest there he should suffer the things that the prophet Agabus had predicted!220 And yet God had willed that he should suffer these things for the sake of the preaching of Christ, and for the training of a martyr for Christ. And this good purpose of his he achieved, not through the good will of the Christians, but through the ill will of the Jews. Yet they were more fully his who did not will what he willed than were those who were willing instruments of his purpose--for while he and the latter did the very same thing, he worked through them with a good will, whereas they did his good will with their ill will.
102. But, however strong the wills either of angels or of men, whether good or evil, whether they will what God willeth or will something else, the will of the Omnipotent is always undefeated. And this will can never be evil, because even when it inflicts evils, it is still just; and obviously what is just is not evil. Therefore, whether through pity "he hath mercy on whom he willeth," or in justice "whom he willeth, he hardeneth," the omnipotent God never doth anything except what he doth will, and doth everything that he willeth.
CHAPTER XXVII. Limits of God's Plan for Human Salvation
103. Accordingly, when we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God "willeth that all men should be saved,"221 although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God willeth his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it. Moreover, his will should be sought in prayer, because if he willeth, then what he willeth must necessarily be. And, indeed, it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he made that statement. Thus, we are also to understand what is written in the Gospel about Him "who enlighteneth every man."222 This means that there is no man who is enlightened except by God.
In any case, the word concerning God, "who will have all men to be saved," does not mean that there is no one whose salvation he doth not will--he who was unwilling to work miracles among those who, he said, would have repented if he had wrought them--but by "all men" we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided: kings and subjects; nobility and plebeians; the high and the low; the learned and unlearned; the healthy and the sick; the bright, the dull, and the stupid; the rich, the poor, and the middle class; males, females, infants, children, the adolescent, young adults and middle-aged and very old; of every tongue and fashion, of all the arts, of all professions, with the countless variety of wills and minds and all the other things that differentiate people. For from which of these groups doth not God will that some men from every nation should be saved through his only begotten Son our Lord? Therefore, he doth save them since the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever he willeth.
Now, the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be offered "for all men"223 and especially "for kings and all those of exalted station,"224 whose worldly pomp and pride could be supposed to be a sufficient cause for them to despise the humility of the Christian faith. Then, continuing his argument, "for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour"225 -- that is, to pray even for such as these kings--the apostle, to remove any warrant for despair, added, "Who willeth that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."226 Truly, then, God hath judged it good that through the prayers of the lowly he would deign to grant salvation to the exalted--a paradox we have already seen exemplified. Our Lord also useth the same manner of speech in the Gospel, where he saith to the Pharisees, "You tithe mint and rue and every herb."227 Obviously, the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the people of other lands. Therefore, just as we should interpret "every herb" to mean "every kind of herb," so also we can interpret "all men" to mean "all kinds of men." We could interpret it in any other fashion, as long as we are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed anything to be done which was not done. "He hath done all things in heaven and earth, whatsoever he willed,"228 as Truth sings of him, and surely he hath not willed to do anything that he hath not done. There must be no equivocation on this point.
CHAPTER XXVIII. The Destiny of Man
104. Consequently, God would have willed to preserve even the first man in that state of salvation in which he was created and would have brought him in due season, after the begetting of children, to a better state without the intervention of death--where he not only would have been unable to sin, but would not have had even the will to sin--if he had foreknown that man would have had a steadfast will to continue without sin, as he had been created to do. But since he did foreknow that man would make bad use of his free will--that is, that he would sin--God prearranged his own purpose so that he could do good to man, even in man's doing evil, and so that the good will of the Omnipotent should be nullified by the bad will of men, but should nonetheless be fulfilled.
105. Thus it was fitting that man should be created, in the first place, so that he could will both good and evil--not without reward, if he willed the good; not without punishment, if he willed the evil. But in the future life he will not have the power to will evil; and yet this will not thereby restrict his free will. Indeed, his will will be much freer, because he will then have no power whatever to serve sin. For we surely ought not to find fault with such a will, nor say it is no will, or that it is not rightly called free, when we so desire happiness that we not only are unwilling to be miserable, but have no power whatsoever to will it.
And, just as in our present state, our soul is unable to will unhappiness for ourselves, so then it will be forever unable to will iniquity. But the ordered course of God's plan was not to be passed by, wherein he willed to show how good the rational creature is that is able not to sin, although one unable to sin is better.229 So, too, it was an inferior order of immortality--but yet it was immortality--in which man was capable of not dying, even if the higher order which is to be is one in which man will be incapable of dying.230
106. Human nature lost the former kind of immortality through the misuse of free will. It is to receive the latter through grace--though it was to have obtained it through merit, if it had not sinned. Not even then, however, could there have been any merit without grace. For although sin had its origin in free will alone, still free will would not have been sufficient to maintain justice, save as divine aid had been afforded man, in the gift of participation in the immutable good. Thus, for example, the power to die when he wills it is in a man's own hands--since there is no one who could not kill himself by not eating (not to mention other means). But the bare will is not sufficient for maintaining life, if the aids of food and other means of preservation are lacking.
Similarly, man in paradise was capable of self-destruction by abandoning justice by an act of will; yet if the life of justice was to be maintained, his will alone would not have sufficed, unless He who made him had given him aid. But, after the Fall, God's mercy was even more abundant, for then the will itself had to be freed from the bondage in which sin and death are the masters. There is no way at all by which it can be freed by itself, but only through God's grace, which is made effectual in the faith of Christ. Thus, as it is written, even the will by which "the will itself is prepared by the Lord"231 so that we may receive the other gifts of God through which we come to the Gift eternal--this too comes from God.
107. Accordingly, even the life eternal, which is surely the wages of good works, is called a gift of God by the apostle. "For the wages of sin," he says, "is death; but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."232 Now, wages for military service are paid as a just debit, not as a gift. Hence, he said "the wages of sin is death," to show that death was not an unmerited pun ishment for sin but a just debit. But a gift, unless it be gratuitous, is not grace. We are, therefore, to understand that even man's merited goods are gifts from God, and when life eternal is given through them, what else do we have but "grace upon grace returned"233?
Man was, therefore, made upright, and in such a fashion that he could either continue in that uprightness--though not without divine aid--or become perverted by his own choice. Whichever of these two man had chosen, God's will would be done, either by man or at least concerning him. Wherefore, since man chose to do his own will instead of God's, God's will concerning him was done; for, from the same mass of perdition that flowed out of that common source, God maketh "one vessel for honorable, another for ignoble use"234; the ones for honorable use through his mercy, the ones for ignoble use through his judgment; lest anyone glory in man, or--what is the same thing--in himself.
108. Now, we could not be redeemed, even through "the one Mediator between God and man, Man himself, Christ Jesus,"235 if he were not also God. For when Adam was made--being made an upright man--there was no need for a mediator. Once sin, however, had widely separated the human race from God, it was necessary for a mediator, who alone was born, lived, and was put to death without sin, to reconcile us to God, and provide even for our bodies a resurrection to life eternal--and all this in order that man's pride might be exposed and healed through God's humility. Thus it might be shown man how far he had departed from God, when by the incarnate God he is recalled to God; that man in his contumacy might be furnished an example of obedience by the God-Man; that the fount of grace might be opened up; that even the resurrection of the body--itself promised to the redeemed--might be previewed in the resurrection of the Redeemer himself; that the devil might be vanquished by that very nature he was rejoicing over having deceived--all this, however, without giving man ground for glory in himself, lest pride spring up anew. And if there are other advantages accruing from so great a mystery of the Mediator, which those who profit from them can see or testify--even if they cannot be described--let them be added to this list.
CHAPTER XXIX. "The Last Things"
109. Now, for the time that intervenes between man's death and the final resurrection, there is a secret shelter for his soul, as each is worthy of rest or affliction according to what it has merited while it lived in the body.
110. There is no denying that the souls of the dead are benefited by the piety of their living friends, when the sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for the dead, or alms are given in the church. But these means benefit only those who, when they were living, have merited that such services could be of help to them. For there is a mode of life that is neither so good as not to need such helps after death nor so bad as not to gain benefit from them after death. There is, however, a good mode of life that does not need such helps, and, again, one so thoroughly bad that, when such a man departs this life, such helps avail him nothing. It is here, then, in this life, that all merit or demerit is acquired whereby a man's condition in the life hereafter is improved or worsened. Therefore, let no one hope to obtain any merit with God after he is dead that he has neglected to obtain here in this life.
So, then, those means which the Church constantly uses in interceding for the dead are not opposed to that statement of the apostle when he said, "For all of us shall stand before the tribunal of Christ, so that each may receive according to what he has done in the body, whether good or evil."236 For each man has for himself while living in the body earned the merit whereby these means can benefit him after death. For they do not benefit all. And yet why should they not benefit all, unless it be because of the different kinds of lives men lead in the body? Accordingly, when sacrifices, whether of the altar or of alms, are offered for the baptized dead, they are thank offerings for the very good, propitiations for the not-so-very-bad non valde malis, and, as for the very bad--even if they are of no help to the dead--they are at least a sort of consolation to the living. Where they are of value, their benefit consists either in obtaining a full forgiveness or, at least, in making damnation more tolerable.
111. After the resurrection, however, when the general judgment has been held and finished, the boundary lines will be set for the two cities: the one of Christ, the other of the devil; one for the good, the other for the bad--both including angels and men. In the one group, there will be no will to sin, in the other, no power to sin, nor any further possibility of dying. The citizens of the first commonwealth will go on living truly and happily in life eternal. The second will go on, miserable in death eternal, with no power to die to it. The condition of both societies will then be fixed and endless. But in the first city, some will outrank others in bliss, and in the second, some will have a more tolerable burden of misery than others.
112. It is quite in vain, then, that some--indeed very many--yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture--but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express the literal truth. "God will not forget," they say, "to show mercy, nor in his anger will he shut up his mercy." This is, in fact, the text of a holy psalm.237 But there is no doubt that it is to be interpreted to refer to those who are called "vessels of mercy,"238 those who are freed from misery not by their own merits but through God's mercy. Even so, if they suppose that the text applies to all men, there is no ground for them further to suppose that there can be an end for those of whom it is said, "Thus these shall go into everlasting punishment."239 Otherwise, it can as well be thought that there will also be an end to the happiness of those of whom the antithesis was said: "But the righteous into life eternal."
But let them suppose, if it pleases them, that, for certain intervals of time, the punishments of the damned are somewhat mitigated. Even so, the wrath of God must be understood as still resting on them. And this is damnation--for this anger, which is not a violent passion in the divine mind, is called "wrath" in God. Yet even in his wrath--his wrath resting on them--he does not "shut up his mercy." This is not to put an end to their eternal afflictions, but rather to apply or interpose some little respite in their torments. For the psalm does not say, "To put an end to his wrath," or, "After his wrath," but, "In his wrath." Now, if this wrath were all there is in man's damnation, and even if it were present only in the slightest degree conceivable--still, to be lost out of the Kingdom of God, to be an exile from the City of God, to be estranged from the life of God, to suffer loss of the great abundance of God's blessings which he has hidden for those who fear him and prepared for those who hope in him240 --this would be a punishment so great that, if it be eternal, no torments that we know could be compared to it, no matter how many ages they continued.
113. The eternal death of the damned--that is, their estrangement from the life of God--will therefore abide without end, and it will be common to them all, no matter what some people, moved by their human feelings, may wish to think about gradations of punishment, or the relief or intermission of their misery. In the same way, the eternal life of the saints will abide forever, and also be common to all of them no matter how different the grades of rank and honor in which they shine forth in their effulgent harmony.
CHAPTER XXX. The Principles of Christian Living: Faith and Hope
114. Thus, from our confession of faith, briefly summarized in the Creed (which is milk for babes when pondered at the carnal level but food for strong men when it is considered and studied spiritually), there is born the good hope of the faithful, accompanied by a holy love.241 But of these affirmations, all of which ought faithfully to be believed, only those which have to do with hope are contained in the Lord's Prayer. For "cursed is everyone," as the divine eloquence testified, "who rests his hope in man."242 Thus, he who rests his hope in himself is bound by the bond of this curse. Therefore, we should seek from none other than the Lord God whatever it is that we hope to do well, or hope to obtain as reward for our good works.
115. Accordingly, in the Evangelist Matthew, the Lord's Prayer may be seen to contain seven petitions: three of them ask for eternal goods, the other four for temporal goods, which are, however, necessary for obtaining the eternal goods.
For when we say: "Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven"243 --this last being wrongly interpreted by some as meaning "in body and spirit"--these blessings will be retained forever. They begin in this life, of course; they are increased in us as we make progress, but in their perfection--which is to be hoped for in the other life--they will be possessed forever! But when we say: "Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,"244 who does not see that all these pertain to our needs in the present life? In that life eternal--where we all hope to be--the hallowing of God's name, his Kingdom, and his will, in our spirit and body will abide perfectly and immortally. But in this life we ask for "daily bread" because it is necessary, in the measure required by soul and body, whether we take the term in a spiritual or bodily sense, or both. And here too it is that we petition for forgiveness, where the sins are committed; here too are the temptations that allure and drive us to sinning; here, finally, the evil from which we wish to be freed. But in that other world none of these things will be found.
116. However, the Evangelist Luke, in his version of the Lord's Prayer, has brought together, not seven, but five petitions. Yet, obviously, there is no discrepancy here, but rather, in his brief way, the Evangelist has shown us how the seven petitions should be understood. Actually, God's name is even now hallowed in the spirit, but the Kingdom of God is yet to come in the resurrection of the body. Therefore, Luke was seeking to show that the third petition "Thy will be done" is a repetition of the first two, and makes this better understood by omitting it. He then adds three other petitions, concerning daily bread, forgiveness of sins, and avoidance of temptation.245 However, what Matthew puts in the last place, "But deliver us from evil," Luke leaves out, in order that we might understand that it was included in what was previously said about temptation. This is, indeed, why Matthew said, "But deliver us," instead of, "And deliver us," as if to indicate that there is only one petition--"Will not this, but that"--so that anyone would realize that he is being delivered from evil in that he is not being led into temptation.
CHAPTER XXXI. Love
117. And now regarding love, which the apostle says is greater than the other two--that is, faith and hope--for the more richly it dwells in a man, the better the man in whom it dwells. For when we ask whether someone is a good man, we are not asking what he believes, or hopes, but what he loves. Now, beyond all doubt, he who loves aright believes and hopes rightly. Likewise, he who does not love believes in vain, even if what he believes is true; he hopes in vain, even if what he hopes for is generally agreed to pertain to true happiness, unless he believes and hopes for this: that he may through prayer obtain the gift of love. For, although it is true that he cannot hope without love, it may be that there is something without which, if he does not love it, he cannot realize the object of his hopes. An example of this would be if a man hopes for life eternal--and who is there who does not love that?--and yet does not love righteousness, without which no one comes to it.
Now this is the true faith of Christ which the apostle commends: faith that works through love. And what it yet lacks in love it asks that it may receive, it seeks that it may find, and knocks that it may be opened unto it.246 For faith achieves what the law commands fides namque impetrat quod lex imperat. And, without the gift of God--that is, without the Holy Spirit, through whom love is shed abroad in our hearts--the law may bid but it cannot aid jubere lex poterit, non juvare. Moreover, it can make of man a transgressor, who cannot then excuse himself by pleading ignorance. For appetite reigns where the love of God does not.247
118. When, in the deepest shadows of ignorance, he lives according to the flesh with no restraint of reason--this is the primal state of man.248 Afterward, when "through the law the knowledge of sin"249 has come to man, and the Holy Spirit has not yet come to his aid--so that even if he wishes to live according to the law, he is vanquished--man sins knowingly and is brought under the spell and made the slave of sin, "for by whatever a man is vanquished, of this master he is the slave"250. The effect of the knowledge of the law is that sin works in man the whole round of concupiscence, which adds to the guilt of the first transgression. And thus it is that what was written is fulfilled: "The law entered in, that the offense might abound."251 This is the second state of man.252
But if God regards a man with solicitude so that he then believes in God's help in fulfilling His commands, and if a man begins to be led by the Spirit of God, then the mightier power of love struggles against the power of the flesh.253 And although there is still in man a power that fights against him--his infirmity being not yet fully healed--yet the righteous man lives by faith and lives righteously in so far as he does not yield to evil desires, conquering them by his love of righteousness. This is the third stage of the man of good hope.
A final peace is in store for him who continues to go forward in this course toward perfection through steadfast piety. This will be perfected beyond this life in the repose of the spirit, and, at the last, in the resurrection of the body.
Of these four different stages of man, the first is before the law, the second is under the law, the third is under grace, and the fourth is in full and perfect peace. Thus, also, the history of God's people has been ordered by successive temporal epochs, as it pleased God, who "ordered all things in measure and number and weight."254 The first period was before the law; the second under the law, which was given through Moses; the next, under grace which was revealed through the first Advent of the Mediator."255 This grace was not previously absent from those to whom it was to be imparted, although, in conformity to the temporal dispensations, it was veiled and hidden. For none of the righteous men of antiquity could find salvation apart from the faith of Christ. And, unless Christ had also been known to them, he could not have been prophesied to us--sometimes openly and sometimes obscurely--through their ministry.
119. Now, in whichever of these four "ages"--if one can call them that--the grace of regeneration finds a man, then and there all his past sins are forgiven him and the guilt he contracted in being born is removed by his being reborn. And so true is it that "the Spirit breatheth where he willeth"256 that some men have never known the second "age" of slavery under the law, but begin to have divine aid directly under the new commandment.
120. Yet, before a man can receive the commandment, he must, of course, live according to the flesh. But, once he has been imbued with the sacrament of rebirth, no harm will come to him even if he then immediately depart this life--"Wherefore on this account Christ died and rose again, that he might be the Lord of both the living and the dead."'257 Nor will the kingdom of death have dominion over him for whom He, who was "free among the dead,"258 died.
CHAPTER XXXII. The End of All the Law
121. All the divine precepts are, therefore, referred back to love, of which the apostle says, "Now the end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, and a good conscience and a faith unfeigned."259 Thus every commandment harks back to love. For whatever one does either in fear of punishment or from some carnal impulse, so that it does not measure up to the standard of love which the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts--whatever it is, it is not yet done as it should be, although it may seem to be. Love, in this context, of course includes both the love of God and the love of our neighbor and, indeed, "on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets"260 --and, we may add, the gospel and the apostles, for from nowhere else comes the voice, "The end of the commandment is love,"261 and, "God is love."262
Therefore, whatsoever things God commands (and one of these is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"263 ) and whatsoever things are not positively ordered but are strongly advised as good spiritual counsel (and one of these is, "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman"264 )--all of these imperatives are rightly obeyed only when they are measured by the standard of our love of God and our love of our neighbor in God propter Deum. This applies both in the present age and in the world to come. Now we love God in faith; then, at sight. For, though mortal men ourselves, we do not know the hearts of mortal men. But then "the Lord will illuminate the hidden things in the darkness and will make manifest the cogitations of the heart; and then shall each one have his praise from God"265 --for what will be praised and loved in a neighbor by his neighbor is just that which, lest it remain hidden, God himself will bring to light. Moreover, passion decreases as love increases266 until love comes at last to that fullness which cannot be surpassed, "for greater love than this no one has, that a man lay down his life for his friends."267 Who, then, can explain how great the power of love will be, when there will be no passion cupiditas for it to restrain or overcome? For, then, the supreme state of true health summa sanitas will have been reached, when the struggle with death shall be no more.
CHAPTER XXXIII. Conclusion
122. But somewhere this book must have an end. You can see for yourself whether you should call it an Enchiridion, or use it as one. But since I have judged that your zeal in Christ ought not to be spurned and since I believe and hope for good things for you through the help of our Redeemer, and since I love you greatly as one of the members of his body, I have written this book for you--may its usefulness match its prolixity!--on Faith, Hope, and Love.
[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]
1 I Cor. 1:20.
2 Wis. 6:26 (Vulgate).
3 Rom. 16:19.
4 A later interpolation, not found in the best MSS., adds, "As no one can exist from himself, so also no one can be wise in himself save only as he is enlightened by Him of whom it is written, 'All wisdom is from God' Ecclus. 1:1."
5 Job 28:28.
6 A transliteration of the Greek egceiridion, literally, a handbook or manual.
7 Cf. Gal. 5:6.
8 Cf. I Cor. 13:10, 11.
9 I Cor. 3:11.
10 Already, very early in his ministry (397), Augustine had written De agone Christiano, in which he had reviewed and refuted a full score of heresies threatening the orthodox faith.
11 The Apostles' Creed. Cf. Augustine's early essay On Faith and the Creed.
12 Joel 2:32.
13 Rom. 10:14.
14 Lucan, Pharsalia, II, 15.
15 Virgil, Aeneid, IV, 419. The context of this quotation is Dido's lament over Aeneas' prospective abandonment of her. She is saying that if she could have foreseen such a disaster, she would have been able to bear it. Augustine's criticism here is a literalistic quibble.
16 Heb. 11:1.
17 Sacra eloquia--a favorite phrase of Augustine's for the Bible.
18 Rom. 8:24, 25 (Old Latin).
19 James 2:19.
20 One of the standard titles of early Greek philosophical treatises was peri fnsewz, which would translate into Latin as De rerum natura. This is, in fact, the title of Lucretius' famous poem, the greatest philosophical work written in classical Latin.
21 This basic motif appears everywhere in Augustine's thought as the very foundation of his whole system.
22 This section (Chs. III and IV) is the most explicit statement of a major motif which pervades the whole of Augustinian metaphysics. We see it in his earliest writings, Soliloquies, 1, 2, and De ordine, II, 7. It is obviously a part of the Neoplatonic heritage which Augustine appropriated for his Christian philosophy. The good is positive, constructive, essential; evil is privative, destructive, parasitic on the good. It has its origin, not in nature, but in the will. Cf. Confessions, Bk. VII, Chs. III, V, XII-XVI; On Continence, 14-16; On the Gospel of John, Tractate XCVIII, 7; City of God, XI, 17; XII, 7-9.
23 Isa. 5:20.
24 Matt. 12:35.
25 This refers to Aristotle's well-known principle of "the excluded middle."
26 Matt. 7:18.
27 Cf. Matt. 12:33.
28 Virgil, Georgios, II, 490.
29 Ibid., 479.
30 Sed in via pedum, non in via morum.
31 Virgil, Eclogue, VIII, 42. The context of the passage is Damon's complaint over his faithless Nyssa; he is here remembering the first time he ever saw her--when he was twelve! Cf. Theocritus, II, 82.
32 Cf. Matt. 5:37.
33 Cf. Confessions, Bk. X, Ch. XXIII.
34 Ad consentium contra mendacium, CSEL (J. Zycha, ed.), Vol. 41, pp. 469‑528; also Migne, PL, 40, c. 517-548; English translation by H.B. Jaffee in Deferrari, St. Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects (The Fathers of the Church, New York, 1952), pp. 113-179. This had been written about a year earlier than the Enchiridion. Augustine had also written another treatise On Lying much earlier, c. 395; see De mendacio in CSEL (J. Zycha, ed.), Vol. 41, pp. 413-466; Migne, PL, 40, c. 487-518; English translation by M.S. Muldowney in Deferrari, op. cit., pp. 47-109. This summary of his position here represents no change of view whatever on this question.
35 Sallust, The War with Catiline, X, 6-7.
36 Cf. Acts 12:9.
37 Virgil, Aeneid, X, 392.
38 This refers to one of the first of the Cassiciacum dialogues, Contra Academicos. The gist of Augustine's refutation of skepticism is in III, 23ff. Throughout his whole career he continued to maintain this position: that certain knowledge begins with self-knowledge. Cf. Confessions, Bk. V, Ch. X, 19; see also City of God, XI, xxvii.
39 Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17.
40 A direct contrast between suspensus assenso--the watchword of the Academics--and assensio, the badge of Christian certitude.
41 See above, VII, 90.
42 Matt. 5:37.
43 Matt. 6:12.
44 Rom. 5:12.
45 Cf. Luke 20:36.
46 Rom. 4:17.
47 Wis. 11:20.
48 II Peter 2:19.
49 John 8:36.
50 Eph. 2:8.
51 I Cor. 7:25.
52 Eph. 2:8, 9.
53 Eph. 2:10.
54 Cf. Gal. 6:15; II Cor. 5:17.
55 Ps. 51:10.
56 Phil. 2:13.
57 Rom. 9:16.
58 Prov. 8:35 (LXX).
59 From the days at Cassiciacum till the very end, Augustine toiled with the mystery of the primacy of God's grace and the reality of human freedom. Of two things he was unwaveringly sure, even though they involved him in a paradox and the appearance of confusion. The first is that God's grace is not only primary but also sufficient as the ground and source of human willing. And against the Pelagians and other detractors from grace, he did not hesitate to insist that grace is irresistible and inviolable. Cf. On Grace and Free Will, 99, 41-43; On the Predestination of the Saints, 19:10; On the Gift of Perseverance, 41; On the Soul and Its Origin, 16; and even the Enchiridion, XXIV, 97.
But he never drew from this deterministic emphasis the conclusion that man is unfree and everywhere roundly rejects the not illogical corollary of his theonomism, that man's will counts for little or nothing except as passive agent of God's will. He insists on responsibility on man's part in responding to the initiatives of grace. For this emphasis, which is characteristically directed to the faithful themselves, see On the Psalms, LXVIII, 7-8; On the Gospel of John, Tractate, 53:6-8; and even his severest anti-Pelagian tracts: On Grace and Free Will, 6-8, 10, 31 and On Admonition and Grace, 2-8.
60 Ps. 58:11 (Vulgate).
61 Ps. 23:6.
62 Cf. Matt. 5:44.
63 The theme that he had explored in Confessions, Bks. I-IX. See especially Bk. V, Chs. X, XIII; Bk. VII, Ch. VIII; Bk. IX, Ch. I.
64 Cf. Ps. 90:9.
65 Job 14:1.
66 John 3:36.
67 Eph. 2:3.
68 Rom. 5:9, 10.
69 Rom. 8:14.
70 John 1:14.
71 Rom. 3:20.
72 Epistle CXXXVII, written in 412 in reply to a list of queries sent to Augustine by the proconsul of Africa.
73 John 1:1.
74 Phil. 2:6, 7.
75 These metaphors for contrasting the "two natures" of Jesus Christ were favorite figures of speech in Augustine's Christological thought. Cf. On the Gospel of John, Tractate 78; On the Trinity, I, 7; II, 2; IV, 19-20; VII, 3; New Testament Sermons, 76, 14.
76 Luke 1:28-30.
77 John 1:14.
78 Luke 1:35.
79 Matt. 1:20.
80 Rom. 1:3.
81 Rom. 8:3.
82 Cf. Hos. 4:8.
83 II Cor. 5:20, 21.
84 Virgil, Aeneid, II, 1, 20.
85 Num. 21:7 (LXX).
86 Matt. 2:20.
87 Ex. 32:4.
88 Rom. 5:12.
89 Deut. 5:9.
90 Ezek. 18:2.
91 Ps. 51:5.
92 I Tim. 2:5.
93 Matt. 3:13.
94 Luke 3:4; Isa. 40:3.
95 Ps. 2:7; Heb. 5:5; cf. Mark 1:9-11.
96 Rom. 5:16.
97 Rom. 5:18.
98 Rom. 6:1.
99 Rom. 5:20.
100 Rom. 6:2.
101 Rom. 6:3.
102 Rom. 6:4-11.
103 Gal. 5:24.
104 Col. 3:1-3.
105 Col. 3:4.
106 John 5:29.
107 Ps. 54:1.
108 Cf. Matt. 25:32, 33.
109 Ps. 43:1.
110 Reading the classical Latin form poscebat (as in Scheel and PL) for the late form poxebat (as in Riviere and many old MSS.).
111 Cf. Ps. 113:3.
112 Here reading unum deum (with Rivière and PL) against deum (in Scheel).
113 A hyperbolic expression referring to "the saints." Augustine's Scriptural backing for such an unusual phrase is Ps. 82:6 and John 10:34f. But note the firm distinction between ex diis quos facit and non factus Deus.
114 I Cor. 6:19.
115 I Cor. 6:15.
116 Col. 1:18.
117 John 2:19.
118 II Peter 2:4 (Old Latin).
119 Heb. 1:13.
120 Ps. 148:2 (LXX).
121 Co . 1:16.
122 Zech. 1:9.
123 Matt. 1:20.
124 Gen. 18:4; 19:2.
125 Gen. 32:24.
126 Rom. 8:31, 32.
127 Cf. Eph. 1:10.
128 Col. 1:19, 20.
129 Cf. I Cor. 13:9, 12
130 Cf. Luke 20:36.
131 I Cor. 13:12.
132 Cf. Luke 15:24.
133 Rom. 8:14.
134 I John 1:8.
135 In actione poenitentiae; cf. Luther's similar conception of poenitentiam agite in the 95 Theses and in De poenitentia.
136 Ps. 51:17.
137 Ps. 38:9.
138 II Cor. 1:22.
139 Ecclus. 40:1 (Vulgate).
140 I Cor. 11:31, 32.
141 This chapter supplies an important clue to the date of the Enchiridion and an interesting side light on Augustine's inclination to re-use "good material." In his treatise on The Eight Questions of Dulcitius (De octo Dulcitii quaestionibus), 1: 10-13, Augustine quotes this entire chapter as a part of his answer to the question whether those who sin after baptism are ever delivered from hell. The date of the De octo is 422 or, possibly, 423; thus we have a terminus ad quem for the date of the Enchiridion. Still the best text of De octo is Migne, PL, 40, c. 147-170, and the best English translation is in Deferrari, St. Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects (The Fathers of the Church, New York, 1952), pp. 427-466.
142 A short treatise, written in 413, in which Augustine seeks to combine the Pauline and Jacobite emphases by analyzing what kind of faith and what kind of works are both essential to salvation. The best text is that of Joseph Zycha in CSEL, Vol. 41, pp. 35-97; but see also Migne, PL, 40, c. 197-230. There is an English translation by C.L. Cornish in A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church; Seventeen Short Treatises, pp. 37-84.
143 Gal. 5:6.
144 James 2:17.
145 James 2:14.
146 I Cor. 3:15.
147 I Cor. 6:9, 10.
148 I Cor. 3:11, 12.
149 I Cor. 3:11-15.
150 Ecclus. 27:5.
151 Cf. I Cor. 7:32, 33
152 See above, XVIII, 67.
153 Matt. 25:34, 41.
154 Ecclus. 15:20.
155 John 3:5.
156 Matt. 6:9-12.
157 Cf. Luke 11:41.
158 This is a close approximation of the medieval lists of "The Seven Works of Mercy." Cf. J.T. McNeill, A History of the Cure of Souls, pp. 155, 161. (Harper & Brothers, 1951, New York.)
159 Matt. 5:44.
160 John 14:6.
161 Matt. 6:14, 15.
162 Luke 11:37-41.
163 Acts 15:9.
164 Titus 1:15.
165 Ecclus. 30:24 (Vulgate).
166 Rom. 5:16.
167 Rom. 5:8.
168 Luke 10:27.
169 Luke 11:42.
170 Matt. 23:26.
171 Ps. 10:6 (Vulgate).
172 Ps. 58:11 (Vulgate); cf. Ps. 59:10 (R.S.V.).
173 I Cor. 7:5 (mixed text).
174 I Cor. 6:1.
175 I Cor. 6:4-6.
176 I Cor. 6: a.
177 I Cor. 6: b.
178 Matt. 5:40.
179 Luke 6:30.
180 James 3:2 (Vulgate).
181 Matt. 5:22, 23.
182 Gal. 4:11 (Vulgate).
183 Ps. 10:3 (Vulgate).
184 Isa. 5:7 (LXX).
185 Gen. 18:20 (Vulgate with one change).
186 For example, Contra Faust., XXII, 78; De pecc. meritis et remissione, I, xxxix, 70; ibid., II, xxii, 26; Quaest. in Heptateuch, 4:24; De libero arbitrio, 3:18, 55; De div. quaest., 83:26; De natura et gratia, 67:81; Contra duas ep. Pelag., I:3, 7; I:13:27.
187 Ps. 27:1.
188 II Tim. 2:25 (mixed text).
189 Cf. Luke 22:61.
190 Cf. John 20:22, 23.
191 This libellus is included in Augustine's Sermons (LXXI, PL, 38, col. 445-467), to which Possidius gave the title De blasphemia in Spiritum Sanctum. English translation in N-PNF, st Series, Vol. VI, Sermon XXI, pp. 318-332.
192 Sicut semina quae concepta non fuerint.
193 Jerome, Epistle to Vitalis, Ep. LXXII, 2; PL, 22, 674. Augustine also refers to similar phenomena in The City of God, XVI. viii, 2.
194 Gal. 5:17.
195 I Cor. 15:40.
196 I Cor. 15:50.
197 I Cor. 15:44.
198 Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14.
199 Ps. 100:1 (Vulgate); cf. Ps. 101:1 (R.S.V.).
200 Matt. 11:21.
201 This is one of the rare instances in which a textual variant in Augustine's text affects a basic issue in the interpretation of his doctrine. All but one of the major old editions, up to and including Migne, here read: Nec utique deus injuste noluit salvos fiere eum possent salvi esse SI VELLENT (if they willed it). This would mean the attribution of a decisive role in human salvation to the human will and would thus stand out in bold relief from his general stress in the rest of the Enchiridion and elsewhere on the primacy and even irresistibility of grace. The Jansenist edition of Augustine, by Arnauld in 1648, read SI VELLET (if He willed it) and the reading became the subject of acrimonious controversy between the Jansenists and the Molinists. The Maurist edition reads si vellet, on the strength of much additional MS. evidence that had not been available up to that time. In modern times, the si vellet reading has come to have the overwhelming support of the critical editors, although Rivière still reads si vellent. Cf. Scheel, 76-77 (See Bibl.); Rivière, 402-403; J.=G. Krabinger, S. Aurelii Augustini Enchiridion (Tübingen, 1861 ), p. 116; Faure-Passaglia, S. Aurelii Augustini Enchiridion (Naples, 1847), p. 178; and H. Hurter, Sanctorum Patrum opuscula selecta (Innsbruck, 1895), p. 123.
202 Cf. Ps. 113:11 (a mixed text; composed inexactly from Ps. 115:3 and Ps. 135:6; an interesting instance of Augustine's sense of liberty with the texts of Scripture. Here he is doubtless quoting from memory).
203 I Tim. 2:4.
204 Matt. 23:37.
205 Rom. 9:18.
206 Rom. 9:11, 12.
207 Cf. Mal. 1:2, 3 and Rom. 9:13.
208 Rom. 9:14.
209 Rom. 9:15.
210 Rom. 9:15; see above, IX, 32.
211 Eph. 2:3.
212 Rom. 9:16.
213 I Cor. 1:31; cf. Jer. 9:24. The religious intention of Augustine's emphasis upon divine sovereignty and predestination is never so much to account for the doom of the wicked as to underscore the sheer and wonderful gratuity of salvation.
214 Rom. 9:17; cf. Ex. 9:16.
215 Rom. 9:19.
216 Rom. 9:20, 21.
217 I Cor. 1:31.
218 Ps. 110:2 (Vulgate).
219 Matt. 16:23.
220 Acts 21:10-12.
221 I Tim. 2:4.
222 John 1:9.
223 I Tim. 2:1.
224 I Tim. 2:2.
225 I Tim. 2:3.
226 I Tim. 2:4.
227 Luke 11:42.
228 Ps. 135:6.
229 Another example of Augustine's wordplay. Man's original capacities included both the power not to sin and the power to sin (posse non peccare et posse peccare). In Adam's original sin, man lost the posse non peccare (the power not to sin) and retained the posse peccare (the power to sin)--which he continues to exercise. In the fulfillment of grace, man will have the posse peccare taken away and receive the highest of all, the power not to be able to sin, non posse peccare. Cf. On Correction and Grace XXXIII.
230 Again, a wordplay between posset non mori and non possit mori.
231 Prov. 8:35 (LXX).
232 Rom. 6:23.
233 Cf. John 1:16.
234 Rom. 9:21.
235 I Tim. 2:5 (mixed text).
236 Rom. 14:10; II Cor. 5:10.
237 Cf. Ps. 77:9.
238 Rom. 9:23.
239 Matt. 25:46.
240 Cf. Ps. 31:19.
241 Note the artificial return to the triadic scheme of the treatise: faith, hope, and love.
242 Jer. 17:5.
243 Matt. 6:9, 10.
244 Matt. 6:11-13.
245 Luke 11:2-4.
246 Matt. 7:7.
247 Another wordplay on cupiditas and caritas.
248 An interesting resemblance here to Freud's description of the Id, the primal core of our unconscious life.
249 Rom. 3:20.
250 II Peter 2:19.
251 Rom. 5:20.
252 Compare the psychological notion of the effect of external moral pressures and their power to arouse guilt feelings, as in Freud's notion of "superego."
253 Gal. 5:17.
254 Wis. 11:21 (Vulgate).
255 Cf. John 1:17.
256 John 3:8.
257 Rom. 14:9.
258 Cf. Ps. 88:5.
259 ITim. 1:5.
260 Matt. 22:40.
261 Tim. 1:5.
262 I John 4:16.
263 Ex. 20:14; Matt. 5:27; etc.
264 I Cor. 7:1.
265 I Cor. 4:5.
266 Minuitur autem cupiditas caritate crescente.
267 John 15:23.
This text was transcribed by Harry Plantinga. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: possidius_life_of_augustine_01_intro.htm
Possidius, Life of St. Augustine (1919) pp.1-37. Translator's Introduction.
Possidius, Life of St. Augustine (1919) pp.1-37. Translator's Introduction.
SANCTI AUGUSTINI VITA SCRIPTA A POSSIDIO EPISCOPO
EDITED WITH REVISED TEXT, INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND AN ENGLISH VERSION
BY
HERBERT T. WEISKOTTEN
A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of Princeton University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON
LONDON; HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1919
Accepted by the Department of Classics, 1918. Published 1919. Printed in the United States of America.
SANCTI AUGUSTINI VITA
SCRIPTA A POSSIDIO EPISCOPO
EDITED WITH REVISED TEXT, INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND AN ENGLISH VERSION
ERRATA.
p. 24, I 7, For substitution read substitutions, p. 32,1. 8, col. 2, Insert 118866. p. 32, 1. 21, col. 3, Insert 51v-62v.
p. 38,1. 25, For Inspirante 60, 23, read Inspirante....60, 23.
p. 42, 1. 33, For 24 medullis read 21 medullis.
p. 44, next to last line For congitando read cogitando.
p. 50,1. 31, For pententes read petentes
p. 64,1. 26, For 2 multa read 1 multe.
p. 100,1. 28, For 7 Et erat read 1 Et erat
p. 102,1. 27, For dicideret read decideret.
p. in, next to last line, For his read this.
p. 134, last line, For Virg. read Verg.
p. 142,1. 31, For disinit read desinit.
p. 142, t 33, For tracatus read tractatus.
p, 152,1. 14, For participal read participial.
p. 158,1. 11, For consessive read concessive.
p. 164, Omit note on dicebant____quia.
[Blank]
|3
PREFACE
I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to Dean A. F. West for his constant help and guidance in the preparation of this edition. It was begun at his suggestion and has been continually under his direction. I am further indebted to Professor J. H. Westcott for assistance on certain law terms, to Professor Duane Reed Stuart for his thorough criticisms, especially of the text, and also to Professor P. van den Ven and Dr. R. J. Deferrari for valuable suggestions in the reconstruction of the text. Owing to war conditions abroad it was impracticable to examine the MSS. of the Vita in the libraries where they are deposited. Accordingly ten of the older MSS. in the Bibliothèque Nationale and the Vatican were secured in photostatic copies, under the supervision of M. Henri Omont, Conservateur des Manuscrits, and of the late Director Jesse Benedict Carter and Professor Albert W. Van Buren of the American Academy in Rome. Thanks are also due to Mr, Gordon W. Thayer, Librarian of the J. G. White Collection, Cleveland Public Library, for providing me with notices of certain MSS. of the Vita from catalogues otherwise unavailable. The map was prepared by my friend Dr. W. E. Cockfield on the basis of the map in Volume VIII of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
H. T. W.
Princeton, New Jersey,
June 11, 1918.
[Blank]
|5
CONTENTS
1. Introduction...................................... 7
Sources for the Life of Augustine...............7
Early Life...................................... 7
Family......................................... 8
Friends........................................ 10
The Monastery.................................., 11
Life of Possidius................................ 12
His Intimacy with Augustine..................... 17
Augustine's references to Possidius................ 18
His peculiar Fitness for his Task.................. 18
His Reliability.................................. 19
His appreciation of Augustine.................... 20
Date of Composition of the Vita................... 21
Style........................................ 22
Manuscripts.................................... 23
Editions........................................ 32
The Text....................................... 34
2. Abbreviations in the apparatus criticus............... 37
3. Latin Text and Translation........................38
4. Notes...........................................147
5. Select Bibliography..........................169
6. Index to Latin Text..............................170
7. Index to Notes...................................172
[Blank]
|7
INTRODUCTION
Sources for the life of Augustine.
Our knowledge of the life of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is derived from two main sources: (1) Augustine's own Confessiones, covering the period up to the time of his conversion in 387 and setting forth chiefly the history of his spiritual development, and (2) the Vita Augustini of Possidius, covering the time from Augustine's conversion to his death in 430 and containing a record of his daily life and activities. Outside of these two main sources many references also occur in his other writings, chiefly in the Epistles.
Early Life.
Aurelius Augustinus was born at Tagaste in Numidia on November 13, 354,1 about seven years after Chrysostom and fourteen after Jerome and Ambrose. After spending a free and careless boyhood at Tagaste, he pursued the usual course of grammar and rhetoric at Madaura and Carthage and afterward taught for a short time in his native town. In 374 he returned to Carthage and taught rhetoric for nine years. During this period he became deeply interested in Manichaeanism, merely as an auditor, however, and not as one of the electi. It was here he met the famous Manichaean teacher Faustus from whom he expected much, but soon found that, despite his gorgeous rhetoric, he was unable to answer any searching questions. Dissatisfied with his life at Carthage and seeking a larger career, he went to Rome. Moreover he had heard that the students of Rome were better behaved than those at Carthage. |8 Among the latter were those known as eversores, who went about in groups, broke into classes, overthrew the benches and provoked disorder in general. So in spite of the tearful entreaties of his mother Monica, he evaded her and by night secretly took ship for Italy. However, when he arrived in Rome he soon discovered that while his students kept better order, they had a custom which was to prove most annoying to him. For after they had attended his classes a while they would go off to another teacher and leave their fees unpaid. Accordingly when the way was opened for him to teach in Milan he went there without delay.
By this time he had abandoned Manichaeanism and was taken for a short time with the scepticism of the New Academy. In Milan he soon became engrossed in studying Neo-Platonism and also came under the influence of Ambrose, Bishop of that city. After a memorable moral and intellectual struggle he was converted to the Christian faith and baptized by Ambrose at Easter 387. He then returned to Tagaste, travelling with his mother who died on the way at Ostia. On arriving at Tagaste he lived in seclusion till he was made presbyter in the church at Hippo in 391. At this point the narrative of Possidius begins.
Family.
Augustine's father Patricius was a man of curial rank in rather humble circumstances. He was of a somewhat coarse and sensual temper, given to occasional fits of anger, but generally easy-going. He was anxious that his son should distinguish himself as a lawyer and even borrowed money to enable him to study at Carthage. Aside from this, however, Patricius seems to have paid little heed to his welfare and training. He had not been a Christian up to the time of his son's departure for Carthage, but through the influence of his wife Monica became a catechumen about the year 370 and was baptized shortly before his death in the following year.
Monica, the mother of Augustine, is forever revered in Christian history. Augustine was not ignorant of her religion, |9 for she had trained him in his childhood,2 but it soon slipped from his memory when he went away to school. From this time to his conversion in 387, while he was trying one philosophy after another, Monica did not cease to hope and pray that her son would yet become a Christian, though she was at one time unwilling to have him with her in the house because of his outspoken contempt for the Christian faith.3 He says that she wept more bitterly over his spiritual death than other mothers over the bodily death of their children.4 When, in spite of her entreaties, he stole away and took ship for Italy, she would not leave him but followed all the way to Milan, where she constantly attended the sermons of the statesman-bishop Ambrose. With Augustine's conversion her mission on earth was ended 5 and she saw nothing of his later far-reaching influence, for she died at Ostia in the fall of that same year. Augustine's tribute to his mother 6 is one of the most perfect and touching in literature.
Augustine was not the only child. He had a brother, Navigius 7 and one sister referred to in his letter to the nuns.8 Possidius also mentions her.9 Though her name is not known, tradition gives it as Perpetua.10 Whether Augustine had any other brothers or sisters is not certain. His natural son Adeodatus, born about 372, gave promise of marked ability, but died in his youth.11 He was baptized with his father in 387. The names of several other relatives outside the circle of his immediate family appear in his writings. In the De Beata |10 Vita i 6 he speaks of two cousins, Lastidianus and Rusticus, who took part in the discussions at Cassiciacum and in Serm. CCCLVI 3 he mentions, without naming him, a nephew who was a subdiaconus. Ep. LII is written to another cousin, Severinus, urging him to leave the Donatists and return to the Catholic Church. Besides these Possidius writes of fratris sui filiae in Chapter XXVI—a phrase, which also seems to prove that Augustine had only one brother.
Friends.
In speaking of Augustine's friends we mean only the most intimate. They are to be found in two groups, the earlier at the Villa of Cassiciacum, near Milan, to which Augustine and his friends retired during the months immediately preceding his baptism, and the later group at Hippo. Chief among these friends was his fellow-townsman and life-long companion Alypius, who accompanied him through the years of uncertainty at Carthage and Milan and faithfully reflected each of Augustine's changes of faith. After living with Augustine in the monastery at Hippo for several years, he became bishop of his native town Tagaste. The group at Cassiciacum was small and most intimate, consisting of Monica, who not infrequently took part in the debate, Adeodatus, Navigius, Alypius., the two cousins Lastidianus and Rusticus mentioned above, and two pupils, Trygetius and Licentius,12 a son of his former patron Romanianus.13 They spent the time studying and discussing questions of religion and philosophy. The other circle of friends which calls for special mention is found in the monastery at Hippo. Here Possidius and others 14 first appear in Augustine's life. Their intimate manner of life is described |11 by Possidius 15 and even more satisfactorily in two of Augustine's sermons.16
The monastery.
This monastery which had its beginning at Tagaste and was later established at Hippo when Augustine became presbyter there, was the first one in North Africa and the parent of the other North African monasteries. Possidius states 17 that the bishops who went out from this monastery at Hippo followed their master's example and established other monasteries in their episcopal sees. Augustine's original purpose had been merely to withdraw from the world with a few friends and have time for undisturbed meditation and prayer. He pursued this kind of life for almost three years at Tagaste (388-391) until he was forcibly ordained presbyter at Hippo. After that he continued his purpose, but adapting it to circumstances, made the monastery rather a school for the training of the clergy. His conception of the kind of life the clergy should lead is clearly set forth in two of his sermons.18 He also established a monastery for women over which his sister presided, and after her death in 423 wrote them a letter 19 to settle their differences and to guide them in the conduct of life.
Life of Possidius.
In reviewing the life of Possidius,20 the first fact to be noted is that, apart from his relations with Augustine, he is practically unknown. He first appears as one of the group of intimate friends whom Augustine gathered around him in the monastery at Hippo and is mentioned only once after |12 Augustine's death.21 Possidius himself states at the very close of the Vita that he had lived with Augustine on terms of intimate friendship for "almost forty years." Augustine was made Presbyter at Hippo in 391 and "soon after" 22 established his monastery. As this was thirty-nine years before Augustine's death, Possidius must have become connected with the monastery at the very beginning or soon after. Where he came from and how he came to enter the monastery must remain matters of conjecture, but it seems fair to suppose that he came from Hippo or the immediate neighborhood.
The date of Possidius's birth, also, may be arrived at only approximately. As he was still living and performing his episcopal duties seven years after the death of Augustine,23 who lived to be seventy-six,24 he was in all likelihood younger than his teacher and friend. When he entered the monastery, therefore, he was probably not over thirty, as Augustine was then thirty-five. Moreover he was probably at least twenty, in view of the fact that he soon became Augustine's intimate friend. This would accordingly fix the date of his birth somewhere between the years 360 and 370.
In 397, probably within a short time after the death of Megalius, Bishop of Calama and Primate of Numidia, Possidius succeeded to this episcopate, though not to the primacy, as that was an office of seniority, not of locality, in the African Church. From this time till his activities were temporarily checked by the invasion of the Vandals, he seems to have led a not unusual life for a North African bishop of the fifth century, journeying to the various parts of his diocese, attending councils and defending the Church against the attacks of heretics. About the year 403 Possidius made two attempts to arrange |13 a public discussion with Crispinus, the Donatist bishop of Calama, which the latter each time avoided. A few days after the second refusal, while Possidius was travelling through his diocese, another Crispinus, a Donatist presbyter and perhaps a relative of the bishop Crispinus, attacked him, setting fire to the house in which he took refuge. As the bishop Crispinus did not even reprove his presbyter for this unprovoked attack, the Catholics took the matter into court and Crispinus, the bishop, was fined. Through the intervention of Possidius this fine was not exacted. Nevertheless Crispinus was not satisfied and carried his appeal to the Emperor Honorius. Thereupon, as Augustine had likewise narrowly escaped an ambuscade laid for him by the Donatists not long before, a council which met at Carthage in 404 decided to appeal to the Emperor for protection.25 In 405, accordingly, Honorius issued an edict 26 renewing the laws of Theodosius against heretics, directing furthermore that Crispinus should be fined ten pounds of gold and that the judge and court should suffer the same penalty for not having collected the fine before. This fine, however, through the intercession of Possidius, was likewise remitted.27
In 407 Possidius and Augustine, with five other bishops, were appointed as a committee to decide some ecclesiastical question, but no further record has been preserved.28 In the following year, during a riot brought about by the celebrations of the pagans, Possidius narrowly escaped with his life. On November 15, 407, Honorius had made the public celebration of heathen rites and festivals illegal.29 On June 1, 408, however, which was the pagan feast-day, as Augustine relates,30 in violation of this law the pagans of Calama performed their rites and marched past the Christian church. As no one |14 interfered and as the insult could not be tolerated, the clergy attempted to stop the celebration, but were driven back into the church and assailed with stones. Possidius did not allow this to pass unnoticed and carried the case before the proper authorities who promised to exact the penalty imposed by the law. About June 9, however, before anything had been done, the pagans again attacked the church with stones. On the following day, accordingly, Possidius and his people took the matter to court but were refused admittance. A few hours later the church was a third time besieged, and not being satisfied with the damage they could do with stones, the pagans tried to burn the buildings together with the people in them. One man was killed and Possidius escaped only by hiding in a narrow crevice while the pagans roamed about in search of him. According to Augustine they were much disappointed, since their chief desire was to do away with the bishop. The uproar was finally quieted by a stranger who seemed to have gained some influence with them. Through his efforts the captives were set free and much plunder returned. Augustine himself journeyed to Calama to comfort the people and to admonish and, if possible, convert the pagans, but evidently without much success. An edict 31 issued by Honorius in November of the same year, directing that the images and altars of the pagans be destroyed and their temples be confiscated for public use, was no doubt provoked by this disturbance.
To this period belong Possidius's two journeys to Italy. Though only one is generally mentioned, there were evidently two. The first was occasioned by the recent pagan uprising 32 and took place after July 408 and before March 27, 409. This date is made clear by a letter of Augustine in which he says that on March 27 he received an answer to a letter he had written about eight months before, when Possidius had |15 not yet embarked on his voyage.33 From this letter it would also appear that Possidius was expected to return shortly, for Augustine suggests that possibly the citizens of Calama had heard a rumor that Possidius had obtained authority to punish them more severely (severius),34 though no such report had as yet reached him.
The other visit to the imperial court was on an embassy appointed by a council which met at Carthage on July 1, 410.35 The purpose of this embassy was to secure the renewal of the laws against the Donatists which had been temporarily suspended.36 Possidius and his colleagues seem to have accomplished their purpose, for in August 410 Honorius issued a decree 37 warning heretics and pagans not to hold public meetings and declaring confiscation of property or even death as the penalty for violation of the law.
At the great Collatio of 411 between the Catholics and Donatists assembled at Carthage by order of the Emperor, Possidius played a rather prominent part. Two hundred and eighty-six Catholic bishops were present. From this number seven were chosen to carry on the discussion, among whom were Augustine, Possidius and Alypius,38 although the debate was carried on almost entirely by Augustine. Possidius |16 appears at two other councils. At that of Milevum in 416 39 he joined with other bishops in signing a letter,40 written probably by Augustine, to Innocent I, calling attention to the newborn Pelagian heresy and requesting that it be suppressed. Shortly afterwards, together with his old friends of the monastery at Hippo, Augustine, Alypius, Evodius and one outsider, Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, he signed another letter 41 to Innocent, urging that this same heresy be formally denounced. The other council, though it is scarcely to be dignified by so important a name, was that held at Caesarea in 418, to which the Donatist bishop Emeritus was invited.42
When the Vandals invaded Africa in 428, Calama was one of the many towns which fell into their hands. Possidius took refuge with Augustine at Hippo, one of the three cities which still maintained their independence. There he witnessed the death of Augustine in 430 and remained till the siege of Hippo was abandoned by the Vandals in 431.43 By or before the time an agreement was reached in 435 between the Roman Emperor and the Arian Geiseric, Possidius no doubt returned to his former charge, where he probably remained unmolested as long as he performed his duties quietly and did not attract the attention of the Arian authorities. In 437, however, when Geiseric endeavored to substitute Arianism for the Catholic faith, Possidius and several other bishops were driven from their sees because they refused to yield to the demands of the Vandal ruler.44 This is the last we hear of Possidius. He may have gone to Italy, but there is no evidence to that effect. He is honored by the Catholic Church on May 17.
His intimacy with Augustine.
Were it not for Possidius's own statement in the last paragraph of the Vita, we should probably not recognize so readily |17 the intimacy which existed between the two bishops. Among Augustine's letters there is only one 45 addressed to Possidius and that is merely an answer to a question on discipline, such as might have been written to any stranger who had asked for advice. It was written in great haste and there is nothing in it to indicate any particular friendship. However, he spent much time in company with Augustine. For the first five or six years of their acquaintance he lived in that intimacy of daily companionship which makes or breaks a friendship as nothing else can, dwelling in the same house, eating at the same table, sharing in the same duties and experiencing the same trials and temptations. On one occasion he tells of a conversation at the table, then of a convert who came to see Augustine and, nobis coram, declared his former guilt and asked for their prayers. Again, we hear of Augustine's righteous indignation when some friends who were visiting disregarded his prohibition of gossip.46 There are many instances of this intimate nature.
After Possidius left the monastery at Hippo to take up his duties as bishop of Calama he was by no means separated from his friend. Calama was only about forty miles distant from Hippo and the two bishops found many opportunities of seeing each other. Now they are attending the same council, or are together on a special committee, or are side by side in a debate with the heretics, or Possidius is visiting Augustine. Finally, when Calama was taken by the Vandals, Possidius withdrew to Hippo and was with Augustine all through his last illness and at the time of his death. None of the other members of that monastery, save Alypius only, is associated with Augustine as frequently as is Possidius.
Augustine's references to Possidius.
Besides the above-mentioned letter addressed to Possidius and those cited in this account of Possidius's life, there are several other references to him in Augustine's writings. |18 Probably the most significant of these is found in Ep, CI, addressed to a certain Bishop Memor, in which Augustine discloses his affection for Possidius by calling him "no small image of my own self": Nimis autem ingratum ac ferreum fuit, ut te qui nos sic amas, hic sanctus frater et collega noster Possidius, in quo nostram non parvam praesentiam reperies, vet non disceret, vel sine litteris nostris disceret. Est enim per nostrum ministerium non litteris illis, quas variaram servi libidinum liberales vacant, sed dominico pane nutritus, quantus ei potuit per nostras angustias dispensari. This is Augustine's fullest reference to Possidius and as it agrees so well with Possidius's own statements it serves to confirm our faith in him. Another letter written about this same time, while not so pertinent, still deserves notice. It begins in this manner: Cum vos fratres nostri comiunctissimi nobis, quos nobiscum desiderati desiderare et salutati resalutare consuestis, assidue vident, non tam augentur bona nostra, quam consolantur mala.47 Though Augustine may here be speaking in general terms, yet he means Possidius in particular, for he at once proceeds to name him as the person he has in mind. The other references to Possidius are of less importance and need only to be indicated. He concludes Ep. CXXXVII to Volusianus with a greeting from Possidius who is evidently visiting him, and in the De Civitate Dei XXII viii he speaks of a cure supposed to have been effected by a relic which the bishop of Calama had brought to that city.
His peculiar fitness for his task.
Because of this prolonged and intimate friendship. Possidius was peculiarly fitted for the task he undertook. He had observed Augustine's daily life continuously for at least five years. He had seen him in the various phases of his work as teacher and administrator: instructing the people or the clergy or managing the funds of the church, or caring for the poor and the widows or judging the disputes of his parishioners. |19
He had seen him faithful in his secular responsibilities, yet escaping them whenever possible and eagerly turning his attention to spiritual matters. He knew his habits of dress and food and had shared in his strict monastic asceticism. Later, himself a bishop, Possidius had seen Augustine as a leader among his fellow-bishops at the councils and as the Church's ablest defender against heresies. He was constantly in touch with his great master and friend and at no time throughout the thirty-eight or thirty-nine years of their acquaintance did anything occur to weaken their attachment. With the exception of the first four chapters of the Vita, which deal briefly with the period before their acquaintance, the account he gives is based entirely on his own observation—things he had himself witnessed and experienced.
His reliability.
As a result we have a plain biography of fact, not of fiction. Possidius does not recount mere gossip or hearsay. Nowhere throughout the Vita do phrases occur indicating second-hand information. One thing that must immediately commend it as worthy of belief is the absence of such miraculous tales as abound in Paulinus's Vita Ambrosii. Even Augustine was not free from this credulity, as may be seen in the list of remarkable cures related toward the end of the De Civitate Dei. Possidius, however, was not given to recounting marvelous stories. Apart from a somewhat general reference to "certain energumens" from whom "demons departed by reason of Augustine's intercession in prayer," he relates, without affectation or extravagance, only one specific miracle performed by Augustine—the cure of a sick man by the laying on of hands. Moreover, wherever Possidius's statements can be checked by the writings of Augustine or the Acts of Councils, they are always fully corroborated.48 To this there is no exception.49 Yet in one respect he is careless: he does not |20 always mention the sources of his few non-biblical quotations, but is apt to refer to the writers as cuiusdam sapientis or quidam poeta.
His appreciation of Augustine.
Though he only partly realized Augustine's true greatness and his increasing importance to the Church, he did recognize in him a devout Christian, a profound and eager student, a devoted and watchful shepherd, a mighty opponent of heretics and a daily example in his domestic life. He sees the present and local greatness, but has less conception of the lasting and widening influence which a mind and personality like Augustine's were destined to exert for ages to come. He sees that Augustine's arguments and reasoning have established the faith and brought peace to the Church, but that centuries later theologians and philosophers should still base many of their doctrines upon the writings of his friend is far outside the range of his imagination; for his nature, like his style, was essentially prosaic. Yet he did believe that posterity ought not to forget Augustine, and therefore wrote the Vita and compiled the Indiculus,50 a catalogue of Augustine's works, to help those who would keep his memory alive.
The Vita, though not a regular chronological narrative, falls naturally into four parts:
I-V Introductory
VI-XVIII Activities against heresies
XIX-XXVII Daily life at home and in the church
XXVIII-XXXI Last days and death.
In this arrangement the Vita closely resembles the literary form which had become traditional in the Alexandrian |21 biography and which is best illustrated in the Lives of Suetonius.51 Possidius's acquaintance with this literary form evidently came not directly from classical sources but through his knowledge of the Lives of former Christian biographers.52 Chief among these was undoubtedly Jerome, who acknowledges his indebtedness to Suetonius.53 This form of biography lays principal stress on personal traits. Hence while Augustine's own writings are indispensable in forming an estimate of his far-reaching powers as a theologian, philosopher and preacher, were it not for the intimate revelations of every-day life presented by Possidius, our picture of his personality would be incomplete.
Date of composition of the Vita.
The date generally given for the composition of the Vita is 432. From Possidius's words it is clear that it must have been written after July 431, when the siege of Hippo was abandoned by the Vandals, for he says he was in Hippo during the whole time of the siege.54 Furthermore, his use of quondam in the same chapter (quondam Bonifacius) seems to presuppose the death of Boniface, which occurred about 432. The terminus ad quem is the destruction of Carthage in 439, for Possidius states that when he wrote Carthage still remained uncaptured.55 While the probabilities favor 432 or soon after as the date of the composition of the Vita, the evidence for this is not complete and the nearest certain approximation attainable is 432-439. No evidence derived from the date of the burning of Hippo, which is unknown, or from the presumed escape of the church library from the conflagration can be deduced to help in fixing the date of the Vita more closely. The Indiculus must, of course, have been made up from the books in the library at Hippo and might very |22 probably have been compiled during the siege in 431 and later affixed to the Vita.
Style.
The Vita, as already suggested, is a plain recital of facts and incidents which give a clear insight into Augustine's daily life in public and private, based on the writer's personal and intimate knowledge. That Possidius was a man of moderate education appears readily. His style is wholly unadorned. It is the work of a plain man and untrained writer. This appears immediately in the striking contrast between the style of Possidius and that of the letter of Augustine, wonderful both in thought and style, which he embodies in Chapter XXX. The letter reads so smoothly and the argument is so clearly expressed that the scribes found little trouble in understanding it. This contrast with the diction of Possidius is further brought out by the very noticeable decrease in the variations and difficulties which this letter presents in all the MSS. The style of Possidius also differs radically from that of Augustine in that it lacks vivacity, versatility and copiousness. The form is somewhat stiff and the expression, while always marked by candor and often by naive beauty, frequently lacks fluency. The sentences are frequently abrupt and loosely connected. They are bald, unrhetorical and often wanting in animation. While his style in some degree resembles that of Suetonius this is evidently due to the example of Christian biography and not to the direct influence of Suetonius, as there appears to be no evidence that Possidius had any acquaintance with his writings. Possidius is both naive and commonplace in his manner. His sentences show neither balance nor finish and are sometimes marred by awkward parenthetical statements or curious doubling of expression. Except in the Preface, no serious attempt at literary finish is made. There is no philosophizing or play of the imagination; neither is there any padding or moralizing. Though the sentences are not long and involved, yet they are frequently awkward and the thought is not always clearly expressed. It is a simple matter-of-fact |23 account without embellishment, and is not weighed down with a mass of fable and fiction. Possidius shows self-restraint and modesty, with a touching sincerity and devotion to his leader. The work abounds in biblical references and quotations which are apt and reveal a considerable acquaintance with the Scriptures.56 Outside the Scriptures he quotes only three books, the Vita Ambrosii of Paulinus, the De Mortalitate of Cyprian and the Confessiones of Augustine—a very limited circle—and two or three unidentified commonplaces. With the Confessiones he was quite familiar. He quotes no secular writer. His one aim was to reveal Augustine as man and bishop in his daily life, work and character. Of this he has given a faithful, if incomplete picture, one of absorbing interest and at times of unaffected beauty.
His Latinity is that of his own time, as used by a man of only fair ability and education. His vocabulary, arrangement and style are thus restricted by his own limitations. It is unrhetorical narrative Latin of the fifth century. Characteristics of still later Latin also begin to appear.
Manuscripts.
The text of this edition of the Vita is based on a collation of ten of the earlier MSS., five from France and five from Italy, in photostatic copy. Of these, four of the latter and at least one of the former have been examined for previous editions. A description of each of these ten MSS. follows:57
A Bibliothèque de Chartres 112. Membraneus. 125ff. 220 x 170 millim., saec. IX-X. 1. S. Augustini Vita scripta a Possidio episcopo.58 |24
As one of the earliest copies giving the complete text with fewer and less serious errors than any other, it is clearly the best of the ten MSS. It is carefully written in an excellent hand and presents only occasional errors. The observable errors in A are confined to 35 instances of haplography, its characteristic fault, 25 erroneous substitution of single letters, perhaps 5 impossible readings, and some easily detected and insignificant other slips here and there. They are all noted in the apparatus criticus.59 This MS. seems to be quoted once, but inaccurately, by the Benedictine editors under |25 the name Carnotensis, yet it nowhere appears in the list of MSS. which they have consulted.60
B Vatican, Codex Reginae Sueciae 1025. Membraneus, foliorum 211 (om,273 x 0,222), paginis bipartitis exaratus saec. XI. 8. (Fol. 137v-156v) Vita S. Augustini ep. conscripta a Possidio ep. = BHL. 785, 786. This MS. is complete and in general agrees with A, though it contains numerous errors and occasional readings taken from the second or variant group of MSS. Omissions and corrections are frequent. It is one of the MSS. used by Salinas.
C Vatican, Codex Reginae Sueciae 541. Membraneus, foliorum 179, signata olim I—XX/IX—I (om,378 x 0,274), paginis, bipartitis exaratus variis manibus saec. XII. 63. (Fol. 158-166) Vita S. Augustini ep. = BHL. 785. The main representative of the second or variant group. It is neatly written and errors are rather less numerous than in B. However it substitutes not a few readings of its own which are not found in the other MSS. The text is complete. Also used by Salinas. D Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex signatus num. 2076. Olim coenobii Dervensis, deinde Petri Pithoei, deinde Thuaneus, deinde Colbertinus 1237, postea Regius C. 3775.3.3. Foliorum 144, med. (om,285 x 0,23), columnis binis exaratus saec. X. 3. (Fol. o r-130) Vita beati Augustini a beatissimo Possidio edita Calamensi episcopo. In close agreement with C. There are many corrections, usually to the readings peculiar to C. It is complete.
E Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex signatus num. 13220. Olim Francisci de Harlay archiepiscopi Rotomagensis, deinde coenobii sancti Martialis Lemovicensis, postea SanGerm., Harlay 369. Foliorum 211, min. (fere om,175 x 0,44), lineis plenis, exaratus diversis manibus saec. X. |26 9. (Fol. 96v-134v) Vita Sancti Augustini episcopi Hipponensis, a beato Possidio edita Calamensi episcopo. Very carefully written. The few errors are generally corrected. It contains many interlinear explanatory words entered in a later hand above the corresponding word in the text. The conclusion of the Vita is missing. Though this MS. was once at St. Germain, it cannot be the MS. quoted by the Benedictine editors as Germanensis, for the readings do not agree. F Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex signatus num. 11748. Olim sancti Mauri Fossatensis 38, deinde San-Germ., prius 1060, recentius 487. Foliorum 155, med. (om,36 x 0,27), columnis binis, exaratus saec. X. 9. (Fol. 20v-35v) Vita beati Augustini.
Very inaccurate in case endings. The text is complete. It is quoted in the Benedictine edition under the name Fossatensis and is called vetustissimus.61
G Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex signatus num. 10863. Olim coenobii "Luxovinensis" (fol. 1), deinde Suppl. lat. 1445. Foliorum 99, min. (0m,21 x 0,14), lineis plenis, exaratus saec. IX. 1. (Fol. 24-52) Vita sancti Augustini auctore Possidio.
Likewise inaccurate in case endings. The first nine and a half chapters are missing and a portion of Augustine's letter is omitted.62
H Vatican, Codex 1190 (olim 2171). Membraneus, foliorum A et sign. 1-179, 181-264 (om,38o x 0,282), paginis bipartitis exaratus variis manibus saec. XII. 36. (Fol. 88v-97) Acta S. Augustini ep. = BHL. 785. Fragmentary. Used by Salinas.
J Vatican, Codex 1191. Membraneus, foliorum 205 (om,430 x 0,308), paginis bipartitis exaratus saec. XII extr. |27 70. (Fol. 198-203v) Vita S. Augustini ep. edita a Possidio ep. — BHL. 785. Still more fragmentary. Used by Salinas. K Bibliotheca Vallicellana, Tomus I. Membraneus, foliorum A et sign. 1-336 (om,565 x 0,360), paginis bipartitis exaratus saec. XI/XII. 92. (Fol. 250-254v) Natale S. Augustini ep. — BHL. 785.
Closely related to H. Fragmentary. It also breaks off abruptly in Chapter XXIV.
LMNOP Five MSS. used by the Benedictine editors: duo Floriacenses, Germanensis, Vedastinus, Cisterciensis. Q Brussels, Bollandist Museum, P.MS 5.
Belongs to the AB group, being related very closely to B. The order of the MSS. E-K represents no particular classification, except that G-K are more or less fragmentary. The readings from the MSS. L-Q, as given in the Benedictine edition and the Acta Sanctorum, are indicated in the apparatus criticus, though the former are very few and generally unimportant. However, when the Benedictine editors quote their MSS. as codex unus or codex alter, as they usually do, thereby making it impossible to identify the MS. from which the variant is taken, the reading has been omitted. The variants given from Q are important.
In addition to the manuscripts enumerated and described above, readings in crucial places from seventeen manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale were obtained through the courtesy of M. Omont, Conservateur des Manuscrits. The readings thus obtained closely confirm the consensus of the other manuscripts used as against the readings introduced by previous editors. They do not, however, aid in determining more clearly the relative value of the body of manuscripts used as the basis for this edition. These seventeen manuscripts are marked in the general list of manuscripts on page 30 by the letters abcdefghijklmnopqr.
In determining the relative value of the various MSS. one fact must be kept in mind, namely that the texts of the lives |28 of saints did not receive the same consideration as those of classical writers. Lives of saints were very common and were freely multiplied. Scribes were less careful with them than with either the Scriptures or classical writings for which a greater amount of regard was felt; for the former because of their inspired nature and for the latter because of their rarity and antiquity. Hence there was less restraint in copying the texts of these Lives. Accordingly there are more individual differences in such MSS., and the family groups are not as clearly defined. Moreover since the MSS. of any one Life are so much more numerous than for most classical texts—in the present case probably two hundred or more— definite relationship is clearly more difficult to establish on the basis of only a part of the extant MSS. of a given Life.
Thus in the case of the ten MSS. of the Vita Augustini examined for this edition, each MS. is in some degree independent of the others. Under such conditions, therefore, the choice of the best MS. or group of MSS., may be made by a process of elimination. In a comparison of the ten MSS. with a view to this choice GHJK may be omitted as they are quite fragmentary. Of the other six MSS. the crucial readings of A and B frequently agree in opposition to all the others, thus showing a certain relationship between these two. For instance in the Praefatio AB read videar fraudare, whereas CDFHK read fraudare videar; AB autem, CDEFHK enim. In Chapter I A and B both read carthaginensi which is, of course, an error for tagastensi. In this same chapter AB read assistens as against astans in CDEFHJK. Other instances of this agreement between A and B may easily be found in the apparatus criticus.
C, on the other hand, contains many readings found in none of the other nine MSS., except only in the corrections made in D by a second hand. Thus in Chapter VIII for the reading sed consacerdos found in the other MSS. CD* have quam consacerdos; in Chapter IX for Quae cum audissent... comperta, CD* have quae vir beatus comperta; at the end of Chapter XV while the other MSS. vary between vivat, vivit |29 and vitat, CD* alone agree on victitat; in Chapter XIX CD* read quanto magis instead of nedum or necdum found in the other MSS. However C also contains variant readings which are found in other MSS. and which seem to indicate that C belongs to a different family than AB. MSS. E and F agree sometimes with AB and sometimes with C. As their readings are found in AB or C they may be disregarded as not outstanding representatives of either group. The final choice, therefore, as to the best available source for the original text among these ten MSS. lies between AB and C. A is more free from errors than any of the other nine MSS. and is also one of the earliest. Moreover since C contains many readings not found in the other MSS. it cannot be regarded as a pure text, for if it were, it is highly improbable that none of the other nine MSS., except only D*, should contain any trace whatsoever of these readings, many of which differ radically from the readings in the other MSS.63 The reading of CD* in Chapter XIX cited above is probably an alteration to the Vulgate reading. Such alterations are not infrequent in C and are a further illustration of the liberties which the writer of C took with the text. For these reasons the MSS. AB, of which A is the better representative,64 seem to furnish a text which resembles the archetype more closely than any of the other MSS. CDEFGHJK. Accordingly A has been adopted as the main basis of the text and followed rather closely. Its variant readings are fully noted in the apparatus criticus.
A partial list of MSS. of the Vita, as complete as could be made from available sources, is herewith given. |30
List of Manuscripts
PLACE OF DEPOSIT
CATALOGUE NUMBER
FOLIOS OF TEXT
DATE
Austria-Hungary
Heiligenkreuz: Monastery,
13
168v-176v
XII
Lilienfeld: Monastery.
60
177v-185
XIII
Melk: Monastery.
M
333-345
XV
Vienna: Hofbibl.
474
226-255v (256-265v Ind) 65
XI
Vienna: Hofbibl.
1052
38v-62
XII
Belgium
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
64
163v-166 (fr)
XI
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
1734
1-29
XIV
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
2342-51 (1)
25v-52
XV
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
7482
98v-101 (fr)
XIII
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
7487-91
90-97v (fr)
XIII
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
8675-89
30-49
XII
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
9636-37
18v-33v
XI
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
11550-55
123v-134
XIII
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
D.Phil. 324, 327(1)
45-64 (Ind)
XII
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
D. Phil. 4627
43v-66v
XI
Brussels: Bibl. Reg.
D. Phil. 8391
79-93v (93v-94 Ind)
XI
Mons: Bibl. Pub.
26, 210, 8402
142-156v
XIII
Namur: Bibl. Pub.
2
(3.75 f.)
XIV
France
Angers: Bibl. d'Angers
802 (718)
50-68 (68v-73v Ind)
XI
Angers: Bibl. d'Angers
806 (722)
116-126v
XII
Auxerre: Bibl, d'Auxerre
28 (28)
4-20
XI
Cambrai Bibl. de Cambrai
864 (767 II)
188-202 (202v-203v Ind)
XI
Cambrai: Bibl. de Cambrai
855 (760)
101-107v, 113-125 (fr)
XIII
Chalons-sur-Marne Bibl. de Chalons-sur-Marne
70 (78)
114-133
XI
A
Chartres: Bibl. de Chartres
112 (60)
1-42v (42v-61 Ind)
IX-X
Chartres: Bibl. de Chartres 500 (190)
162-167v (fr)
XII
Chartres: Bibl. de Chartres 501 (192)
141v-152 (fr)
XII
Dijon: Bibl. de Dijon
638-642 (383) Tom l-37 (fr)
Xl-XII
Douai: Bibl. de Douai
151 Tom II
98-99v (fr)
XIII
Douai: Bibl. de Douai
837
113v-116v (fr)
XII
Douai: Bibl. de Douai
867
52v-72 (72-73 Ind)
XII
Grenoble: Bibl. de Grenoble
1174
92v-109 (109v-113v Ind)
XII
Le Mans: Bibl. du Mans
227
129-138 (138-140 Ind)
XI-XII
Paris: Bibl. de St. Genevieve 694
1-8 (fr)
XVII
Paris: Bibl. de St. Genevieve 2613
75 (fr)
xvni
Paris: Bibl. de Mazarine
1714 (570)
v-16
XIII
D
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
2076
106v-130 (130-137v Ind)
X
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
3809A
53-54 (fr)
XV
a
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
3820
96-102v (fr)
XIV
b
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
5270
45v-62
XIII
c
Paris: Bibl. Nat
5276
120-136v (136v-137v Ind)XIV
d
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
5278
177-187v (om. ep.)
XIII
e
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
5293
6-21 (21-24 Ind)
XII |31
f
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
5296
214-216v (fr)
XIII
g
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
5343
63-79 (79-84v Ind)
XII
h
Paris: Babl. Nat.
5365
66v-68v, 77-77v, 69-73
XII
i
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
8995
35-49v (ora. praef.)
XIII
G
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
10863
24-52 (ff. missing)
IX
F
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
11748
20v-32 (32-35v Ind)
X
k
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
11750
148-156v
XI
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
11753
122v-128v (fr)
XII
l
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
11758
163v-172
XIII
m
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
11759
59-60v 282-287v
XIV
n
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
12606
88v-93
XII
E
Paris: Bibl. Nat
13220
96v-134v
X
0
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
14651
228v-239v
XV
p
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
15437
136v-141v
XI
q
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
16734
155-162
XII
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
17002
231-232v (fr)
X
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
17005
159-160 (fr)
XII
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
N. A. 1595
136v-137v (fr)
IX
r
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
N. A. 2178
106-122v
XI
Paris: Bibl. Nat.
N. A. 2179
279v-286 (fr)
XI
Paris: Bibl. Nat
N. A. 2261
72-79v
XII
Rouen: Bibl. Pub.
1388 (U32)
105-106 (fr)
XII
Rouen: Bibl. Pub.
1412 (A40)
88v-90 (fr)
XII
Germany
Bamberg: K. Oeffent. Bibl.
1024
1-21
X
Berlin: Kgl. Bibl.
123
344v-355
XIII
Erlangen: K. Univ. Bibl.
258
21 (fr)
XII
Leipzig: Stadtbibl.
CXCV
19v-34
XIII
Munich: Kgl. Bibl.
701
174v-180
XIV
Munich: Kgl. Bibl.
7638
10-26
XII
Munich: Kgl. Bibl.
17041
65-81
XII
Munich: Kgl. Bibl.
17732
68-180 (?)
XII
Munster: Univ. Bibl.
144 (272)
1-32
XIV
Munster: Univ. Bibl.
218 (348)
?
XV
Trier: Stadtbibl.
156
176-187
XVI
Great Britain
Dublin: Trinity College
45
?
XIII
Durham: Cathedral
B IV 14
219-235v (Ind)
XIII
London: Brit. Mus.
15621, Addit of 1845
2-26
XIII
London: Brit. Mus.
16161, Addit. of 1846
144-?
XII
London: Brit. Mus.
35110, Addit of 1899
9v-28 (25-29v Ind)
XII
Italy
Milan: Bibl. Ambros.
B 33 Inf.
v-20 (20-23 Ind)
XIII
Milan: Bibl. Ambros.
B 55 Inf.
97-103
XI
Milan: Bibl. Ambros.
D 22 Inf.
170v-189v
XII
Milan: Bibl. Ambros.
H 224 Inf.
59-72
XII
Milan: Bibl. Ambros.
P 113 Sup.
100-113v (fr)
X
Monte Cassino
CXLVII
401-430
XI |32
Naples: Bibl. Nat.
XV AA15 Tom III
205-205v, 209-209v (fr)
XIII
Rome: Bibl. Angelica
1269
240-266 (Ind)
XIII
Rome: Lateran
A80
72-84v
XI
Rome: Sanctae Mariae Maioris
B
108-114 (fr)
XIII
K
Rome: Bibl. Vallicellana
Tom 1
250-254v (fr)
XI-XII
Rome: Bibl. Vallicellana
Tom XXV
287v-289v (fr)
XI-XII
Rome: Vatican
214-219
XV
H
Rome: Vatican
1190
S v-97 (fr)
XII
J
Rome: Vatican
1191
198-203v (fr)
XII
Rome: Vatican
1271
350-351v (fr)
XII
Rome: Vatican
Pal. 225
32-66v (Ind)
XV
C
Rome: Vatican
Cod. Reg. Sueciae 541
158-166
XII
B
Rome: Vatican
Cod. Reg. Sueciae 1025
137v-150v (150v-186v Ind)
XI
Switzerland
St. Gall: Stiftsbibl.
571
50-178 (1-48 Ind)
IX
St. Gall: Stiftsbibl.
577
451-498 (498-? Ind)
IX-X
Bern: Stadtbibl.
A
v (praef, only)
XII
Engelberg: Benedictine Monastery
2
(62v-66 Ind)
XII
[Note to the online edition: note 66 should appear against one of these mss.]
Editions.
The earlier editions of the Vita Augustini in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were not printed separately but were regularly included in volumes containing works of Augustine. They are catalogued in part in the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina 785 and in the British Museum Catalogue under Possidius. The most important older edition not printed separately but included with the works of Augustine is in the Benedictine edition printed at Paris, 1679-1700.67
It was based on previous editions and, if we may judge from the readings given, on a very |33 cursory examination of six MSS., FLMNOP. It appears to have made but few alterations in the traditional printed text. Some criticism of the Benedictine and earlier editions is found in the edition by Salinas, printed at Rome in 1731, pp. V-VIII. 68
This edition by Salinas is the first separate edition of the Vita. It is based on an examination of certain earlier editions, chiefly the Benedictine, and MSS. BCHJ and Vatican MS. 1188 69 at first hand. The edition is divided into two parts, the first containing the text of the Vita with critical and explanatory notes and the second a dissertation by Salinas De Vita et Rebus Gestis S. Possidii. His scanty citations of readings from the small group of MSS. he used, as tested by an examination of photostatic copies, are generally accurate, but several errors occur. He gives no classification or estimate of their relative value, though he seems to have a preference for C. His text, on the whole, differs very little from that of the Benedictine edition. His choice or change of readings, when explained at all, is based not on manuscript evidence, but rather on extraneous suggestions, generally of a historical nature.
The explanatory notes in the edition of Salinas are not very frequent. Nevertheless they give full and even superfluous information, consisting largely of quotations from Augustine, the Acts of Councils and other illustrations from church history. The main fault of the notes is that they are often burdened with unnecessary matter and are not proportioned to the importance of the subject explained. Salinas also added the chapter headings, which do not appear in the earlier editions. These have been retained in the present edition as providing convenient summaries of each chapter. |34
The work of Salinas, however, has a distinct value. Apart from the earlier Benedictine edition, it is the first edition which attempts to be critical. Its general review of the text, though not made by scientific method, represents a certain advance over anything done before, and the information in the notes is usually reliable.
There are three other editions which deserve brief notice. The Migne edition (1865) is merely a reprint of the Benedictine edition with a comparison of Salinas and the addition of his critical notes. The text in the Acta Sanctorum (Paris, 1866) is a reprint of the text of Salinas with variant readings from Q. There is also an edition by Hurter in Sanctorum Patrum Opuscula Selecta, Innsbruck 1895. The source of the text is not evident, as it agrees neither with the Benedictine nor Salinas edition, but seems to result from a capricious alteration of both. It abounds in errors of omission, transpositions and even has insertions which appear nowhere else, either in the ten MSS. used or in the editions. However it contains some valuable comments and a few selections from the critical notes of Salinas.
The text.
The textus receptus evidently dates back to the early editions, at least to the Lou vain edition of 1564. Many liberties have been taken in altering the text, chiefly to fit the rules of classical grammar or to make it read more smoothly. Instances are the substitution of the accusative for the ablative, in ipsas montium silvas et cavernas petrarum et speluncas confugientes: XXVIII; the subjunctive for the indicative, praedicaret: IX; the imperfect for the pluperfect subjunctive, denegaret: XIV; a change to a more suitable conjunction, sed for et: XIV; petitus iret for petitum ire: XXVII, to avoid an abrupt change of construction; astantem for assistentem: XXVII, for no reason at all apparently; the unnecessary insertion of debeo: Praef., to complete the sentence; the omission of nam and insertion of autem: XXXI, and the substitution of the ablative absolute for the accusative, eisque compertis for eaque |35 comperta: IX, because the parenthetical remarks were somewhat obscured; oppropinquaret for propinquaret: IV, and elevata for levata: V; the substitution of spectaret for speraret: IV, evidently because the common meaning of spero did not fit; factus ergo for factusque: V; iuste for intuit; XIII; latebras for latera: XV; probata for prolata: XVII; suos for suis: XXV; inobediensve for inobediensque: XXVIII; the insertion of quod after credo: XV; the addition, by Salinas, of conversus ad Deum: II, and verbum Dei: V; the numerous substitutions of its for his which appears consistently in all the MSS.70 In some of these instances the readings of the editions perhaps may find support in MSS. not available for this edition, but the changes are altogether too numerous and too nice to be anything but an attempt at wholesale text-improvement. This text was unquestioningly adopted by later editions, without so much as an indication of the manuscript readings at many such places. Nevertheless, despite the alterations made by editors, the main body of the text is clear in all the manuscripts consulted, and the area of disputable readings, significant or insignificant, is only about eight hundred words out of a total of over twelve thousand.
In basing the text on AB, the best group of the MSS. A-K, it becomes clear that while there are no difficulties in the form of lacunae or corrupt passages of extended length, there are many readings, principally of individual words, which need exact determination. All these readings have been minutely examined and tested by the weight of the manuscript evidence available and a comparison of the usage of Possidius in other instances. Such alterations in the text as have been made without manuscript authority in previous editions have been |36 largely subjective and have tended to obscure the language and style of Possidius. The purpose of this edition is to present a revision of previous editions in the light of fuller evidence from a larger number of MSS. and to arrive at a text which reproduces as nearly as possible what Possidius wrote, rather than what he should have written. While the result is a text written in a manner somewhat more uncouth, abrupt and awkward than is found in the editions where the text abounds in smooth corrections of editors, it is nevertheless evidently the truer text. |37
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IN THE APPARATUS CRITICUS
A
Chartres 112.
B
Vatican 1025.
C
Vatican 541.
D
Paris 2076.
E
Paris 13220.
F
Paris 11748.
G
Paris 10863.
H
Vatican 1190.
J
Vatican 1191.
K
Vallicellana I.
L
Floriacensis I
M
Floriacensis II
N
Germanensis
Benedictine MSS.
0
Vedastinus
P
Cisterciensis
Q
P. MS 5 (in Acta Sanctorum)
a-r
17 supplementary MSS., see page 30.
Sal.
Salinas.
Ben.
Benedictine.
Mi.
Migne.
edd.
Salinas, Benedictine, Migne.
*
]
Second hand or change by first hand.
Words followed by a single square bracket are extracts from the text adopted in this edition.
Readings Noted in the Apparatus Criticus.
The readings noted are the variant readings, with no citations from the MSS. supporting the text, except where there is considerable confusion in the MSS. and where readings of the supplementary MSS. a-r are given.
1. 1 Prosper, in his Chronicon, states that Augustine died August 28, 430; Possidius says it was in the third month of the siege of Hippo, and also that he died at the age of seventy-six. Augustine himself gives the day of his birth: Idibus Novembris mihi natalis dies erat: De Beata Vita i 6.
2. 2 Religionis verissimae semina mihi a pueritia salubriter insita: De Duabus Animabus i 1.
3. 3 Conf. III xi 19.
4. 4 Conf. III xi 19.
5. 5 Conf. IX x 26.
6. 6 Conf. IX ix-x.
7. 7 De Beata Vita i 6 and Conf. IX xi 27.
8. 8 Ep. CCXI 4.
9. 9 Vita XXVI.
10. 10 Bollandistes, Vies des Saints V 306.
11. 11 Conf. IX vi 14.
12. 12 Contra Academicos I i 4; De Beata Vita i 6; Be Ordine I ii 5.
13. 13 Nebridius, another close friend, does not seem to have been at Cassiciacum, though associated with Augustine both in Carthage and Milan. He died a Christian not long after Augustine's baptism (Conf. IX iii 6).
14. 14 Severus, Evodius, Profuturus and Urbanus. See also Chap. XI, note 1.
15. 15 Vita XXII-XXVI.
16. 16 Sermm. CCCLV, CCCLVI.
17. 17 Vita XI.
18. 18Sermm. CCCLV and CCCLVI.
19. 19Ep. CCXI.
20. 20 His name, Possidius, is not to be confounded with Possidonius, a bishop who appears at some of the councils and who, in conjunction with Possidius, signed the letter addressed by the Council of Milevum to Pope Innocent I (Ep. CLXXVI). Manuscript evidence proves that Possidius, not Possidonius, is the name of Augustine's biographer.
21. 21Prosper, Chronicon, PL 51, 597 (PL = Patrologia Latina).
22. 22 Vita V.
23. 23 Prosper, Chronicon, PL 51, 597.
24. 24 Vita XXXI.
25. 25Mansi III 794.
26. 26 Cod. Theod. XVI 5, 38.
27. 27Vita XII; Contra Cresconium III xlvi 50; Ep. CV 4.
28. 28Mansi III 806.
29. 29 Cod. Theod. XVI 5, 41.
30. 30Ep. XCI 8.
31. 31 Cod. Theod. XVI 10, 19.
32. 32 Compare the words of Augustine: cum ex ipso audieritis quant tristis eum causa compulerit: Ep. XCV 1.
33. 33 Nam ego rescripseram, cum adhuc nobiscum esset, neque navigasset sanctus frater et coepiscopus meus Possidius. Has autem quas met causa illi dignatus es reddere, accept vi kal. April, post menses ferme octo, quam scripseram: Ep. CIV 1.
34. 34 More severely, no doubt, than they had already been punished by the edict of Honorius in the preceding November.
35. 35 Mansi III 810. There seems to be some confusion as to this date. In the Acts of the Councils it is given as Honorii VIII et Theodosii IV. However, to agree with the Fasti Consulares (ed. W. Liebenam, pp. 41-42) it ought to read Honorii VIII et Theodosii III, and this could apply to either 409 or 410. Accordingly 410 has been adopted as being the more probable. This date is also given in the margin of Mansi's edition, though 409 is given in the index.
36. 36 Cod. Theod. XVI 5, 47.
37. 37 Cod. Theod. XVI 5, 51,
38. 38 Mansi IV 8.
39. 39 Mansi IV 335.
40. 40 Ep. CLXXVI.
41. 41 Ep. CLXXVII.
42. 42De Gestis cum Emerito PL 43, 697; Vita XIV.
43. 43 Vita XXVIII.
44. 44 Prosper, Chronic on, PL 51, 597.
45. 45Ep. CCXLV. The date of this letter is uncertain.
46. 46Vita XV, XXII.
47. 47Ep. XCV.
48. 48 Instances will be found in the Notes.
49. 49 In view of these facts it is a surprise to come upon such a statement as the following: "No Vandal writer ever arose to give a second account of the war, and there is much in the statements of Victor and Possidius to show the need of caution in accepting their facts as literally true" (L. R. Holme, The Extinction of Christian Churches in North Africa, p. 88). This writer presents no evidence whatsoever to sustain his disparagement of Possidius, though he does so in the case of Victor Vitensis, whose unrestrained statements must, of course, be accepted with reserve.
50. 50 See Chapter XVIII, note 6.
51. 51 Leo, F., Die Griechische-Römische Biographie, pp. 11-16.
52. 52 See his Praefatio, p. 38.
53. 53 Roth, C. L., Suetonius, p. 287.
54. 54quam urbem ferme quatuordecim mensibus conclusam obsederunt... in eademque omni eius obsidionis tempore fuimus: Vita XXVIII.
55. 55 Vita XXVIII.
56. 56 Some of these are direct quotations from the Vulgate; others are taken from some pre-Vulgate versions. Many of them are apparently loose quotations from memory.
57. 57 With the exception of A, the descriptions of the MSS. are taken from the Bollandist Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Latinorum for the Vatican and for the Bibliothèque Nationale.
58. 58 We have no means of determining what exact title, if any, was given by Possidius to his Life of Augustine. The titles, as given in the ten MSS. consulted, vary greatly. The one most common element in them is the initial Sancti Augustini Vita, followed by some sort of reference to Possidius as the author, who is characterized as bishop in every instance but one where his name appears. I have taken as a provisional title Sancti Augustini Vila scripta a Possidio Episcopo, the heading given in A.
In all the MSS. consulted the body of the text is continuous, even in the fragmentary MSS., without any division into chapters, and consequently without any chapter titles. In a few cases there are consecutive Roman numerals entered at the side of the text at. irregular intervals, but not continuing beyond the earlier part of the text. It is of course possible that these may have been intended by one or another scribe to indicate chapter divisions, but as they do not agree with each other nor extend through the body of the text nor correspond to the natural literary divisions, they may be disregarded as insignificant.
59. 59 Some examples of these faults are altusque for alitusque Chapter I, manente for manentes and the omission of ac perficere IX, circelliones for circumcelliones X, episcopum for episcopi cum XIII, the omission of loquacitate... collatione XVII, the omission of impium... ministerium and quando.,. necessarium XXX 7; cogitandi atque orandi for cogitanti atque aranti III, multum... aurarium for mulctam... aurariam and commendatio for condemnatio XII, bibebant for vivebant XV, sectae for rectae XVIII, reticebantur for recitabantur XXIV, lucis for locis, evolatos for evolutos, fama contubescerent for fame contabescerent and regionum for regiorum XXVIII, absit for obsit XXX 10; intellexit for intercessit XII, heresi se for recessisse XVII, memorare for mentor erat XXIII, orantibus for videntibus XXVII, ad locum uncti for ad loca munita XXX 2.
60. 60 Salinas p. 65, Migne 32, 49 note 2.
61. 61 Migne 32, 55 note 6.
62. 62 The MSS. EFG on the whole agree rather with CD than with AB, though somewhat unsteadily.
63. 63 These variants in C are so numerous that they could not all be included in the apparatus criticus. They are therefore given only when they have some direct bearing on readings in other MSS.
64. 64 The choice of A in preference to B as the purer representative of the AB family follows naturally after a comparison of the two MSS. Evidence, if necessary, may be found in the apparatus criticus.
65. 65 Ind = Indiculus, fr -= fragmentary.
66. 66 This is one of the MSS. used by Salinas. However it is not the Vita proper, but consists in extracts from the Vita with later additions. It is the form of the Vita described as follows under BHL 792: VITA ET TRANSLATIONES. Inc. Bb. Augustinus ex provincia Africae civitate Thagastensi honestis et christianis parentibus progenitus fuit. Des. Iure igitur in apostolica est collocatus ecclesia quia pro apostolica...
67. 67This edition was reprinted at Antwerp 1700-1703. Venice 1729-1734, Bassano 1807, Paris 1836-1839 and by Migne, Petit-Montrouge 1841-1849 and again at Paris in 1865 as part of the Patrologia Latina.
68. 68 S. Aurelii Augustini Hipponesis Episcopi Vita auctore S. Possidio Calamensi Episcopo... opera et studio D. Joannis Salinas, Romae 1731. A copy of this rare book was procured for the Library of Princeton University by the late Director Jesse Benedict Carter of the American Academy at Rome.
69. 69 See note 66, p. 32.
70. 70 Compare, for example, the unanimous evidence of the MSS. as opposed to the editions on p. 44. Further instances of this sort of text correction where the evidence of the MSS. is unanimously opposed to the editions, are recorded in the apparatus criticus. In some other cases when the MSS. vary, the editions nevetheless present some individual readings unsupported by any of the MSS.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. The Latin text and apparatus have been omitted, but can be found at Archive.org.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: possidius_life_of_augustine_02_text.htm
Possidius, Life of St. Augustine (1919) pp.39-145.
Possidius, Life of St. Augustine (1919) pp.39-145.
Preface
I. Augustine's birth, conversion and baptism
II. When more than thirty years of age he leaves all and takes up his profession of serving God
III. The retirement of Augustine
IV. He is seized for the office of presbyter
V. He establishes a monastery
VI. The conflict of Augustine with Fortunatus, a Manichaean
VII. The books and treatises of Augustine against the enemies of the faith are eagerly received even by the heretics themselves
VIII. He is chosen bishop while Valerius is still living, and is ordained by the primate Megalius
IX. He contends with the Donatists
X. The madness of the Circumcellions
XI. Progress of the Church through Augustine
XII. By the error of his guide Augustine escapes an ambuscade laid for him
XIII. Peace of the Church through Augustine
XIV. Emeritus, a Donatist bishop, overcome
XV. A merchant, Firmus by name, converted by a digression in Augustine's sermon
XVI. The accursed and shameful practices of the Manichaeans laid bare
XVII. Pascentius, an Arian Count, is refuted in public debate
XVIII. Heretics of the new Pelagian sect overcome and condemned
XIX. Augustine as judge
XX. How he interceded for prisoners
XXI. His frame of mind when attending councils
XXII. Augustine's use of food and clothing
XXIII. His use of the church revenues
XXIV. Household affairs
XXV. Household discipline
XXVI. On the companionship of women
XXVII. Service to the needy and sick
XXVIII. The books published by Augustine just before his death
XXIX. Augustine's last illness
XXX. Advice on the withdrawal of bishops from the churches at the approach of a foe
XXXI. Death and burial
[Translated by Herbert Theberath Weiskotten]
LIFE OF SAINT AUGUSTINE WRITTEN BY THE BISHOP POSSIDIUS
PREFACE
Inspired by God, the Maker and Ruler of all, and mindful of my purpose wherein through the grace of the Saviour I resolved faithfully to serve the omnipotent and divine Trinity, both formerly as a layman and now as a bishop, I am eager with whatever ability and eloquence I possess, to aid in the edification of the holy and true Catholic Church of Christ the Lord, and so [have resolved] not to keep silent concerning the life and character of the most noble Bishop Augustine, predestined long ago and presented in his own time—the things that I have seen in him and heard from him. I have read and observed that this very thing was often done in times past by most devout men of the holy Catholic Mother Church. Inspired by the divine Spirit, yet using their own speech and style, they spoke and wrote like histories for the ears and eyes of those who wished to learn, and thus brought to the notice of the studious the great men who were counted worthy by the Lord's free grace both to live amid human affairs and to persevere to the end of their course. Therefore in that faith unfeigned whereby all righteous and faithful souls must serve and please the Lord of Lords, I also, the least of all His stewards, have determined, with the Lord's help, to set forth the origin, career and end of this venerable man as I have learned them from him and observed them through so many years of loving fellowship. But I beseech |41 the divine Majesty that by His aid I may carry out and complete this task, which I have undertaken, without sinning against the truth of the Father of Lights or seeming in any way to disappoint the loving expectation of good sons of the Church. It is not my purpose to touch on all those things which the blessed Augustine noted about himself in his books of the Confessions, telling what his life was before receiving the divine grace and what it became on his conversion. For it was his purpose that, in the words of the Apostle, "no man should believe or think him to be above that which he knew him to be or heard of him." Therefore in his practice of holy humility he deceived no one and sought not his own praise for those things he had already received, but the glory of his Lord because of the blessing of his own deliverance, and desired the prayers of his brethren for the things which he hoped to obtain. For, as declared by the angel, though "It is good to hide the secret of a king: yet it is honorable to reveal and confess the works of God."
CHAPTER I. Augustine's birth, conversion and baptism
Augustine was born in the African province, in the city of Tagaste of honorable Christian parents of curial rank and was nurtured and trained under their care and attention. At their expense he was educated chiefly in secular literature, that is, was trained in all the disciplines which are called liberal. For he first taught grammar in his own town and then rhetoric at Carthage, the capitol of Africa. Subsequently [he taught] across the sea in the city of Rome and at Milan where the Emperor Valentinian the Younger had then established his court. |43 At that time the bishopric in this city was administered by Ambrose, a priest most acceptable to God and eminent among the best of men. As he stood among the people in the church he used to listen in eager suspense to the frequent sermons of this preacher of the Word of God. Now at one time, while still a youth at Carthage, he had been carried away by the error of the Manichaeans and therefore was more eager than others to hear whether anything would be said for or against this heresy. And by the mercy of God the Deliverer who touched the heart of His bishop, it came to pass that the questions of the Law bearing on that error were solved, and so little by little Augustine was led on by the divine compassion until the heresy was driven from his soul. Straightway, established in the Catholic faith, an ardent desire was awakened in him to perfect himself in religion, and so with the coming of the holy days of Easter he received the water of baptism. And thus it happened that by divine grace he received through the great and illustrious prelate Ambrose the salutary doctrine of the Catholic Church and the divine Sacraments.
CHAPTER II. When more than thirty years of age he leaves all and takes up his profession of serving God
And soon from his inmost heart he relinquished all earthly desires, no longer seeking wife, children of the flesh, riches or worldly honors. But he determined to serve God with His saints, desiring to be in and of that little flock to which the Lord spoke, saying, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell that ye have and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not," and so on. And that which the Lord spoke on another occasion this holy |45 man sought to do: "If thou wilt be perfect, sell that thou hast and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." He also desired to build on the foundation of faith,—not on wood, hay and stubble, but on gold, silver and precious stones. He was now more than thirty years of age, his mother alone surviving and clinging to him, exulting more in his determination to serve God than in the hope of offspring after the flesh. His father had already died before this time. He also gave notice to his pupils in rhetoric to secure another teacher, as he had resolved to serve God.
CHAPTER III. The retirement of Augustine
When he had received the grace of God, he determined, with others of his neighbors and friends who served God with him, to return to Africa to his own home and lands to which he came and in which he was settled for almost three years. He now gave up these possessions and began to live with those who had also consecrated themselves to God, in fastings and prayers and good works, meditating day and night in the Law of the Lord. And the things which God revealed to him through prayer and meditation, he taught both those present and absent in his sermons and books. Now it happened at this time that one of those whom they call "agents in affairs" who lived at Hippo Regius, a good Christian who feared God, heard of his good fame and learning. He earnestly sought to see him, declaring that he was ready to reject all the passions and allurements of this world if he were but counted worthy to hear the Word of God from his lips. When this was brought to Augustine by trustworthy report, he longed to rescue that |47 soul from the dangers of this life and from eternal death. So of his own accord he went in haste to that famous city and when he had seen the man he spoke to him frequently and exhorted him that in so far as God had blessed him he should pay to God what he had vowed. Day after day he promised to do so, but did not fulfil this while Augustine was present. And yet surely in this case that could not have proved vain and ineffectual which divine Providence was everywhere accomplishing by means of this vessel purged unto honor, meet for the Master's use and prepared unto every good work.
CHAPTER IV. He is seized for the office of presbyter
Now at this time the holy Valerius was bishop in the Catholic church at Hippo. But owing to the increasing demands of ecclesiastical duty he addressed the people of God and exhorted them to provide and ordain a presbyter for the city. The Catholics, already acquainted with the life and teaching of the holy Augustine, laid hands on him—for he was standing there among the people secure and unaware of what was about to happen. For while a layman he was careful, as he told us, to withhold his presence solely from those churches which had no bishops. So they laid hands on him and, as is the custom in such cases, brought him to the bishop to be ordained, for all with common consent desired that this should be done and accomplished; and they demanded it with great zeal and clamor, while he wept freely. But some, as he himself later told us, at the time ascribed his tears to wounded pride and by way of consolation told him that while he was worthy of greater honor the office of presbyter was but little inferior to the bishopric. But the man of God, as he told us, |49 understood with greater comprehension and mourned as he apprehended the many imminent dangers which threatened his life in the direction and government of the church, and for this reason he wept. But their desire was accomplished as they wished.
CHAPTER V. He establishes a monastery
Soon after he had been made presbyter he established a monastery within the church and began to live with the servants of God according to the manner and rule instituted by the holy apostles. The principal rule of this society was that no one should possess anything of his own, but that all things should be held in common and be distributed to each one as he had need, as Augustine had formerly done after he returned to his native home from across the sea. But the holy Valerius who ordained him, a good man fearing God, rejoiced and gave thanks to God. He said the Lord had heard the prayers which he had unceasingly poured forth that divine Providence would grant him such a man, who by his salutary teaching of the Word of God could edify the Church of the Lord. For Valerius, a Greek by birth and less versed in the Latin language and literature, saw that he himself was less useful for this end. Therefore he gave his presbyter the right of preaching the Gospel in his presence in the church and very frequently of holding public discussions—contrary to the practice and custom of the African churches. On this account some bishops found fault with him. But the venerable and prudent man knew well that this was the custom in the Eastern churches and considered only the welfare of the Church and took no notice of the words of his detractors, if only his presbyter might do that which he saw could not be accomplished |51 by himself as bishop. Wherefore this burning and shining light was placed upon a candlestick and gave light to all who were in the house. And after the report of this had rapidly spread by reason of the good example which preceded it, some other presbyters by permission of their bishops began to preach to the people in their presence.
CHAPTER VI. The conflict of Augustine with Fortunatus, a Manichaean
Now in the city of Hippo at this time the plague of the Manichaeans had infected and permeated very many, both citizens and strangers, who were seduced and deceived by a certain presbyter of that heresy, Fortunatus by name, who lived and dwelt there. Meanwhile the Christians of Hippo, whether citizens or strangers, Catholics and even Donatists, came to the presbyter Augustine and demanded that he should meet this presbyter of the Manichaeans, whom they regarded as a learned man, and argue with him about the Law. This he in no wise refused; for, as it is written, he was "ready to give an answer to every man that asked him a reason of the hope and faith that is toward God, and was able by sound doctrine both to exhort and refute the gainsayers." But he sought to learn whether Fortunatus were willing that this should take place. So they at once reported the matter to Fortunatus asking, urging and even demanding that he should on no account refuse. But since Fortunatus had previously known the holy Augustine at Carthage when he was still involved with himself in this same error, he was afraid to meet him. Nevertheless he was greatly urged and shamed by the insistency of his followers and promised that he would meet him face to face and enter the contest of debate. So they met at an appointed time |53 and place, where many who were interested and crowds of the curious quickly gathered. When the reporters' books had been opened, the discussion was begun on the first day and ended on the second. In this discussion the Manichaean teacher, as the evidence of the record proves, could neither refute the Catholic argument, nor could he prove that the sect of the Manichaeans was founded on truth. But failing in his final answer, he declared that he would refer to his superiors the arguments which he had been unable to refute, and if perchance they should not satisfy him on these matters, he would consult the welfare of his own soul. Thereupon all who had formerly regarded him as great and learned now judged that he had accomplished nothing in the defence of his own sect. Overwhelmed with confusion he left the city of Hippo soon after and returned to it no more. Thus this error was removed by that memorable man of God from the hearts of all those present or those absent who learned what had been done; and the Catholic faith was declared and upheld as the true religion.
CHAPTER VII. The books and treatises of Augustine against the enemies of the faith are eagerly received even by the heretics themselves
In private and in public, at home and in the church, Augustine taught and preached the Word of salvation with all confidence against the African heresies, especially against the Donatists, Manichaeans and pagans both in his finished books and extemporaneous sermons, the Christians, who did not keep silent but spread it abroad wherever they could, being filled with unspeakable joy and praise. And so, with God's help, the |55 Catholic Church in Africa began to lift its head, having for a long time lain prostrate, seduced, oppressed and overpowered, while the heretics were gaining strength, especially the rebaptizing Donatist party which comprised a large multitude of the Africans. Even the heretics themselves gathered together and with the Catholics listened most eagerly to these books and treatises which issued and flowed forth by the wonderful grace of God, filled with abundance of reason and the authority of Holy Scripture; each one also who would or could bringing reporters and taking down what was said. And thence throughout all Africa, the glorious doctrine and most sweet savor of Christ was spread abroad and made manifest, while the Church of God across the sea heard of it and also rejoiced. For as when one member suffers, all the members suffer with it, so when one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
CHAPTER VIII. He is chosen bishop while Valerius is still living, and is ordained by the primate Megalius
But the blessed and aged Valerius rejoiced more than others on this account and gave thanks to God for the special blessing bestowed upon him. He began to fear, however, for such is human nature, that Augustine would be sought for the episcopal office and be taken from him by some other church which lacked a bishop. And this would have happened, had not the bishop himself, since he knew of it, taken care that he should remove to a secret place, and had thus hidden him so that he could not be found by those who sought him. But since the venerable old man still feared this and realized that he was aged and very infirm, he communicated by a secret |57 letter with the Bishop of Carthage, the episcopal Primate, mentioning the weakness of his body and the burden of his years, and beseeching that Augustine might be ordained bishop of the church of Hippo, because he would not in that case then succeed to his office, but would be associated with him as coadjutor-bishop. And what he thus sought and desired he obtained in a satisfactory answer. Later on, accordingly, when Megalius, Bishop of Calama, and at that time primate of Numidia, had come at his request to visit the church at Hippo, unexpectedly to all the bishop Valerius made his desire known to the bishops who happened at that time to be present, and to all the clergy of Hippo and to all the people. But while all who heard rejoiced and clamored most eagerly that this should be done and accomplished, the presbyter refused to accept the episcopate contrary to the custom of the Church, since his bishop was still living. However, when they had convinced him that this was generally done and had appealed to examples from the churches across the sea as well as in Africa, though he had been ignorant of it before, under compulsion and constraint he yielded and accepted the ordination to the higher office. Later he both said and wrote that this should not have been done in his case, namely to ordain him while his bishop was still living, because of the prohibition of the Ecumenical Council of which he learned after his ordination; for that which he regretted to have had done in his case he did not wish to have done to others. Therefore he endeavored to have it decreed by the councils of the bishops that the rules governing all the priests should be made known by the ordaining bishops to those about to be ordained and to those already ordained. And so it was done. |59
CHAPTER IX. He contends with the Donatists
As bishop he preached the Word of eternal salvation much more earnestly and fervently and with greater authority, no longer in one district only, but wherever he went in answer to requests, ready always to give an answer to every man that asked of him a reason of the faith and hope which is toward God. And the Church of the Lord flourished and grew rapidly and strongly. The Donatists in particular, who lived in Hippo and the neighboring towns, brought his addresses and writings to their bishops. And if, when they had heard these, they perchance made any reply, they were either refuted by their own followers or else their replies were brought to the holy Augustine; and when he had reviewed them patiently and calmly (and, as it is written, he worked out the salvation of men with fear and trembling, showing how they would and could refute nothing and how true and manifest is that doctrine which the Church of God holds and has understood); on these things he labored continually by day and by night. He even wrote private letters to prominent bishops of this error and to laymen, urging and exhorting them by the arguments which he offered that they should either abandon the error or at least enter into a discussion with him. In their distrust they were never willing even to answer him in writing, but in anger spoke furiously, privately and publicly declaring that Augustine was a seducer and deceiver of souls. They said and preached that the wolf must be killed in defence of their flock, and neither fearing God nor ashamed before men, they taught the people to believe that whoever should be able to do this would undoubtedly have all his sins forgiven of God. Meanwhile Augustine sought to make known to all their lack |61 of confidence in their own cause, and when they met in public conferences they did not dare to debate with him.
CHAPTER X. The madness of the Circumcellions
These Donatists had in nearly all their churches an unusual kind of men, perverse and violent, going about under a profession of continency, who were called Circumcellions. They were very numerous and formed themselves into bands throughout almost all the regions of Africa. Inspired by evil teachers, in their insolent boldness and lawless temerity they never spared either their own or strangers, and in violation of right and justice deprived men of their civil rights; and unless men obeyed, they were visited with the severest losses and injuries, when armed with every kind of weapon, the Circumcellions madly overran the farms and estates and did not even hesitate to shed human blood. But while the Word of God was diligently preached, whenever any plan of peace was suggested to those who hated peace, they freely assailed whoever talked of it. And when, despite their teachings, the truth became known, those who would and could do so either openly tore themselves away from them or secretly withdrew and together with as many of their friends as they could obtain, adhered to the peace and unity of the Church. As a result, seeing that the congregations of their error were growing smaller, and being envious of the growth of the Church, these heretics were inflamed and burned with fiercest wrath and with the help of their confederates began intolerable persecutions against the unity of the Church. They made daily and nightly attacks even upon the Catholic priests and ministers and robbed them of all their possessions; and they crippled many |63 of the servants of God by tortures. They also threw lime mixed with vinegar in the eyes of some and others they murdered. Wherefore these rebaptizing Donatists came to be hated even by their own.
CHAPTER XI. Progress of the Church through Augustine
Now as the divine teachings prospered, the clergy in the church at Hippo who had served God under and with the holy Augustine in the monastery began to be ordained. And the truth taught by the Catholic Church, the manner of life of the holy servants of God, their continence and abject poverty became more known and celebrated day by day. Then the Church, for the sake of its peace and unity, first began to demand with great eagerness bishops and clergy from the monastery which had begun to exist and grow through the efforts of that memorable man, and later obtained them. And there were about ten men, holy and venerable, continent and learned, whom the most blessed Augustine furnished in answer to our request to various churches, some of them quite prominent. And likewise these too who came from that fellowship of holy men increased the churches of the Lord, and also established monasteries, and as their zeal for the spreading of the Word of God grew, they furnished other churches with their brethren whom they promoted to the priesthood. Therefore the teaching of the salutary faith, hope and love of the Church became known through many and to many, not only throughout all parts of Africa, but even in the churches across the sea, through the books which were edited and translated into the Greek tongue. Thus by that one man, and through him to many, by the grace of God it was all brought |65 to public knowledge. And so, as it is written, the wicked man saw it and was grieved; he gnashed with his teeth and melted away. But Thy servants, as it is said, were for peace with those who hated peace and whenever they spoke they were willingly overcome by them.
CHAPTER XII. By the error of his guide Augustine escapes an ambuscade laid for him
But several times these Circumcellions, fully armed, beset the roads even against Augustine, the servant of God, when, as it chanced, he went on request to visit, instruct and exhort the Catholic people, as he frequently did. Now it once happened that although they were out in full force, they yet failed to capture him. For through the error of his guide and yet, in fact, by the providence of God, it happened that the bishop with his companions came to his destination by a different road, and he learned later that through this error he had escaped their impious hands, and together with all he gave thanks to God, the Deliverer. And they, according to their custom, spared neither laymen nor clergy, as the public records witness.
In this connection we must not pass over in silence the things which were done and accomplished to the glory of God by the ardor of that man, so distinguished in the Church, and in his zeal for the house of God, against the rebaptizing Donatists mentioned above. When, on one occasion, one of the bishops he had furnished to the Church from his monastery and clergy visited the diocese of the church of Calama which was under his care and, for the peace of the Church, had preached against the heresy such things as he had learned, it happened that in the midst of his journey he fell into their |67 ambuscade, and although he escaped with all his companions, the animals and baggage were taken from them and they left him grievously injured and wounded. Wherefore, in order that the progress of the peace of the Church might not be further hindered, the defender of the Church was not silent before the law. And Crispinus, who was bishop of the Donatists in the city and region of Calama, for some time well known and also a learned man, was admonished that he was liable to the fine of gold fixed by the civil laws against heretics. When he protested against the laws and was brought before the proconsul, he denied that he was a heretic. Then it became necessary, when the defender of the Church withdrew, that he should be opposed by a Catholic bishop and be convicted of being what he denied he was; for if he had succeeded in his dissimulation, the ignorant perhaps would have believed that the heretic was a Catholic bishop, since he denied being what he was, and so a stumbling-block might have been placed in the way of the weak because of this neglect. And since the illustrious Bishop Augustine firmly insisted on it, both the bishops of Calama met for discussion and for the third time they met in conflict concerning their different communions, while a great multitude of Christians at Carthage and throughout all Africa awaited the result of the case; and Crispinus was pronounced a heretic by proconsular and libellary sentence. But the Catholic bishop interceded with the judge in his behalf that the fine of gold should not be exacted, and the favor was obtained for him. But when he ungratefully appealed to the most clement Prince, a final answer from the Emperor was due to his appeal, and accordingly the order was issued that the Donatist heretics should have no rights in any place and that they should everywhere be held to the full force of all the laws enacted against heretics. By this |69 order also, the judge and the officers of his court and Crispinus himself, though he had not previously been compelled to pay, were all enjoined to pay ten pounds of gold to the credit of the treasury. Immediately every effort was made by the Catholic bishops, and especially by Augustine of holy memory, that this condemnation of all should be withdrawn through the indulgence of the Emperor. With the aid of the Lord this was accomplished. Through this vigilance and holy zeal the Church increased greatly.
CHAPTER XIII. Peace of the Church through Augustine
For all these labors for the peace of the Church the Lord gave the palm to Augustine in this life and reserved with Himself the crown of righteousness for him. And more and more by the aid of Christ, the unity of peace, that is, the fraternity of the Church of God, grew and multiplied from day to day. This was especially advanced after the conference which was held a little later at Carthage by all the Catholic bishops with these same bishops of the Donatists at the command of the most glorious and devout Emperor Honorius, who, in order to bring this about, had sent the tribune and notary Marcellinus from his own court to Africa as judge. In this conference they were completely silenced, and being convicted of error by the Catholics, were reprimanded by sentence of the judge. After their appeal these unrighteous men were condemned as heretics by the rescript of the most pious Ruler. For this reason their bishops, more than before, together with their clergy and people, enjoyed our communion, maintained the Catholic peace and endured many persecutions even to the loss of life and limb. And this good was begun and |71 completed, as I said, by that holy man, while our fellow-bishops consented and were equally pleased.
CHAPTER XIV. Emeritus, a Donatist bishop, overcome
Yet after the conference which was held with the Donatists, there were not lacking those who declared that these bishops had not been permitted to speak fully and freely for their sect before the magistrate who heard the case, since the judge, who was of Catholic communion, favored his own Church. But is was only after they had failed and were defeated that they offered this excuse, since these heretics knew before the discussion was held that he was of the Catholic communion, and when they were summoned by him to the public debate for the purpose of discussion, they agreed to do it. Surely, if they had held him under suspicion, they could have refused to attend. Nevertheless the help of Almighty God revealed itself, for Augustine of venerable memory stopped a while later in the city of Caesarea in Mauretania to which letters from the Apostolic See constrained him to go with others of his fellow-bishops, evidently for the purpose of settling further difficulties of the Church. Thus it happened on this occasion that he met Emeritus, the Donatist bishop of that place, whom they regarded as the chief defender of their sect at the conference, and held a discussion with him publicly in the church, while the people of the different communions were present. He challenged them by the ecclesiastical records in order that whatever perchance, as they said, Emeritus might have been able to offer in the conference and had not been permitted to offer, he might now not hesitate to say with security and without the interference or violence of any magistrate, and should not refuse to defend his own communion with all confidence in his |73 own city and in the presence of all his fellow-townsmen. Notwithstanding this encouragement and the urgent entreaty of his parents and townsmen, he was not willing to do so, although they promised him that they would return to his communion even at the risk of their property and temporal welfare, if only he would overthrow the Catholic argument. But he was neither willing nor able to add anything more to these records except only to say: "Those records of what was done by the bishops at Carthage contain the proof of whether we were victors or vanquished." At another time, when urged by a reporter to answer, he spoke, and then when he was silent his position became evident to all through his embarrassment, while the growing strength of the Church of God was revealed. Whoever, therefore, wishes to learn more about the diligence and labor of Augustine, of most blessed memory, for the welfare of the Church of God, let him run through these records. He will find what sort of arguments he produced to provoke and persuade that learned, eloquent and illustrious man to state whatever he wished in defence of his sect; and he will learn that Emeritus was defeated.
CHAPTER XV. A merchant, Firmus by name, converted by a digression in Augustine's sermon
I know also, and not I only but also my brethren and fellow-servants who were at that time living together with the holy man in the church at Hippo, that when we were seated at the table he said: "Did you take notice of my sermon in the church to-day, that both the beginning and end worked out contrary to my usual custom? For I did not explain to its conclusion the subject which I had propounded but left it in |75 suspense." To which we replied, "Yes, we know it and remember that we wondered at it at the time." Then he said, "I suppose that perhaps the Lord wished some wanderer among the people to be taught and healed by our forgetfulness and error; for in His hands are we and all our utterances. For while I was investigating the margins of the question proposed, by a digression of speech I passed over to something else and so, without finishing or explaining the question, I ended my discourse by attacking the error of the Manichaeans, about which I had intended to say nothing in my discussion, rather than by speaking about those things which I had intended to explain." And after this, unless I am mistaken, lo, on the next day or the day after, there came a certain merchant, Firmus by name, to the holy Augustine, who was seated in the monastery, and in our presence fell down on his knees and prostrated himself at his feet, shedding tears and asking that the priest and his holy companions intercede with the Lord for his sins. For he confessed that he had followed the sect of the Manichaeans, had lived in it for many years and so had paid out much money in vain to the Manichaeans, or rather to those whom they call the Elect; but recently by the mercy of God he had been in the church and was converted and made a Catholic by Augustine's sermons. And when the venerable Augustine and we who were with him at the time inquired diligently of the man by what thing in the sermon he had been especially satisfied, he told us and we all recalled the course of the sermon. Wondering and marvelling at the profound plan of God for the salvation of souls, we glorified and blessed His holy Name; for when He wishes and by whom He wishes and in whatever way He wishes, by those who know and those who do not know, He works the salvation of souls. And from that time on this man held fast to the manner of |77 life of the servants of God, gave up his business as merchant and progressing among the members of the church, by the will of God he was called and constrained in another region to enter the office of presbyter, wherein he maintained and persevered in his sanctity of life. And perhaps he is still in active life across the sea.
CHAPTER XVI. The accursed and shameful practices of the Manichaeans laid bare
At Carthage also when a certain procurator of the royal house, Ursus by name, and a man of the Catholic faith, had come into an assembly of certain Manichaeans whom they call Elect, both men and women, and when they had been led away by him to the church and were examined by the bishops, they were given a hearing with formal record. Among these bishops was also Augustine, of holy memory, who knew the accursed sect better than the others did, and by disclosing their damnable blasphemies from places in the books which the Manichaeans accept he even brought them to a confession of the same. The base and unworthy things they practiced to their own great harm are revealed in the ecclesiastical records through the disclosures of those women—Elect indeed. And so by the watchfulness of the shepherds an increase was made in the Lord's flock and strong defence was maintained against the thieves and robbers.
With a certain Felix, also a member of those whom the Manichaeans call Elect, Augustine argued in public in the church at Hippo while the people were present and the reporters took down the record. After the second or third meeting the emptiness and error of the sect were exposed and that |79 Manichaean was converted to our faith and Church, as these writings will show if they are consulted.
CHAPTER XVII. Pascentius, an Arian Count, is refuted in public debate
Moreover there was also a certain Pascentius, a Count of the royal house and an Arian, who was a most energetic collector of the taxes. By reason of the authority of his position he attacked the Catholic faith violently and persistently and by his raillery and power tormented and annoyed many of the more simple priests of God who were living by faith. Challenged by him, Augustine met him at Carthage in the presence of honored and notable men. The heretic utterly refused to have tablets and a pen at hand, as our teacher, both before and in the meeting, urgently insisted should be done. And since he refused this, saying that he was unwilling through fear of the public laws to be exposed to danger by such records, and appealed to the bystanders, the Bishop Augustine took up the discussion, because it seemed best to his fellow-bishops who were present that they should debate in private and without written records. He prophesied, however, as afterwards happened, that since there was no record in writing, after the conclusion of the conference anyone who wished could freely say that he had said what perchance he had not said or had not said what he had said. Augustine then joined in debate with him, and after stating what he believed and hearing from him what he held, by true reasoning and by producing the authority of the Scriptures he explained and proved the foundations of our faith. And the statements of Pascentius, being supported neither by truth nor by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, were explained and refuted. And |81 as the parties separated from each other, he became more and more angry and enraged and threw out many lies in defense of his false faith, declaring that Augustine, though praised by the voice of many, had really been defeated by him. Since this could not be kept from public notice, Augustine was compelled to write to Pascentius himself, omitting, because of the latter's fear, the names of those who had attended the conference. In these letters he faithfully set forth everything which had been said and done by both parties; and to prove these things, if they should be denied, he had ready a great multitude of witnesses, illustrious and honorable men, who had been present on that occasion. In answer to two letters directed to him, Pascentius returned but one meager reply in which he managed to offer insults rather than to declare the opinion of his sect. This is acknowledged by those who are able and willing to read [the letter].
With a bishop of these Arians, a certain Maximinus, who came to Africa with the Goths, he held a conference at Hippo, since many illustrious men desired and requested it and were also present. And what each party asserted is recorded. If the studious will take the trouble to read the records carefully, they will surely discover what this crafty and unreasonable heresy professes in order to seduce and deceive and what the Catholic Church maintains and teaches regarding the divine Trinity. But when the heretic returned from Hippo to Carthage and because of his great loquacity in the conference asserted that he had returned victorious from the debate and lied (and as, of course, he could not be easily examined and judged by those who were ignorant of the divine Law), the venerable Augustine at a later time with his own pen made a recapitulation of the separate charges and answers of the entire conference. And although Maximinus was unable to offer |83 any reply to the charges, nevertheless supplements were added and the things which could not be introduced and written in the short time of the conference were made clear; for the craftiness of the man led him to occupy the entire part of the day which remained with his last and by far his longest speech.
CHAPTER XVIII. Heretics of the new Pelagian sect overcome and condemned
Against the Pelagians also, new heretics of our time and skilful debaters, who wrote with an art even more subtle and noxious, and spoke whenever they could, in public and in homes—against these he labored for almost ten years, writing and publishing many books and very frequently arguing in the church with people of that error. When they perversely tried through their flattery to persuade the Apostolic See of their false doctrine, it was most positively resolved by [successive] African councils of holy bishops first to convince the venerable Innocent, the holy Pope of the city, and his successor, the holy Zosimus, that this sect ought to be abominated and condemned by the Catholic faith. And the bishops of that great See at various times censured them and cut them off from the membership of the Church, and in letters sent to the African churches of the West and to the churches of the East decreed that they should be anathamatized and shunned by all Catholics. When the most pious Emperor Honorius heard of this judgment which had been passed upon them by the Catholic Church of God, influenced by it, he in turn decreed that they should be condemned by his laws and should be regarded as heretics. Accordingly some of them returned to the bosom of the holy mother Church from which they had withdrawn. |85 And others are still returning as the truth of the right faith shines forth and prevails against the detestable error.
The memorable man, a noble member of the Lord's body, was ever solicitous and watchful for the advantage of the universal Church. To him it was divinely granted that from the fruit of his labors he should find joy even in this life, first because unity and peace were established in the part of the Church around Hippo over which he had special jurisdiction, and then in the other parts of Africa, either by his own efforts or by others, and through priests whom he himself had furnished. Moreover, he found joy in seeing the Church of the Lord increase and multiply and in seeing the Manichaeans, Donatists, Pelagians and pagans for the most part diminishing and becoming united with the Church of God. He also delighted in the pursuit of his studies and rejoiced in all good. In kindness he bore with the shortcomings of his brethren and mourned over the iniquities of the wicked, whether of those within the Church or of those without, always rejoicing, as I said, in the Lord's gains and sorrowing over His losses.
And so many things were dictated and published by him and so many things were discussed in the church, written down and amended, whether against various heretics or expounded from the canonical books for the edification of the holy sons of the Church, that scarcely any student would be able to read and know them all. However, lest we seem in any way to deprive those who are very eager for the truth of his word, I have determined, with the aid of God, to add also an Indiculus of these books, homilies and epistles at the end of this little work. When those who love the truth of God more than temporal riches have read this, each may choose for himself what he wishes to read. And in order to copy them let him seek them either from the library of the church of Hippo, |87 where the more perfect copies can probably be found, or search wherever else he can, and when he has found them let him copy and preserve them and also lend them willingly to anyone who wishes to make copies.
CHAPTER XIX. Augustine as judge
According also to the teaching of the Apostle, who said: "Dare any of you having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life? If ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers." Accordingly when he was importuned by Christians or by men of any sect, he heard their cases carefully and dutifully, keeping before his eyes the remark of a certain one, who said that he preferred to hear cases between strangers rather than between friends; for of the strangers he could gain the one as a friend in whose favor the case was justly decided, whereas he would lose the one of his friends against whom judgment was passed. Though they sometimes kept him even till meal-time and sometimes he even had to fast all day, yet he always examined these cases and passed judgment on them, considering in them the value of Christian souls—in how far each had increased or decreased in faith and good works. When opportunities |89 occurred, he instructed both parties in the truth of. the divine Law, impressing it upon them and reminding them of the way by which they might obtain eternal life. He asked no other reward from those for whom he spent his time in this way except the Christian obedience and devotion which is due to God and man, rebuking the sinner before all, that others also might fear. He did this as one whom the Lord made "a watchman unto the house of Israel," preaching the Word, instant in season, out of season, reproving, rebuking, exhorting with all longsuffering and doctrine, and he took special pains to instruct those who were able to teach others. On request he also wrote letters to some concerning their temporal cases. But this work which took him away from better things he regarded as a kind of conscription, for his pleasure was always in the things of God or in the exhortation or conversation of intimate brotherly friendship.
CHAPTER XX. How he interceded for prisoners
We know also that when his most intimate friends asked him for letters of intercession to the civil authorities he did not give them, saying that it was wise to observe the rule of a certain sage of whom it was written that out of great regard for his own reputation he would not be responsible for his friends. But he added the remark, which was however his own, that this was a good rule because often the authority which is petitioned afterward becomes oppressive. But if, when he was asked for it, he perceived that intercession was necessary, he did it with such sincerity and tact that not only did he not appear irritating and annoying, but rather seemed admirable. For when one case of necessity arose and in his usual manner |91 he interceded by letter with a Vicar of Africa, Macedonius by name, on behalf of a suppliant, Macedonius granted the request and sent him an answer on this wise: "I am struck with wonder at your wisdom, both in the books you have published and in this letter which you have not found it too great a burden to send me by way of intercession for those in distress. For the former writings, my venerable lord and esteemed father, possess a discernment, wisdom and holiness which leave nothing to be desired, and the latter such modesty, that unless I do as you request, I could not regard myself as remaining free from blame in the matter. You do not insist, like most men in your position, on extorting all that the suppliant asks. But what seemed to you fair to ask of a judge occupied with many cares, this you advise with a humble modesty which is most efficacious in settling difficulties among good men. Consequently I have not hesitated to grant your request as you recommended and as I had given you reason to expect."
CHAPTER XXI. His frame of mind when attending councils
Whenever he was able, Augustine attended the councils of the holy priests which were held throughout the various provinces, seeking in them not his own but the things of Jesus Christ, that the faith of the holy Catholic Church might remain inviolate or that some priests and clergy who had been justly or unjustly excommunicated might be either absolved or rejected. In the ordination of priests and clergy he thought that the agreement of the majority of Christians and the custom of the Church should be followed. |93
CHAPTER XXII. Augustine's use of food and clothing
His garments and foot-wear and even his bedclothing were modest yet sufficient—neither too fine nor yet too mean; for in such things men are wont either to display themselves proudly or else to degrade themselves, in either case seeking not the things which are of Jesus Christ, but their own. But Augustine, as I have said, held a middle course, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left. His table was frugal and sparing, though indeed with the herbs and lentils he also had meats at times for the sake of his guests or for some of the weaker brethren; but he always had wine because he knew and taught, as the Apostle says, that "every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified through the Word of God and prayer." And as Augustine himself has set down in his books of the Confessions, saying: "I fear not the uncleanness of meat, but the uncleanness of lust. I know that Noah was permitted to eat every kind of flesh which was useful for food; that Elijah was refreshed by eating flesh; that John, who was gifted with marvelous abstinence, was not defiled by the creatures, that is the locusts, which became his food. I know also that Esau was ensnared by his desire for a pottage of lentils, and that David rebuked himself for his longing after water, and that our King was tempted not with meat, but with bread. And so likewise the people in the desert deserved to be condemned not because they desired meat, but because in their desire for food they murmured against God." As regards the use of wine there is the injunction of the Apostle who wrote to Timothy, saying: "Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." |95
His spoons only were silver, but the vessels in which food was served were earthen, wooden or marble; yet this was not from the compulsion of necessity, but from the choice of his own will. He always showed hospitality. At the table he loved reading and discussion rather than eating and drinking, and against that pest of human custom he had this inscription on his table:
Who injures the name of an absent friend
May not at this table as guest attend.
Thus he warned every guest to refrain from unnecessary and harmful tales. And when some of his most intimate fellow-bishops forgot that inscription and spoke without heeding it, Augustine on one occasion became exasperated and so sternly rebuked them as to declare that either those verses would have to be removed from the table or he would leave in the midst of the meal and retire to his chamber. Both I and the others who were at the table experienced this.
CHAPTER XXIII. His use of the church revenues
He was ever mindful of his fellow-poor and for them he spent from the same funds from which he spent for himself and all who lived with him, that is, either from the revenues from the possessions of the church or from the offerings of the faithful. And when perchance, as was frequently the case, jealousy arose among the clergy regarding these possessions, Augustine addressed the people of God, saying that he preferred to live by the contributions of God's people rather than be burdened with the care and direction of these possessions and that he was ready to give them back to them so that all the servants and ministers of God might live after the |97 manner of which we read in the Old Testament that they were partakers of that altar which they served. But this the laity were never willing to undertake.
CHAPTER XXIV. Household affairs
The care of the church building and all its property he assigned and entrusted in turn to the more capable clergy. He never held the key nor wore his ring, but everything which was received and spent was noted down by these overseers of the house. At the end of the year the accounts were read to him that he might know how much had been received and how much spent, or what still remained to be spent. In many bills he preferred to rely on the fidelity of the overseer of the house rather than to ascertain it by testing and proving his accounts. A house or land or an estate he was never willing to buy. But if perchance anything of the kind was given to the church by someone of his own accord or if it was left as a legacy, he did not refuse it, but ordered that it be accepted. But some legacies I know he refused, not because they could not be used for the poor, but because it seemed just and right that they should rather be in the possession of the children or parents or relatives of the deceased, even though the decedents had not willed to leave these things to them. In fact one of the chief men of Hippo who was living at Carthage wished to give his property to the church at Hippo. Retaining only the interest for himself, he sent the tablets duly attested to Augustine of holy memory, who gladly accepted his offering and congratulated him because he was mindful of his eternal salvation. But some years after this, when as it happened we were visiting in Augustine's house, lo, |99 this benefactor sent a letter by his son and asked that the records of transfer be returned to his son, directing, however, that a hundred pieces of gold should be given to the poor. And when the holy man heard it he mourned that the man had either pretended to make a gift or had repented of his good work. In his grief of mind at this perversity he said what he could, as God put it in his heart, for the man's admonition and reproof. He immediately returned the tablets which had been sent voluntarily and not by request nor on compulsion. The money he spurned, and as in duty bound, he wrote an answer and censured and reproved the man, warning him to make his peace with God in humble repentance for his false pretences and wickedness, that he might not depart from this life under the burden of so great a sin.
He also said frequently that the church might with greater security and sa'fety accept legacies left by the dead rather than gifts from the living which might cause anxiety and loss, and furthermore that legacies themselves should be offered voluntarily rather than solicited. He accepted nothing which was offered him in trust, but did not restrain any of the clergy who wished to accept such gifts. He was not intently concerned nor entangled in the property which the church held and possessed. Yet though following with inmost desire after the greater spiritual things, he sometimes relaxed from his contemplation of things eternal and turned to temporal affairs. But when such things had been arranged and set in order, then as though freed from consuming and annoying cares, his soul rebounded to the more intimate and lofty thoughts of the mind in which he either pondered on the discovery of divine truth or dictated some of the things already discovered or else emended some of the works which had been previously dictated and then transcribed. This he accomplished by working |101 all day and toiling at night. He was a type of the Church on high, even as most glorious Mary, of whom it is written that she sat at the feet of the Lord and listened intently to His word; but when her sister who was cumbered about much serving, complained because she received no help, she heard the words: "Martha, Martha, Mary hath chosen that better part which shall not be taken away from her."
For new buildings he never had any desire, avoiding the entanglement of his soul in these things, since he wished always to have it free from all temporal annoyance. Nevertheless he did not restrain those who desired or constructed them, provided only they were not extravagant. Sometimes, when the money of the church failed, he announced to the Christian people that he had nothing to give to the poor. For the sake of captives and of the many who were in need he even ordered the holy vessels to be broken and melted down and to be distributed to the needy. I would not have mentioned this unless I knew that it was done contrary to the carnal judgment of some. Ambrose, of venerable memory, also said and wrote that in such extremities it should be done without any hesitancy. Sometimes too when the treasury and also the consistory, from which were supplied the things necessary for the altar, had been neglected by the faithful, Augustine would speak of it in the church and remind the people, even as he once told us the blessed Ambrose had dealt with the subject in the church when he was there.
CHAPTER XXV. Household discipline
At the same house and table together with him the clergy were regularly fed and clothed at the common expense. That |103 no one might lightly utter an oath and thus fall into condemnation, he preached to the people in the church and instructed the members of his own household that no one should utter an oath—not even at the table. And if anyone erred in this, he lost one drink, according to the rules: for the number of cups allowed each one of those who lived and ate with him was fixed beforehand. The faults of omission and commission of which, in spite of this rule, his brethren were guilty, he duly and properly censured or countenanced them as far as was fitting and necessary; in such cases particularly teaching that no one should incline his heart to evil words or to make excuses in sins. And when anyone offered his gift at the altar and there remembered that his brother had aught against him, he should leave his offering at the altar and go to be reconciled to his brother and then come and offer his gift at the altar. But if he had anything against his brother, he should rebuke him in secret, and if he heard him he had gained his brother, but if not, he should take with him one or two others. If he held them also in contempt he should be brought before the Church. If he did not obey her, he should be to him as a heathen and a publican. This also he added, that if a brother offend and ask forgiveness, not seven times, but seventy times seven times, the offence should be forgiven him, even as each one daily asks of the Lord that his own sins be forgiven.
CHAPTER XXVI. On the companionship of women
No woman ever lived or stayed in Augustine's house, not even his own sister, though she was a widow who had long served God and lived in charge of His handmaidens even to |105 the day of her death. Nor did he admit his brother's daughters who were likewise serving God, although the councils of holy bishops placed these persons among the exceptions. He used to say that although no evil suspicion could arise from the fact that his sister and nieces were living with him, yet since they could not be without servants and other women who would stay with them, and still others would come in from without to visit them, because of these a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall might be placed in the way of the weak. He also said that because of the presence of all those women who would live or come there, the men who happened to be visiting the bishop or some one of the clergy might either perish by human temptation or surely be most shamefully maligned by the evil suspicions of men. On this account, therefore, he said that women ought never to live in the same house with the servants of God, even the most chaste, that no occasion to fall, as has been said, nor a stumbling-block might be placed in the way of the weak by such an example. And if perchance any women requested to see him or to salute him, they never came in to him without some of the clergy as witnesses, nor did he ever speak with them alone, not even if the matter was one of secrecy.
CHAPTER XXVII. Service to the needy and sick
In his visitations he adhered to the rule set forth by the Apostle and visited only the widows and orphans in their afflictions. Yet whenever it happened that he was requested by the sick to come in person and pray to the Lord for them and lay his hand upon them, he went without delay. But the monasteries of women he visited only in extreme emergencies. |107
Furthermore he said that in the life and habits of a man of God that rule ought to be observed which he had learned from the practice of Ambrose of holy memory, namely, never to seek a wife for another man, nor to urge anyone who desired to go to war to do so, nor to accept an invitation to a feast in his own community. He gave as his reasons for each of these that if the husband and wife should [ever] happen to quarrel with each other, they might revile him who had brought them together; but clearly, if they themselves had previously agreed to marry, the priest to whom they came ought to offer his services so that that which had been agreed upon and was pleasing to them should be confirmed or blessed; in the second case in order that no one who had been recommended to military service might blame the one who encouraged him if he suffered any ill through his own fault; and finally, lest by frequent participation in the customs peculiar to feasts his vow of temperance should be broken.
He also told us that he had heard of the very wise and godly reply of an illustrious man of blessed memory at the end of his life, and he warmly praised and extolled it. For when the venerable man lay abed in his last illness and the chief members of the church were standing around his couch, watching him as he was about to depart from this world to be with God, they were overcome with grief at the thought that the Church could be deprived of so great and glorious a prelate and of his dispensation of the Word and Sacrament of God. And when they begged him with tears that he should ask of the Lord an extension of his life he said to them: "I have not so lived that I should be ashamed to live among you, yet I do not fear to die, for we have a Lord who is good." And our Augustine, in his later days, used to admire and praise these well-weighed words. For he said that we must understand |109 that Ambrose added this second saying—"I do not fear to die, for we have a Lord who is good"—so that no one might believe that from overconfidence in the purity of his own life he had first said, "I have not so lived that I should be ashamed to live among you." Now this he had said in reference to that which men can judge about a fellow-man; but as for his judgment by the divine justice, he trusted rather in the Lord who is good to whom he also said in the daily prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses."
Moreover toward the end of his life Augustine very frequently repeated in this same connection the words of a certain fellow-bishop and very intimate friend. For when he had gone to visit him several times as he drew near to death and he had indicated by a gesture of his hand that he was soon to depart from this world, Augustine had said to him that he might still be of great benefit to the Church if he lived. But that no one should think he was captivated by a desire for this life he had answered: "If I were never to die it would be well; but if I am ever to die, why not now?" This sentiment was much admired by Augustine and he praised him who had given voice to it—a man who feared God, indeed, but who had been born and brought up in a small town and was not much educated in the art of reading. Compare on the other hand the attitude of a certain ailing bishop of whom the holy martyr Cyprian speaks on this wise in his letter which he wrote on Mortality, saying: "When a certain one of our colleagues and fellow-priests, wearied with infirmity and troubled at the near approach of death, prayed for an extension of his life, there stood by him as he prayed and was even now on the point of death, a youth, venerable in glory and majesty, tall of stature and with radiant countenance. And mortal eyes could scarcely have endured to look upon him as he stood there, |111 had not he who was soon to depart from this world already had power to behold such a being. And not without a certain indignation of soul and voice the youth rebuked him and said: 'You fear to suffer, you do not wish to die; what shall I do with you?'"
CHAPTER XXVIII. The books published by Augustine just before his death
Shortly before the time of his death he revised the books which he had dictated and edited, whether those which he had dictated in the time immediately following his conversion when he was still a layman, or while he was a presbyter or a bishop. And in those works which he had dictated or written while he was as yet not so well acquainted with ecclesiastical usage and had less understanding, whatsoever he found not agreeing with the ecclesiastical rule, this he himself censured and corrected. Thus he wrote two volumes whose title is On the Revision of Books. And he sometimes complained that certain books had been carried off by some of his brethren before his careful revision, although he revised them later. Some of his books, however, he left uncompleted at the time of his death. Furthermore, in his desire to be of help to all, both those who could read many books and those who could not, he made excerpts from both the sacred Testaments, the Old and the New, of the divine commandments and prohibitions relating to the conduct of life, and with the addition of a preface, made one volume of them. He who wishes may read it and learn therefrom how obedient or disobedient he is to God. This work he desired to have called The Mirror.
But a short time after his it came about, in accordance with the divine will and command, that a great host of savage foes, |113 Vandals and Alans, with some of the Gothic tribe interspersed, and various other peoples, armed with all kinds of weapons and well trained in warfare, came by ship from the regions of Spain across the sea and poured into Africa and overran it. And everywhere through the regions of Mauretania, even crossing over to other of our provinces and territories, raging with cruelty and barbarity, they completely devastated everything they could by their pillage, murder and varied tortures, conflagrations and other innumerable and unspeakable crimes, sparing neither sex nor age, nor even the priests or ministers of God, nor yet the ornaments or vessels of the churches nor even the buildings. Now the man of God did not believe and think as other men did regarding the causes from which this most fierce assault and devastation of the foe had arisen and come to pass. But considering these matters more deeply and profoundly and perceiving in them above all the dangers and the death of souls (since, as it is written, "He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow," and "An understanding heart is a worm in the bones"), more than ever tears were his meat day and night, as he passed through and endured those days of his life, now almost ended, which beyond all others were the most bitter and mournful of his old age. For he saw cities overthrown in destruction, and the resident citizens, together with the buildings on their lands, partly annihilated by the enemy's slaughter and others driven into flight and dispersed. He saw churches stripped of priests and ministers, and holy virgins and all the monastics scattered in every direction. Here he saw some succumb to torture and others slain by the sword, while still others in captivity, losing their innocency and faith both in soul and body, received from their foes the harsh and evil treatment of slaves. He saw the hymns and praises of God perish from the churches; the church |115 buildings in many places consumed by fire; the regular services which were due to God cease from their appointed places; the holy sacraments no longer desired, or if some one did desire them, no one could easily be found to administer them. When they gathered in flight amid the mountain forests, in the caves and caverns of the rocks or in any other kind of retreat, some were captured and put to death while others were robbed and deprived of the necessary means of sustenance so that they gradually perished of hunger. Even the bishops of the churches and the clergy who, by the help of God, did not chance to meet the foe or, if they did meet them, escaped their hands, he saw despoiled and stripped of all their goods and begging in abject poverty, nor could they all be furnished with that by which they might be relieved. Of the innumerable churches he saw only three survive, namely those of Carthage, Hippo and Cirta, which by God's favor were not demolished. These cities too still stand, protected by human and divine aid, although after Augustine's death the city of Hippo, abandoned by its inhabitants, was burned by the enemy. Amid these calamities he was consoled by the thought of a certain wise man who said: "He is not to be thought great who thinks it strange that wood and stones should fall and mortals die."
But Augustine, being exceeding wise, daily bewailed all these events. And it increased his grief and sorrow that this same enemy also came to besiege the city of the Hippo-Regians which had so far maintained its position. With its defence at this time the late Count Boniface had been entrusted with an army of allied Goths. For almost fourteen months they shut up and besieged the city; and they even cut off its sea-coast by blockade. We ourselves with other of our fellow-bishops from the neighboring regions took refuge in this city and |117 remained in it during the whole time of the siege. Consequently we very frequently conversed together and meditated on the awful judgments of God laid bare before our eyes, saying: "Righteous art thou, O Lord, and upright are thy judgments." And in our common grief, with groanings and tears, we besought the Father of mercies and the Lord of all consolation that He vouchsafe to sustain us in this tribulation.
CHAPTER XXIX. Augustine's last illness
And it chanced at one time while we were seated with him at the table and were conversing together that he said to us: "I would have you know that in this time of our misfortune I ask this of God: either that He may be pleased to free this city which is surrounded by the foe, or if something else seems good in His sight, that He make His servants brave for enduring His will, or at least that He may take me from this world unto Himself." And when he had taught us these words, together with him we all joined in a like petition to God Most High, for ourselves and for all our fellow bishops and for the others who were in this city. And lo, in the third month of the siege he succumbed to fever and began to suffer in his last illness. In truth the Lord did not deprive His servant of the reward of his prayer. For what he asked with tears and prayers for himself and the city he obtained in due time. I know also that both while he was presbyter and bishop, when asked to pray for certain demoniacs, he entreated God in prayer with many tears and the demons departed from the men. In like manner when he was sick and confined to his bed there came a certain man with a sick relative and asked him to lay his hand upon him that he might be healed. But |119 Augustine answered that if he had any power in such things he would surely have applied it to himself first of all; to which the stranger replied that he had had a vision and that in his dream these words had been addressed to him: "Go to the bishop Augustine that he may lay his hand upon him, and he shall be whole." Now when Augustine heard this he did not delay to do it and immediately God caused the sick man to depart from him healed.
CHAPTER XXX. Advice on the withdrawal of bishops from the churches at the approach of a foe
And now I must by no means pass over in silence the fact that when the above-mentioned enemy was threatening us, Augustine was consulted in letters by Honoratus, a holy man and our fellow-bishop of the church at Thiabe, as to whether or not the bishops or clergy should withdraw from the churches at their approach. In his reply he pointed out what was more to be feared from those destroyers of Romania. It is my desire to have that letter of his included in this account, for it is very useful, even necessary, for the proper conduct of the priests and ministers of God.
"To our holy brother and fellow-bishop Honoratus, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord.
1. I thought the copy which was sent to your Grace of the letter which I wrote our brother and fellow-bishop Quodvultdeus would relieve me of this task which you have laid upon me by asking my advice as to what you ought to do amid these perils which have befallen our times. For although I wrote that letter quickly, I nevertheless believe I omitted nothing that would suffice me to say in answering and him to know |121 who awaits my reply. For I said that those who desire to withdraw to places of safety, if they are able, should not be prevented, and that the ties of our ministry, by which the love of Christ has bound us not to desert the churches which we ought to serve, should not be broken. Here, then, are the very words which I wrote in that letter: 'If, therefore,' I said, 'our ministry is so needful to those people of God, however few, who stay where we are, that they ought not to be left without it, it remains for us to pray to the Lord: "Be thou unto us a God, a protector and a place of refuge."'
2. But this advice, as you write, is not satisfactory to you, because you fear we may be striving to act against that command and example of the Lord in which He teaches that we should flee from city to city. We recall the words which He said: 'But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye to another.' But who would believe that the Lord wished this to be done when the circumstances are such that the flocks, which He purchased with His own blood, should be abandoned by that necessary ministry without which they cannot live? Did He do this when as an infant He fled into Egypt, carried by His parents, when He had not yet assembled any congregations which we could say were deserted by Him? When the Apostle Paul, that he might not be apprehended of his enemy, was let down through a window in a basket and escaped his hands, was any church there which was deserted when in need of his ministry? Was not that which was needful supplied by the other brethren dwelling there? Indeed it was at their request that the Apostle did this, that he might be spared to the Church, since he alone was sought by the persecutor. Therefore let the servants of Christ, the ministers of His Word and Sacrament, do as He has taught and permitted. Let them by all means flee from city to city when some one |123 of them in particular is sought by the persecutors, provided that the Church shall not be abandoned by the others who are not so persecuted, but that these may administer the food to their fellow-servants, who they know would otherwise be unable to live. But when the danger is common to all, that is, to bishops, clergy and laymen, let those who are in need of others not be abandoned by those of whom they are in need. Accordingly, either let them all withdraw to places of safety or else let not those who have a necessity for remaining be left by those through whom their ecclesiastical needs are supplied, so that they may either live together or suffer together whatever their Father wishes them to endure.
3. But if it should happen that some suffer more and others less, or if all suffer equally, it is evident that they suffer for others who, though they were able to escape such woes by flight, preferred to remain so as not to desert others in their time of need. In this especially is that love exemplified which the Apostle John commends, saying: 'As Christ laid down His life for us, so also ought we to lay down our lives for the brethren.' For if those who flee or those who are bound by their duties and are unable to flee—if these are taken captive and suffer anything, they of course suffer for themselves, not for the brethren. But those who suffer because they are unwilling to forsake their brethren who have need of them for their Christian welfare, these undoubtedly lay down their lives for their brethren.
4. Therefore that which we heard a certain bishop say, namely: 'If the Lord has bidden us to flee in those persecutions where we can obtain the reward of martyrdom, how much more ought we to avoid these fruitless sufferings when there is a hostile invasion of the barbarians?' is indeed true and acceptable, but only for those who are not held by the |125 bonds of ecclesiastical duty. For when he who can escape does not flee from the onslaught of the enemy and so does not abandon the ministry of Christ, without which men could neither live a Christian life nor become Christians, he finds a greater reward of love than he who flees, not for his brethren's sake but for his own, and when taken captive does not deny Christ but suffers martyrdom.
5. But what, then, is that which you wrote in your previous letter? For you say: 'If we must remain in the churches, I do not see what will be the advantage to us or to the people, except that men should be cut down before our very eyes, women outraged, churches burned, and we ourselves perish under torture when the things we have not are demanded of us.' God, indeed, is able to hear the prayers of His children and to ward off the things which they fear; yet even so we ought not, on account of that which is uncertain, to be guilty of that which is certain, namely, neglect of our ministrations. Without these the ruin of the people is certain, not in the things of this life, but of that other which must be cared for with incomparably greater devotion and anxiety. For if these evils were certain which we fear might come to pass in the places in which we are, all on whose account we ought to remain would have fled before us, and so we should be freed from the necessity of remaining. For there is no one who says that ministers ought to remain where there are no longer any to whom it is necessary to minister. So indeed the holy bishops fled from Spain after the people had either fallen in flight, or had been slain or consumed in the siege or scattered in captivity. But many more bishops stayed amid the multitude of these dangers, because those on whose account they remained were staying there. And if some deserted their people, this is what we say ought not to be done. For such |127 were not led by divine authority, but were deceived by human error or constrained by fear.
6. For why do they think they should without discrimination obey the command which they read to flee from city to city, and do not tremble at the parable of the hireling who sees the wolf coming and flees because he cares not for the sheep? Why do they not endeavor so to understand these two consistent teachings of the Lord—the one, indeed, where flight is permitted or even commanded, the other where it is denounced and censured—that they be discovered not to be contrary to each other, as, in fact, they are not? And how shall this be discovered unless attention be given to that which I have discussed above, namely, that we ministers of Christ, under the stress of persecution, should flee from the places in which we are only when there are no Christians there to whom to minister, or when the necessary duties of the ministry can be performed by others who have not the same reason for flight—as the Apostle fled, let down in a basket, as I have mentioned above, when he alone was sought out by the persecutor while the others did not have any such need for flight, so that the services of the ministry were not withdrawn there nor the churches abandoned; as the holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, fled when the Emperor Constantius desired to apprehend him alone, while the Catholic people who remained in Alexandria were by no means deserted by the other ministers. But when the people remain and the ministers flee and the service of the ministry is withdrawn, what will this be but that damnable flight of hirelings who care not for the sheep? For the wolf shall come, not a man, but the Devil, who has very frequently induced the faithful to apostatize who were deprived of the daily ministry of the Lord's body; and not |129 through thy knowledge, but through thine ignorance shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.
7. But as for those who are not deceived by error in this matter, but are overcome by terror, why should they not rather, with the mercy and aid of the Lord, bravely struggle against their fright, lest incomparably greater and more fearful evils come upon them? This will be the case where the love of God is aflame, not where the desire of this world smoulders. For love says: 'Who is weak and I am not weak? Who is offended and I burn not?' And love is from God. Let us pray, therefore, that this love be given of Him by whom it is commanded. And because of it let us fear that the sheep of Christ, who will die at some time by some kind of death, may be slain in heart by the sword of spiritual wickedness rather than in the body by one of iron. Let us rather fear that the inner sense may be corrupted and the purity of faith perish than that women be forcibly defiled in body. For chastity is not destroyed in the body when the will of the sufferer does not shamefully take part in the deeds of the flesh, but without consenting endures another's violence. Rather let us fear that the living stones may be destroyed while we are absent than that the stones and wood of the earthly buildings may be burned while we are present. Rather let us fear that the members of Christ's body may be destroyed when deprived of spiritual nourishment than that the members of our body may be put to torture when overpowered by the attack of the enemy. Not that these things are not to be avoided when possible, but rather that they are to be endured when they cannot be avoided without impiety—unless, perchance, someone will maintain that the minister is not impious who withdraws his ministry which is needful for piety at the time when it is most needful. |131
8. Or when these dangers have reached their height and there is no possibility of flight, do we not realize how great a gathering there usually is in the church of both sexes and of every age, some clamoring for baptism, others for reconciliation, still others for acts of penance: all of them seeking consolation and the administration and distribution of the sacraments? If, then, the ministers are not at hand, how terrible is the destruction which overtakes those who depart from this world unregenerated or bound by sin! How great is the grief of their brethren in the faith who shall not have their companionship in the rest in the life eternal! Finally how great the lamentation of all and how great the blasphemy of some because of the absence of the ministers and their ministry! See what the fear of temporal evils does and how great an increase of eternal woes results. But if the ministers are present they are a help to all, according to the strength which the Lord gives them: some are baptized, others are reconciled, none are deprived of the communion of the body of the Lord, all are consoled, edified and exhorted to ask of God, who hath the power to avert all the things they fear—prepared for either issue, so that if that cup may not pass from them, His will may be done who can will no evil.
9. Surely you now see that which you wrote you did not see, namely, how great advantage Christian people may obtain if in these present evils they are not deprived of the presence of Christ's ministers, and you also see how much injury their absence does when they seek their own, not the things which are of Jesus Christ, and have not that love of which it was said: 'She seeketh not her own,' and do not imitate him who said: 'Seeking not mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.' For he also would not have fled from the snares of that persecuting prince had he not wished |133 to save himself for others who had greater need of him. Wherefore he says: 'For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better; nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.'
10. At this point someone perchance may say that the ministers of God ought to flee when such dangers are threatening so that they may save themselves for the benefit of the Church in more peaceful times. This is right for some when others are not lacking to provide the ministrations of the Church, that it may not be deserted by all, as we have said above that Athanasius did. For the Catholic faith, which was defended against the Arian heretics by his voice and zeal, perceived how needful it was and how profitable it would be to have him abide in the flesh. But when the peril is common and it is more to be feared that someone may be thought to do this not from a desire of serving, but from a fear of dying, and when more harm may be done by the example of fleeing than good by the obligation of living, it should under no circumstances be done. Finally the holy David, that he might not be exposed to the dangers of battle and that the 'light of Israel,' as it is there written, should not by any chance be extinguished, withdrew when his followers demanded it, but he did not do this of his own accord or he would have had many imitators of his cowardice, who would have believed that he did it not from any consideration of the advantage of others but from the confusion of his own fear.
11. But another question arises which we ought not to slight. For if this usefulness is not to be disregarded so that some ministers should flee when any danger is imminent in order to be saved to minister to those survivors whom they might be able to find after the disaster, what should be done where all seem sure to perish unless some flee? What if the persecution |135 should in so far be overcome as to pursue only the ministers of the Church? What shall we say? Shall the Church be forsaken by its ministers in flight that it may not be forsaken more wretchedly by them in death? But if the laymen are not persecuted to the death, they can in some way or other hide their bishops and clergy, as He shall aid, in whose control are all things, who is able by His marvelous power to save even those who do not flee. But we are inquiring what we ought to do in order that we be not adjudged as tempting God by looking for divine miracles in all things. Certainly this storm in which the danger is common to laymen and clergy is not the same as that in which the danger is common to merchants and sailors in the same ship. God forbid that this ship of ours should be prized so lightly that the sailors, and especially the pilot, ought to abandon it when it is in danger, even if they can escape by taking to a small boat or even by swimming. For in the case of those who we fear may perish because of our desertion, it is not their temporal death we fear, which is sure to come at some time, but their eternal death which can come if we are not careful and which cannot come if we are careful. But in the common perils of this life, why should we believe that wherever there is a hostile invasion all the clergy, and not all the laymen also, are going to perish so that those for whom the clergy are necessary shall all end this life together? Or why should we not expect that as some of the laymen shall survive, so also shall some of the clergy, by whom the necessary ministry may be provided for them?
12. Yet O that the rivalry between the ministers of God were as to which of them should remain that the Church be not abandoned by the flight of all, and which of them should flee that it be not abandoned by the death of all! Such, indeed, will be the rivalry among them when both are kindled |137 by love and both obey love. And if this argument cannot be otherwise settled, so far as I can see, those who should remain and those who should flee must be chosen by lot. For those who shall say that they ought rather to flee will either seem to be afraid because they are unwilling to endure the threatening danger, or presumptuous in that they judge themselves more necessary to the Church to fulfill its services. Furthermore, peradventure those who are the better may choose to lay down their lives for the brethren and those will be saved by flight whose life is less useful by reason of their inferior ability in counsel and government. Nevertheless those who are good and wise will oppose those who they see ought rather to live and who yet choose to die rather than flee. Thus, as it is written: 'The lot causeth contentions to cease and parteth between the mighty.' For in difficulties of this sort God is a better judge than men as to whether it is well to call the more gifted to the reward of martyrdom and to spare the weak or whether to make them stronger to endure the hardships and to take them out of this world whose lives cannot be of as much advantage to the Church as the lives of the others. The procedure will indeed be rather unusual if the lot has to be adopted; but if it has been used who shall presume to call it into question? Who, except he be ignorant or envious, will not praise it with fitting commendation? But if this method is not found satisfactory on the ground that no instance of such a procedure occurs, let no one by his flight cause the ministration of the Church, especially needful and due amid such great perils, to cease. Let no one regard his own person, so that if he seem to excel in some grace, he should on this account say he is more deserving of life and therefore of flight. For whoever thinks this doubtless pleases himself; but whoever also says this, displeases all. |139
13. To be sure there are those who believe that when the bishops and clergy do not flee amid such dangers but remain, they deceive the people, since the people do not flee because they see their bishops remaining. But it is easy to avoid this accusation or reproach by speaking to the people and saying: 'Be not deceived because we do not flee from this place. For we are remaining here not for our own sakes but rather for yours that we may not fail to provide you with whatever we know to be needful for your salvation which is in Christ. If, therefore, you wish to flee you will free us from the bonds by which we are held.' This I think should be said when it seems truly expedient to withdraw to places of greater safety. And when such words have been heard and all or some shall have said: 'We are in His power whose wrath no one escapes, wheresoever he may go, and whose mercy he can find, wheresoever he may be who does not wish to go elsewhere, whether prevented by certain obligations or unwilling to seek places of uncertain refuge, thus not ending but merely transfering the dangers,'—surely they must not be forsaken by the Christian ministry. But if the people prefer to leave when they have heard this, the ministers are not bound to stay who were remaining on their account, because there are no longer any persons there for whose sake they ought still to remain.
14. Accordingly, whoever flees under such circumstances that the necessary ministry of the Church is not lacking because of his flight, does as the Lord commands or permits. But whoever so flees that he deprives the flock of Christ of that nourishment from which it has its spiritual life, is an hireling who sees the wolf coming and flees because he cares not for the sheep.
These things, since I believe them, my brother most beloved, have I written to you in truth and love unfeigned |141 because you have asked my advice, but I make no objection to a better opinion if you find one. Nevertheless we can find nothing better to do in these dangers than to pray to the Lord our God that He have mercy upon us. And some wise and holy men, with the help of God, have been enabled to will and to do this much, namely not to desert the churches, and in the face of detraction not to waver in maintaining their purpose."
CHAPTER XXXI. Death and burial
Now the holy man in his long life given of God for the benefit and happiness of the holy Church (for he lived seventy-six years, almost forty of which he spent as a priest or bishop), in private conversations frequently told us that even after baptism had been received exemplary Christians and priests ought not depart from this life without fitting and appropriate repentance. And this he himself did in his last illness of which he died. For he commanded that the shortest penitential Psalms of David should be copied for him, and during the days of his sickness as he lay in bed he would look at these sheets as they hung upon the wall and read them; and he wept freely and constantly. And that his attention might not be interrupted by anyone, about ten days before he departed from the body he asked of us who were present that no one should come in to him, except only at the hours in which the physicians came to examine him or when nourishment was brought to him. This, accordingly, was observed and done, and he had all that time free for prayer. Up to the very moment of his last illness he preached the Word of God in the church incessantly, vigorously and powerfully, with a clear mind and sound judgment. With all the members of his body intact, |143 with sight and hearing unimpaired, while we stood by and watched and prayed, "he slept with his fathers," as it is written, "well-nourished in a good old age." And in our presence, after a service was offered to God for the peaceful repose of his body, he was buried. He made no will, because as a poor man of God he had nothing from which to make it. He repeatedly ordered that the library of the church and all the books should be carefully preserved for future generations. Whatever the church had in the way of possessions or ornaments he left in charge of his presbyter, who had the care of the church building under his direction. Neither in life nor death did he treat his relatives according to the general custom, whether they observed his manner of life or not. But while he was still living, whenever there was need he gave to them the same as he gave others, not that they should have riches, but that they might not be in want, or at least might be less in want. Pie left to the Church a fully sufficient body of clergy and monasteries of men and women with their continent overseers, together with the library and books containing treatises of his own and of other holy men. By the help of God, one may find therein how great he was in the Church and therein the faithful may always find him living. Wherefore also a secular poet, who directed that a monument be erected to himself in a public place after his death, composed this as an inscription, saying:
Wouldst know that poets live again, O traveller, after death?
These words thou readest, lo, I speak! Thy voice is but my breath.
From his writing assuredly it is manifest that this priest, beloved and acceptable to God, lived uprightly and soberly in the faith, hope and love of the Catholic Church in |145 so far as he was permitted to see it by the light of truth, and those who read his works on divine subjects profit thereby. But I believe that they were able to derive greater good from him who heard and saw him as he spoke in person in the church, and especially those who knew well his manner of life among men. For not only was he a "scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old," and one of those merchants who "when he had found the pearl of great price, sold all that he had and bought it," but he was also one of those of whom it is written: "So speak ye and so do," and of whom the Saviour said: "Whosoever shall so do and teach men, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Now I earnestly ask your grace who read these words, you who bless the Lord, that with me you give thanks to God Almighty, who gave me understanding to desire and power to bring these things to the knowledge of men near and far, of present and of future time; and I ask that you pray with me and for me, that as by the grace of God I have lived with this man, who is now dead, on terms of intimate and delightful friendship, with no bitter disagreement, for almost forty years, I may also continue to emulate and imitate him in this world and may enjoy with him the promises of God Almighty in the world to come. Amen.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Scanned from H.T.Weiskotten, Sancti Augustini Vita scripta a Possidio Episcopo.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: theodore_of_mopsuestia_acts_prologue_01.htm
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Prologue to the Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Preface to the online edition.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Prologue to the Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Preface to the online edition.
The following extracts from the complete article may be of interest to readers of this collection.
Ernst von Dobschütz, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 2, No. 2. (Apr., 1898), pp. 353-387.
A HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED PROLOGUE TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES (PROBABLY BY THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA).
The oldest manuscripts of the Bible contain, as is well known, only the text of the Holy Scriptures. Even the brief titles and subscriptions in the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are in part added by a later hand. Soon, however, it began to be customary to add all sorts of explanatory material. The canons and sections of Eusebius, the brief prologues of Jerome, are familiar examples. The largest collection of such material passes under the name of Euthalius... In all probability we shall have to assume several authors for the various parts of the work. On the one side this is in entire agreement with the fact, observable in the history of literature in general, that the lesser names disappear, their work being attributed to a more famous writer. Conspicuous examples are furnished by the names of Cyprian and Augustine in Latin literature, under which even writings of Novatian, Pelagius, and others are hidden. On the other side this appears in the notorious fondness of the scribes of biblical manuscripts in later centuries for bringing together the greatest possible variety of material in order to give higher value to their manuscripts.
The admirable descriptions of the New Testament manuscripts which we owe to Professor Caspar Rene Gregory, of Leipzig, are especially exhaustive with reference to this matter, and give an authentic picture of the way in which, in the course of time, materials have been heaped together in the manuscripts of the Bible. We do not now refer to the fact that biblical manuscripts have also been used for copying other and profane literature. We are concerned only with the introductory matter which stands in relation to the New Testament itself. One who would become acquainted with this material----and it is quite worth while to study the history of biblical interpretation which is embodied in it----can obtain a good impression of it from the older editions of the New Testament, especially from those of Mill and Matthaei, not to mention also the commentaries of Theophylact and Oecumenius, and the well-known catenae. It would no doubt be a task worth undertaking, though not practicable for an individual or at private expense, to gather together and to sift critically all such introductory material as exists in the manuscripts and printed books, and thus to produce a corpus introductorium Novi Testamenti. Undoubtedly many treasures still await discovery.
The following pages will furnish an example of this hidden material.
The public library at Naples possesses a manuscript which contains the latter half of the New Testament. Gregory's description of the manuscript is as follows:
83. (P 93 Ap 99) Neapoli bibl. nationalis II. Aa. 7.
saec XII (al. X vel XI), 26.5 X 18.6, membr, foll. 123, coll. 2, ll. 37, στίχων numeri in mg notantur; prol, capp-t, tabulae multae: Act Cath Paul (Heb Tim) Apoc (mut post Apoc 3?); 1 Ioh 5,7 in mg habet. Textum olim cum codice Pamphili Caesareae conlatum esse profitetur. Evagrius scripsit. Birch, et Scholz. Bib.-kr. Reise p.136 seq. locc sell cont. Nescio quis in usum Burgonii cont. Vidi 24 Apr 1886.
The statement about the scribe rests upon an oversight easily explicable. As frequently occurs, the scribe of our manuscript has simply copied the subscription of his exemplar. The "Evagrius" is undoubtedly the same as the one mentioned in the subscription of Codex H of the Pauline letters, first pointed out by Ehrhard. To the same cause is due also the statement concerning a collation of the text with the Codex Pamphili in the library at Caesarea. We may set aside the question of the relation of this Evagrius to Euthalius, whether, as Ehrhard thinks, he is the proper author whose name was later corrupted into Euthalius; or, as I have suggested, a later writer who audaciously put his name in the subscription in place of the author's name, a thing which occurs quite often; or, finally, as Robinson has recently suggested, an independent redactor of "Euthalius." For our present purpose it is likewise immaterial whether Codex Neap. is copied directly or indirectly from Codex H, or again is derived from a sister manuscript of Codex H. In any case the scribe of our manuscript had several exemplars before him, and from one of these that had no relation to Codex H and Euthalius he took the Prologue printed in the following pages.
According to the minute description which the royal librarian, Salvator Cyrillus, gave in his catalogue of the Greek manuscripts of the Bourbon library (now the national library) in Naples,1 the manuscript contains, on folio i, the well-known Euthalian Prologue to the Acts of the Apostles (Zacagni, p. 403) without heading; then folio 3, a second preface to this book, likewise without superscription, of which Cyrill gives a small part.
Through the courtesy of two friends I am able to give this highly interesting Prologue in full. Dr. Erich Forster, pastor at Frankfort-on-the-Main, the well-known editor of the Chronik der christlichen Welt, and afterward Mr. James Hardy Ropes, instructor in Harvard University, had the great kindness to furnish me the entire text, partly in transcription and partly in epilation. The manuscript is in places very much defaced and only with difficulty legible, which is no doubt the reason why only a part has been printed by Cyrill, and that in a very faulty way. Single words are even yet not read with perfect certainty. As I have not seen the codex myself, I cannot undertake the full responsibility, particularly where the two collations at my disposal do not agree. It is nevertheless better to print the text even with some mistakes than to leave scholars much longer in ignorance of it. I am indebted to several acquaintances, above all to Professor Blass, of Halle, and Dr. Koetschau, professor at the Gymnasium in Jena, well known by his studies in Origen, for various suggestions in the restoration of the text by conjecture.
This introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, as can be readily seen, consists of four main parts:
1. The introduction and dedication.
2. The recapitulation of the gospels.
3. The statement of contents of the Acts of the Apostles.
(a) The mission of the first disciples.
(b) Paul.
(c) The gospel among the Jews and the Gentiles.
4. The principles of the ensuing interpretation.
This last part, especially the closing sentence, shows clearly that we have here not an independent prologue, but merely the introduction to a commentary, which unfortunately does not seem to be preserved in the manuscript. The plan of this commentary seems to have been this: a continuous explanation of a certain portion of the text was given; the text itself was not always quoted explicitly and in full and then commented upon, but was often merely incorporated in the form of a paraphrase into the exposition. This seems to be the meaning of the somewhat difficult closing paragraph, the only one that (as Professor Blass remarks) is not well and clearly written. The real explanation of the difficulty, however, may be that we are not sufficiently acquainted with the terminology of the school and period to which he belonged. Our author explicitly states that he follows the hermeneutical method which, in distinction from that of the glossarists and catenists, laid most emphasis upon the understanding and exposition of the connection of thought; perspicuity and brevity are the objects that he rightly sought for. Quite in harmony with the method of ancient exegesis, he also, as it seems, sharply distinguishes the speeches from the narrative portions; one need but recall the statement of contents of the gospel of Mark by Papias, "Christ's sayings and deeds." Our author is by no means a novice in the art of exegesis, for he informs us that he has already written a commentary on the gospel of Luke on the same principles, and we can discern from his whole method of handling his subject the trained master of interpretation, who wrote with rare mastery of his language.
The exegetical skill of our author, shown most brilliantly in the whole conception of the problem of the Acts of the Apostles, appears likewise in some measure in the terminology of which we give examples.
All this points to one of the great Greek commentators, and it is difficult to suppose that such a man should be unknown to us. The neglect of the rubricator, who failed to write the superscription with his minium, or, perhaps owing to the neglect of a predecessor, knew not what he should add here, has deprived us of the name of our commentator. It is highly improbable that this was done intentionally, as, for example, because the name was obnoxious as that of a heretic; for beside the superscription there are lacking also the large initial letters, which surely were dogmatically unobjectionable, and likewise the superscription to the preceding prologue. We are thus compelled to recover the name ---- at least hypothetically----by the help of conjecture. In doing this three points have to be considered:
I. The authors own historical statements in the dedication.
II. The statements preserved to us concerning Greek commentaries on these writings.
III. The character of the exegesis and of the whole theological conception of the author, recognizable even in this preface.
I.
The commentary on the Acts of the Apostles is dedicated to a bishop Eusebius, whom our author describes as one very dear to him, and devoted to the study of the Sacred Scriptures. It is a more important fact for us that he calls him the successor to another bishop Eusebius, whom ---- as our author says ---- he resembled not only in name, but also in the striving after Christian virtues and the zeal for the Sacred Scriptures. This predecessor induced him to write his commentary on the gospel of Luke, while the successor requested him to continue it in the case of the Acts of the Apostles. Unfortunately the author does not say in what episcopal see we have to look for the two men. We should suppose it an easy matter to find two men named Eusebius who had occupied the same episcopal cathedra in immediate succession, but our knowledge of the history of the Greek church during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries is so meager that we cannot on this basis determine anything with any degree of certainty... consequently we gain from this source no conclusive information concerning the author himself.
II.
If now we turn our attention to the question what commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles we know to have existed in the Greek church, we find that for the solution of this question also nothing has as yet been done. For little is gained from the few titles of leading works that are usually quoted in modern commentaries. The best help is afforded by the catena, but here we must be on our guard lest we number among commentators of the writing in question all names mentioned there; e. g., there is no doubt that the three fragments of Theodore of Heraclea, mentioned in Cramers Catena in Acta Apostolorum (Oxon., 1844, P. 145, 3, 9, 12), refer to his well-known commentary on Isaiah. If now we combine the quotations in catena and all accounts of commentaries handed down to us, we gain approximately the following list:
A. D. (ca.) 250. Origen. Only homilies to the Acts are certified; Jerome, De vir. illustr. 17; cf. Harnack-Preuschen, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, I, 373. (The commentary mentioned there, after Verderius, is no doubt the result of a blunder.)
A. D. (ca.) 300. Pamphilus of Caesarea.
A. D. (ca.) 350. Didymus "the Blind," ed. by J. Chr. Wolf in Anecdota graeca, T. IV, Hamburg, 1724, from a catena.
A. D. (ca.) 370. Ephrem Syrus, preserved only in an Armenian catena; Venice, 1839. vo.
A. D. (ca.) 380* Diodorus of Tarsus, according to Suidas.
A. D. (ca.) 400. Theodore of Mopsuestia. (See below.)
A. D. 400-401. Chrysostom: 55 homilies; opera ed. Montfaucon, IX, 1731.
A. D. (ca.) 400. Severianus of Gabala (+ after 408), perhaps author of homilies; cf. Gennadius, chap. 21.
(?) A. D. (ca.) 430. Hesychius Presbyter (+ 433); fragment of catena. Migne, Patrol, graeca, 93.
[A. D. (ca.) 440. Cyrill of Alexandria. The fragments of catenae are probably not derived from a commentary on the Acts.]
[A. D. (ca.) 440. Theodoret of Cyrus. The same may be said with still greater certainty here.]
A. D. (ca.) 440. Theodotus of Ancyra, a partisan of Cyrill; fragments of catenae.
A. D. (ca.) 450. Ammonius of Alexandria, fragments of catenae.
After A. D. 500. Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia; scholia, also to Acts, in cod. Athous 129. S. Pauli 2 (Ac. 374, Gregory, p. 650); cf. Ehrhard in Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Iwan Muller's Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Vol. IX), d edition, p. 130. Andreas is also the name of the compiler of the catena in cod. Coisl. 25 (= Ac. 15, Gregory, p. 618), Saec. X, and Oxon. Nov. coll. 58 (= Ac. 36, Gregory, p. 621), Saec. XII, which Cramer published in Catena, T. Ill, Oxon., 1844.
A. D. (ca.) 900. Leo Magister: Scholia to Matt., Luke, John, Acts, and Cath. Epp.; cf. Ehrhard, I. c, 131, No. 4.
(Date unknown) Oecumenius: fragments in the following work:
Tenth century (?). Oecumenius-Catena, edidit Morellus, Par. 1631; Migne, Patrol. graeca, 118, 119.
A. D. (ca.) 1078. Theophylact, archbishop of Achrida in Bulgaria. Ed. Foscari, Venice, 1754-63, wholly dependent upon the preceding.
(?) Nicetas of Naupaktos. Manuscripts mentioned by Ehrhard, l. c., 137.
(?) Anonymi hom. 54 breves in cod. Vindob. 45, to, fol. 1-101; Lambecius, III, 63.
This list, of course, does not pretend to be complete, for it is very probable that a reference may have escaped me. And, above all, it is very doubtful whether we have any knowledge of all the commentators on the Acts of the Apostles; and whether, perhaps, many anonymous scholia are not the work of still unknown exegetes. In view of this we must speak with a great reservation in attempting to say who among the persons mentioned above was the author of our prologue.
At the very outset we must exclude the Byzantine authors of commentaries after 500 A. D., for they represent, in the great majority of instances, recensions wholly dependent on the earlier exegetical material, of value only in so far as they have preserved fragments of their predecessors of the classic period of Greek theology, otherwise lost. Compare the excellent description which Ehrhard has given of this exegesis in Krumbacher's Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 2. Aufl., 1896, pp. 122 ff.
But also among the commentators preceding the fifth century we have to reject a considerable number. In the case of many, among these Cyrill and Theodoret, it cannot be shown at all that they ever composed a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles; others again, e. g. Origen and Chrysostom, have left us only continuous homilies on this book, the nature of which excludes our prologue as an introduction; and again, commentators of the Alexandrian school, Didymus, Cyrill, Theodotus of Ancyra, and others, are decisively excluded by the character of the theological conceptions which pervade our prologue, which, it may be said here by way of anticipation, is strictly of the Antiochian school. This and the masterly character of the commentary lead us to think above all of Diodorus of Tarsus, or his yet more famous pupil, Theodore of Mopsuestia.
To the former Suidas, Lexicon, sub voce Διόδωρος (ed. Bernhardy, I, 1, 1379), following a catalogue compiled by Theodore Lector, ascribes, among other works, and especially after a chronicon, correcting the Eusebian chronology, two volumes: (on the gospels and on the acts).
Among the fragments of catenae collected in Migne, Patrologia graeca, T. 33, there is none at all belonging to writings on the New Testament, and although there are, as far as comparison is possible, several linguistic points of contact with our prologue, we nowhere find that originality of expression and conception which characterizes our document.
On the other hand, any one of the more numerously preserved fragments of the exegetical works of Theodore, e. g., his prologue to the commentary on the minor prophets,2 shows a surprisingly close linguistic relationship to our fragment.
To this may be added the decisive weight of an external testimony. The existence of a commentary of Theodore on the Acts of the Apostles is variously attested; in particular during the fifth oecumenical (or general) council, the second Constantinopolitanum, there were read, at the fourth session, held May 12 (or 13), A. D. 553, a number of extracts from Theodore's writings, and among these, beside passages of the commentaries on the gospels of Luke and John, also a passage from the first book of his commentary to the Acts of the Apostles:... [Latin text omitted]
It is to the Syrian fathers, however, that we owe a more accurate knowledge of the writings of Theodore "the exegete," a title with which they rightly honored him. Already Ibas, the well-known Edessene, we are told, had his writings translated into Syriac, for which he was reproached by his adversaries. It is, therefore, not surprising that as late as the fourteenth century a learned Nestorian, Ebed-Jesu, the metropolitan of Zoba and Armenia (f 1318), was able to incorporate a list of thirty-six writings of Theodore into his rhymed catalogue of 200 Syrian authors, in which it constituted chap. 19. This catalogue has been published by Assemani in his Bibliotheca orientalis, Tom. III, 1, 3-362, together with a Latin translation and excellent notes....
Our prologue shows that its author dedicated two commentaries to two Eusebii, the one on the gospel of Luke to the older, that on the Acts of the Apostles to his successor. In Ebed-Jesu's list we have three commentaries of Theodore dedicated to a Eusebius, namely, those on the gospel of Luke, the gospel of John, and the epistle to the Romans. It appears to be almost like a provoking accident that the commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, standing between the last two, was not dedicated to a Eusebius, but to a Basilius. Is this really the case? or may we not have here merely a mistake of Ebed-Jesu or of one of his predecessors?
It appears to me certain that we have here a case of transposition of the Acts and the gospel of John, occasioned by the author's desire to preserve as far as possible the traditional order of the canon. The two tomoi contain the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles; alongside of these the commentary on the gospel of John occupied a much more independent place. And thus I suspect that this was dedicated to a Basilius, while the two were dedicated to an older and a younger Eusebius. We have to make, therefore, only a very slight correction in Ebed-Jesu's list of the writings of Theodore, in order to obtain a testimony that our prologue is the introduction to the commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Acts of the Apostles dedicated to Eusebius, better than we could have dared to wish for.
III.
Theodore's authorship of the prologue is confirmed finally by an analysis of the theological conceptions expressed in it. The special points of controversy concerning Christology, so frequently discussed in the fifth century, are, to be sure, not mentioned in it. This very fact, however, may point to Theodore as the author of the discussion, inasmuch as this controversy was imposed upon him from the outside, rather than grew out of his own religious position....
If we should go into further details, many more phrases of our prologue could be traced also in the other writings of Theodore, still extant. Yet there is no need of doing this. What has thus far been said will, I assume, amply prove my suggestion, expressed also on a former occasion, that our prologue is a fragment of a work of Theodore....
Yet even more important than this precise location of a single writing of Theodore's is the observation that, notwithstanding the reproach of heresy, laid upon him by the orthodox church of the Justinian age, even as late as a hundred years after his death, though not without meeting with violent opposition, his writings have not been destroyed so completely as one might suppose and as was formerly believed by many. A careful research and examination of the catena will certainly yield also for this commentator some valuable material. It would be highly interesting to find out from what source the writer of our codex Neapolitanus in the twelfth (or perhaps even in the tenth or eleventh) century took this prologue. We can hardly suppose any connection of it with "Euthalius," even if Mill's well-known supposition that Euthalius in his prologue to the epistles of Paul alluded to Theodore as his source really rested on a sounder foundation than is actually the case. The only question now is whether the writer of the codex had still before him the entire commentary of Theodore, or----and this is by far more probable----whether he found this fragment in one of his exemplars as an independent prologue to the Acts of the Apostles. One might feel provoked at the scribe, or his predecessor, for having saved for us only this introduction, instead of copying the entire commentary. Yet rather let us be thankful to him for having preserved at least so much for us; for we can justly say that such an introduction forms one of the most valuable parts of a commentary, the knowledge of which should stimulate us to further research and investigation. Contrary to their own will and intention, later writers, though fully persuaded of Theodore's pernicious and dangerous influence, have nevertheless unwittingly preserved many fragments of his writings which for the history of exegesis are far more valuable than all their other compilations together.
[A couple of the copious footnotes]
1. Codices Graeci MSS. Regiae Bibliothecae Borbonicae descripti atque illustrati a Salvatore Cyrillo. Neapol, 1726, I, pp. 13-24.
2. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibl., VII, 1854; ed. von Wegnern (1834), pp. 3 ff. My citations are from this edition.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2007. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: theodore_of_mopsuestia_acts_prologue_02.htm
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Prologue to the Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. The American Journal of Theology 2 (1898) pp.363-6.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Prologue to the Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. The American Journal of Theology 2 (1898) pp.363-6.
PROLOGUE TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
[Translated by Ernst von Dobschütz]
I. Long ago, indeed very long ago, by the grace of God we finished the commentary upon the gospel of the most blessed Luke, and accordingly without delay sent to thee the book as thou didst request by letter, O most admirable Eusebius, of all bishops most dear to me, by that writing discharging my obligation to the blessed Eusebius who was at that time living, and who not only bore the same name as thou but had also the same zeal for virtue; and indeed he was also succeeded by thee in his ecclesiastical dignity. And you both have had like zeal for the sacred Scriptures, so that you manifested like desire for the labors of the blessed Luke which he expended in the writing addressed to Theophilus, dedicating to him both the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. For he requested from us the commentary upon the gospel, intending, no doubt, later to ask also from us one upon the Acts of the Apostles; but thou prizing very highly the possession of the interpretation of the gospel, didst desire that the exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, still lacking, be undertaken by me.
II. Now that the blessed Luke composed this writing, it is not difficult for him who does not merely superficially glance over the sacred books to see; but it would be well that the scope of the book be set forth by us also; for the gospels afford us accurate knowledge of the economy (of salvation) and the (ideal of) conduct which are according to Christ; in what manner he was begotten, what were the circumstances which attended his birth, how submitting with great fidelity to the conduct prescribed by the law until he was thirty years of age, he came to his baptism, initiating the new covenant in prototype, the reality of which is the resurrection but the type of which is Christian baptism, as this symbolizes both death and resurrection according to the saying of the blessed Paul which saith, "As many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death; we were buried therefore with him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him by the likeness of his death we shall be also by that of his resurrection." For it is manifest that in the baptism with which the Lord Christ was baptized our baptism was accomplished; with which therefore he commanded the apostles also to baptize men throughout the world, since indeed he himself having withdrawn from the conduct that is according to the law set forth the gospel way of life, having chosen disciples whom he thought adapted to his teaching, and having set forth the laws which were especially adapted to such way of life, and thus having by wonders and various words and deeds rendered them fully receptive of the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which grace now especially they received all knowledge with accuracy and were made competent for the instruction of the whole world, as the Lord himself saith in the gospels, " Yet many things I have to say but ye cannot bear (them) now; when he, the Spirit of truth shall come he will lead you into all truth," and in the Acts of the Apostles, "But ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon |364 you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and unto the ends of the earth." And to all these things as a crowning conclusion he added the resurrection, which is a token of the general resurrection of men, but above all of the new creation in which all creation is to be recreated with men----"If any man is in Christ he is a new creature. The old things have passed away, behold all things have become new." But this (i. e., the resurrection, or perhaps the new creation) we learn perfectly from the gospels when the Lord Christ rising from the dead commanded his own disciples to transmit to all men the faith in him ---- "Make them disciples, baptizing into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit "----and to teach them that they should observe with carefulness all things which he has commanded. But it remained for us to learn in what manner it was possible for the disciples to bring these things to accomplishment, since it was a wholly new thing and altogether incredible that fishermen, born in the country, acquainted only with the language of the Syrians, altogether uneducated, twelve in number, should fill the world with a story so incredible that a man crucified in Judea rose from the dead, giving to all men assurance of the resurrection.
III. (1) On this account the blessed Luke, in addition to the writing of the gospel, composed this book for us, teaching how the Lord Christ has ascended into the heavens and how the Holy Spirit has come down upon his apostles, and in what way by his grace it became possible that the whole world should be filled with the teaching of Christ, and in what order God has wrought these things with much wisdom, having formerly brought Jews to piety (i. e., Christianity) in order that it might be evident that the way of life and the faith which are according to Christ are not opposed or hostile to the ordinance of the law or rather to the God who put forth the law; and having after this with mysterious dispensations sent forth upon the rest of men the instruction in piety in many and very various ways; and first by the scattering of many of the pious in consequence of the things that happened in respect to Stephen; as a result of which then Philip brought piety (Christianity) to the Samaritans and taught it also to the eunuch from Ethiopia; and certain Cyprians and Cyrenians came as far as to Antioch teaching the things of Christ not to Jews only but also to Greeks; and when they that were in Judea learned these things they were astonished at that which had taken place, and sent Barnabas, who by his own words confirmed what had previously been taught them, and taking along Paul as a fellow-helper of the word, by his assistance brought it about by further teaching that at Antioch the disciples were first called Christians, for the manifestation of the law then in force, and that they renouncing all others chose to cleave to Christ only. And in the midst of these things the divine grace of the Holy Spirit brought Cornelius and those with him from the Gentiles, through the blessed Peter, to the doctrine of piety (Christianity), by clear and very fearful manifestations, making it plain to all that this even had been decreed by God concerning the |365 Gentiles in order that no place for gainsaying might be left for those who from among the Jewish Christians wished to strive against these things.
(2) Many ways, therefore, as I said, God used to this end, not all of which there is now time to enumerate, but we shall learn about them when we come to details: as last and greatest, however, this, that with all force he drew from the law itself its most zealous advocate and the one most hostile to the teaching of Christ----I mean the blessed Paul ----and led him to the knowledge of himself so that he became the most zealous herald of Christ throughout the whole world, and exceeded all in his zeal for him, and with great eagerness chose to do and suffer anything whatever so that he might teach all men that, relinquishing all others, they should regard Christ both as Savior and as the author for them of all things which are good; for the Gentiles had need of such a teacher, who being plainly rescued by grace from an opinion godless and contrary to law, was then ready to transmit piety (Christianity) to the Gentiles that were to be saved by grace.
(3) Therefore the blessed Luke has composed a detailed narrative of many things very necessary to know and a teaching useful to those who are zealous to devote themselves to piety; but above all things through his present writing he taught us this especially, how by the mysterious dispensations and ordinances of the Holy Spirit it came to be necessary that among all men the Christian conduct and way of life should prevail apart from all legal observance. Now this doctrine the blessed Paul represented according to the grace of the Holy Spirit which was given to him; for since through the apostles Jews were brought to piety (Christianity) for the demonstration of the relation of Christians to the law, as I said, and it was necessary for them to continue in the legal way of life lest abandoning the former teaching they should lead those who were proselytes from among the Jews away from piety (Christianity), the divine grace was constrained to appoint the blessed Paul to this work, that wholly apart from legal observance he should preach piety (Christianity) to the Gentiles; and the Holy Spirit caused that the apostles also, together with all those (Christians) who were in Judea should with befitting readiness (or perhaps: obligation = the contribution for the poor of Jerusalem) agree with him. For precisely this made him in his task of teaching most worthy of credence, that having been formerly a persecutor and having spoken against the disciples of Christ, he had turned to piety (Christianity), who indeed having ventured so much formerly on behalf of the law against piety (Christianity), would not have chosen now to teach these things instead of those, viz., to separate Christian discipleship wholly from the legal conduct, if he had not been compelled by the truth itself and so abandoned the former things and went over to this doctrine. Therefore also Luke set forth first his (former) opinion which was against Christianity and in favor of the law, and after this he relates in order his calling and the things which were done by him on behalf of piety (Christianity), and how, having gone even to Rome, he delivered piety (Christianity) to the Gentiles. |366
IV. But having used no small part of the book for the narrative concerning these things and having thus composed the whole writing in order that we might be able to learn from it how the preaching of piety (Christianity) began among the Jews, and how from them it passed over to the Gentiles, they having without the observance of the law received piety (Christianity)----with this purpose, then, he put forth the book before us; which purposing to interpret we shall now try as the grace of God shall grant us, to give the necessary attention not only to clearness but also to brevity. On this account we shall on the one side investigate everything, in order not to mutilate the body of the book which is to be explained, and on the other hand shall not copy out all the sentences adding thereto the detailed interpretation, lest we unduly extend the writing; but recalling in many places also the explanations of the apostolic men which they have made, whether to their opponents or else also to their own people, and in many places also the narratives (we will be satisfied) to give only the meaning of the sentences, so that together with clearness there may also be brevity in the writing.
Now the blessed Luke makes the beginning of the book of the Acts of the Apostles as follows:...
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2007. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: theodore_of_mopsuestia_nicene_01_intro.htm
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed (1932) pp.1-18
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed (1932) pp.1-18
WOODBROOKE STUDIES
CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS IN SYRIAC, ARABIC, AND GARSHUNI, EDITED AND TRANSLATED WITH A CRITICAL APPARATUS
by
A. MINGANA
VOLUME V
COMMENTARY OF THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA ON THE NICENE CREED
CAMBRIDGE
W. HEFFER & SONS LIMITED
1932
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
The present volume is the fifth in the series of Woodbrooke Studies, the contents of which are drawn from MSS. in my collection. Owing to the fact that I have relinquished my duties in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, it was not found convenient to continue the publication of the "Studies" in serial parts in the "Bulletin" of that Library. Slight changes have accordingly been made in the preliminary matter as well as in the headings of the "Studies," and it is hoped that these will be found more suitable to works of this kind.
This volume contains the hitherto lost commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) on the Nicene Creed, which is undoubtedly one of the most important theological works of the golden age of Christianity. In places I experienced some difficulty in following the author's method of reasoning, but it may confidently be stated that the translation which I have adopted in the following pages reveals as accurately as possible the secret of the author's argumentation, which is nearly always fresh and illuminating.
Short passages were by inadvertence omitted in the first part of the work, which was published in the January issue of the "Bulletin of the John Rylands Library". These have been inserted in the present edition together with some corrections.
It is a pleasing duty to offer here my sincerest thanks to Mr. Edward Cadbury whose generosity has again made possible the publication of the "Studies" in their new form.
A. MINGANA.
Selly Oak Colleges Library, Birmingham,
th July, 1932.
PREFATORY NOTE.
(i) Theodore of Mopsuestia.
IT is a great satisfaction for any scholar to be in a position to publish the hitherto lost theological works of Theodore of Mopsuestia. In the Mingana collection of MSS.,1 I have so far discovered two works by this Father, which I propose to edit and translate according to their chronological order.
This is not the place to write the history of Theodore nor to give a full list of his works, some of which have, wholly or partially, survived in their Greek original or in East Syrian translations. He seems to have been the most profound thinker and independent inquirer of the Fathers of the Church in the golden age of Christianity: the fourth and the fifth centuries. He is directly or indirectly responsible for the three general Councils of Ephesus, of Chalcedon and of the Three Chapters. In the Council of Ephesus Nestorianism was discussed and condemned, but Nestorianism was in reality an amplification of some points in Theodore's teaching in connection with the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, while the Council of Chalcedon seems to have accomplished little except to reveal a slight reaction against the Christological conclusions drawn from the doctrine established at Ephesus under the familiar ecclesiastical sanction of anathema sit. The fifth Council, commonly called the Council of the Three Chapters, is even more directly concerned with Theodore than its two immediate predecessors.
It tells much in favour of the high esteem in which Theodore was held by all his contemporaries that in condemning doctrinal points which had their origin in his writings no one dared to mention his name in relation to them, and the first Synodal fulminations in which his name is found are those of the fifth Council, held about one hundred and twenty-five years after his death. |2
I will here allude to a few episodes in the life of Theodore, which might illustrate the respect with which his contemporaries regarded his scientific attainments. In 394 he was present in Constantinople on the occasion of the Synod held to decide a question concerning the see of Bostra in the patriarchate of Antioch.2 His fame had spread to such an extent in the Capital that the Emperor Theodosius, who was already making preparations for his last journey to the West, desired to hear him. Theodore preached before Theodosius, who declared at the end of the sermon that he had never heard such a teacher: "Qui in desiderio visionis viri factus, in ecclesia ejus doctrinae fuit auditor magnus ille imperator; nec arbitratus est alterum se talem comperisse doctorem, superadmiratus quidem ejus doctrinam, et colloquio delectatus atque obstupefactus." 3 We are also informed by John of Antioch that the Emperor Theodosius the Younger was often in correspondence with Theodore: "Jam vero et a vestro imperio, pro sui reverentia, et spiritali sapientia, ei saepius attestatum est, et vestris litteris honoratus est." 4
The same John of Antioch, who had become Patriarch of the historic see of the Metropolis of Syria in the year following Theodore's death in 428, speaks in eloquent terms of his work and teaching: "Qui bene de vita profectus est beatus Theodorus, et quinque et quadraginta annis clare in doctrina praefulsit, et omnem haeresim expugnavit nullam alicubi detractionem ab orthodoxis in vita suscipiens." 5
The same prelate addresses, in glowing words, the Emperor who had shown interest in Theodore's memory: "Iste ille est Flaviani magni Antiochensium sanctae Dei Ecclesiae pontificis amantissimus discipulus, et beati Joannis Constantinopolitani episcopi condiscipulus, cujus memoriam redivivam fecistis, maximam hunc gloriam pietatis vestrae imperio facientes." 6
A glimpse of the early life of Theodore is supplied by the writings of his bosom friend John Chrysostom who testifies that his days were spent in reading and his nights in prayer, that his fasts were long and |3 his bed was the bare ground, that he indulged in every form of asceticism and self-discipline. [Greek omitted] 7
A letter from Chrysostom to Theodore shows that the former's affection and admiration for the friend of his childhood remained till the end of his days. The letter was written while Chrysostom was in exile at Cucusus (a.d. 404-407). In it the exiled Patriarch testifies that "he can never forget the love of Theodore, so genuine and warm, so sincere and guileless, a love maintained from early years," 8 and thanks him for the efforts that he had made to obtain his release, and ends his correspondence with the memorable sentence: "Exile as I am I reap no ordinary consolation from having such a treasure, such a mine of wealth within my heart as the love of so vigilant and noble a soul." As the late Dr. Swete points out, higher testimony could not have been borne, or by a more competent judge.9
Death did not put a stop to the fame of Theodore. It is recorded in Tillemont 10 that Meletius, Theodore's successor to the see of Mopsuestia, asserted that he would have endangered his own life if he had uttered words detrimental to his predecessor. Even Cyril of Alexandria whose views on the Incarnation were not in harmony with those of Theodore was obliged to avow that in the Churches of the East one often heard the cry: "We believe as Theodore believed; long live the faith of Theodore!" 11 The same Cyril of Alexandria informs us that when a party of bishops was found ready to condemn him, the answer of the bishops of Syria to them was: "We had rather be burnt than condemn Theodore." 12 Leontius Byzantinus informs us also that Cyril of Alexandria advised against the condemnation of Theodore because all the bishops of the Eastern Church considered |4 him an eminent Doctor, and if he were condemned there would be serious disturbance in that Church.13 The famous Church historian, Theodoret, was pleased to call him "Doctor of the Universal Church." 14 This title is also ascribed to him by a much later Greek author, Nicephorus Callistus, who calls him "Doctor of all the Churches." 15
There is no need to emphasise the fact that Theodore's memory and especially his writings have always been considered as the most esteemed treasures of the East Syrian Church. They were gradually translated after his death; and their authority among the innumerable adherents of the Eastern Church, which for a long time stretched from the eastern Mediterranean shores to Manchuria and from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean, was only one degree below that of Paul. With them he was the "interpreter" par excellence. The only discordant note seems to have been struck towards the end of the sixth century by individual teachers of no great importance in the councils of the Church, but the Synod held in a.d. 596 by the Patriarch Sabrisho` rose vehemently against them: "We reject and anathematize all those who do not adhere to the commentaries, the traditions and the teaching of the eminent Doctor, the blessed Theodore the interpreter; and who endeavour to introduce new and foreign doctrines saturated with errors and blasphemies, which are in contradiction to the true and exact teaching of this saint and of all the orthodox Doctors, heads of the schools, who have followed in his steps, corroborated his doctrine and taught the true faith of the incorruptible orthodoxy in our eastern regions." 16
In the Synod of Gregory I, held in a.d. 605, all the eastern archbishops and bishops bound themselves to abide by the teaching of Theodore: "We all assembled in this Synod have decided that each of us should receive and accept all the commentaries and works written by the blessed Theodore the interpreter, bishop of Mopsuestia, a man by the grace of God set over the treasures of the two Testaments: the Old and the New, and who like a river of abundant floods watered and nurtured the children of the Church in his lifetime and after his death with the true meaning of the sacred Books in which he was instructed by the Holy Spirit.... No one, who in these days wishes to perform the office of teaching in the Church, is allowed to deviate |5 from the works of this eminent and divine man.... All our venerable Fathers who have handed down this true faith to us, in their teaching, from his day to our own, have studied his writings and adhered to his statements." 17
I will also refer to two of the earliest East Syrian historians: "He (Theodore) did not astonish the world in his lifetime only, but also astonished every one with his books after his death. Who is able to narrate the good works of this sea of wisdom, or who is in a position to describe the prodigies which the Spirit 18 worked in him! When other bishops came near him, they considered themselves as mere pupils; and philosophers, subtle in reasoning, were before him as students. Every knotty and difficult problem stopped with him and never went beyond him, and he explained it before inquirers and made it as clear as the light of the sun." 19
"At that time shone in all branches of knowledge the truly divine man St. Theodore the interpreter, who was the first to explain philosophically and rationally the economy of the divine mysteries of the birth and the passion of our Lord." 20
In the West the only writer who before the fifth Council dared to speak openly against Theodore was Marius Mercator, who died about 450. As early as the year 431 he accused him of being the real author of Pelagianism: "Quaestio contra Catholicam fidem apud nonnullos Syrorum et praecipue in Cilicia a Theodoro quondam episcopo oppidi Mopsuesteni jamdudum mota...." 21 This hostile note is also clearly found in his Latin translations of some of Theodore's treatises, in which he denounced him as the master of Nestorius and Nestorianism: "... Pravum ejus de dispensatione Dominica, et a fide Catholica alienum, ac satis extorrem sensum, quo Nestorium Constantinopolitanae urbis quondam episcopum secum male decepit...." 22
An anti-Theodorian party, however, was steadily gaining ground in Egypt where Cyril of Alexandria held sway. Towards the middle of the sixth century the Alexandrian Doctors, followers of Cyril, counted many adherents in the Metropolis, who were powerful enough |6 to influence the Emperor Justinian and induce him to summon a Council and condemn Theodore.
Given free rein the outbursts of the Cyrillian Bishops of the Council knew no bounds. Expressions such as "impious," "blasphemous," "heretical" were continuously hurled against a man dead one hundred and twenty-five years previously. The following phrases reveal the spirit which permeated the Fathers of the fifth Council:
Isti sunt thesauri impietatis Theodori. Sceleratum symbolum impii Theodori....23 Et postquam lectae sunt blasphemiae Theodori Mopsuesteni et impium ejus symbolum....24 Et post acclamationes sancta synodus dixit: Multitudo lectarum blasphemiarum, quas contra magnum Deum et Salvatorem nostrum Jesum Christum, imo magis contra suam animam Theodorus Mopsuestenus evomuit,justam ejus facit condemnationem.25
The condemnation of a dead man gave satisfaction to his adversaries in the Cyrillian camp, but rent asunder the Catholic Church of the time and caused a deep wound in the spiritual body of the faithful. The evil effects of that wound are to some extent felt even in our days, in which the theological admirers of Theodore are, more than one thousand and five hundred years after his death, still counted in thousands.
The condemnation of the works of the great Antiochian theologian decreased their influence on Western thought, and the MSS. containing them were either burnt or underwent a gradual process of slow disappearance from the shelves of ecclesiastical libraries. Fortunately, however, his works were translated shortly after his death by his admirers in the East, and the Catalogue of `Abdisho` 26 registers almost all of them. When `Abdisho` wrote his Catalogue in about a.d. 1298 all the works of Theodore were found in the churches and monasteries of his day, and probably also in his own library at Nisibin. The numerous persecutions inflicted since that date on the eastern Christians by Mongols, Turks and Kurds have, however, resulted in their complete disappearance even in East Syrian lands, and the only complete treatises known to have survived are: (a) his commentary on the Gospel of John which was edited in 1897, |7 according to a MS. of our Lady near Alkosh, by J. B. Chabot who, however, did not venture to give any translation of it; (b) his short controversial treatise against the Macedonians which was edited and translated in 1913 by F. Nau,27 from a recently acquired MS. of the British Museum.
(ii) The Present Work.
The work of which I give an edition and translation in the following pages is in form of catechetical lectures, and is the one called "The Book on Faith" by `Abdisho` in his Catalogue,28 while the Chronicle of Seert 29 calls it more accurately "The interpretation of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen," i.e., of the Council of Nicea. In a letter of the Pope Pelagius the work is referred to as "De interpretatione symboli trecentorum decem et octo Patrum," 30 and the Acts of the fifth Council mention it also once under the same title: "De interpretatione symboli trecentorum decem et octo sanctorum Patrum." 31 Nicephorus Theotokes 32 has doubtless this work in mind when he writes: ἑπμηνεία εἰς τὸ Νικαίᾳ σύμβολον, "An explanation of the Nicene Profession of faith."
From the extracts that I give below it will be seen that the work is more frequently referred to under the title "Liber ad baptizandos." The Acts of the fifth Council quote it once under the title " Interpretatio symboli trecentorum decem et octo sanctorum Patrum" 33 and eight times under the title of "Liber ad baptizandos." Facundus also quotes it under the slightly modified title of "Liber ad baptizatos." 34
This "Liber ad baptizandos" is divided into two distinct parts which embrace all the Christian doctrine which the Catechumens had to learn before their baptism. The first part deals with the explanation of the Nicene Creed, as above, and the second part, which constitutes a book by itself, contains a commentary on the Lord's Prayer, on the sacrament of baptism in general, and the Greek liturgy used in his day. |8
I will give now the quotations from the present work found in the Acts of the fifth Council, in the synodical letter of the Pope Pelagius, in the works of Facundus and in those of Marius Mercator.
[Material in Latin and Syriac omitted, pp.8-14] |15
From the above quotations we may infer that the official Latin translator of the Acts of the fifth Council was not always a good translator. Extenuating circumstances may be pleaded in his favour from the fact that he was dealing with stray quotations and isolated extracts culled from their context without any regard to the sequence of events, but when every allowance is made under this head there still remain some imperfections in his work. Let us take as examples two sentences from the first and the fourth quotations as given above. In the first quotation Theodore says: "Nobody believes that he who is from the Jews according to the flesh is God by nature, nor that God who is above all 35 is from the Jews by nature." This simple and clear sentence has received the complicated and inaccurate rendering: Nemo igitur neque eum qui secundum carnem ex Judaeis est, dicat Deum qui est super omnia, secundum carnem ex Judaeis. The sentence is somewhat better translated in the Synodical letter of the Pope Pelagius as follows: Nemo igitur, neque eum qui secundum carnem ex Judaeis est, dicat Deum: nec iterum Deum qui est super omniar secundum camem ex Judaeis.
In the second quotation the translator of the Council does not seem to have understood the meaning of some words in Theodore's sentence. Theodore says: "But He (God) remained with him (Christ) until He by (His) help assisted him to loose the pains of death.36 And He delivered his soul from bonds which were indissoluble; and raised him from the dead and transferred him to immortal life, and made him immortal and incorruptible, and caused him to go up to heaven where he is now sitting at the right hand of God." The Latin translation of this sentence is given as follows: Permanens autem, donec secundum suam creaturam et virtutem solvens mortis dolores, liberavit eum ineffabilibus illis vinculis etc. The Latin translator seems here to have misread a possible Greek word ἄρρηκτος unbroken as ἄρρητος unspeakable, ineffable.
So far as Marius Mercator is concerned, we may point out that he seems to have deliberately omitted to translate two sentences of Theodore. The first sentence is: "And the separation of natures does not preclude their being one" [Syriac omitted] |16
The second sentence reads: "It is known that here he (Paul) calls "Son" the one made of the seed of David in the flesh." 37
Mercator deliberately omits also to translate the adjective "close" when Theodore uses it to express the " close union " between God the Word and man. The Syriac expression used in this connection is [omitted] 38
We may incidentally remark that the technical terms used in the mystery of the Incarnation were so imperfectly fixed even in the time of Marius Mercator that he translates the word nature, the Syriac [Syriac] which doubtless renders the Greek φύσις, by the Latin substantia. This last word generally renders the Greek ὑπόστασις and the Syriac [Syriac] and hardly ever stands for the word "nature."
It should here be stated that some quotations from the present work of Theodore may be seen in East-Syrian literature, especially in a MS. recently added to my collection through the good offices of Mr. W. G. Greenslade.
(iii) Theodore's Doctrine.
We do not intend to give here a synopsis of the Christological doctrine of Theodore, which gave rise to such bitter controversies among Christian theologians who came after him, and which divided the followers of Christ into so many distinct and hostile groups. We assume that the readers of the present work are well acquainted with the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas with which it deals, and we leave to them the task of understanding and assimilating Theodore in his own words. It will be sufficient to state that in arguing against some early Christian thinkers who had unduly emphasised the divine side of Christ to the detriment of His humanity, he laid great stress on the fact that the man Jesus was a true man, endowed with all human faculties including a true human soul, and that the second person of the Trinity, or God the Word, Son of God the Father, |17 was to be distinguished from the human son of Mary, born of the seed of David, although through the very close and intimate union existing between them, they were not two Sons but one Son. The man Jesus was, so to speak, only figuratively and honorifically the Son of God, while the true and natural Son of God was and is the Word-God who assumed the form of the man Jesus. The close union between them was, as it were, not physical but moral and spiritual, manifesting itself in one visible individual, or rather personage, who formed the one πρόσωπον or outward appearance of Christ. Nowhere, however, do we find in Theodore the idea of two persons (ὑποστασις) in Christ. Such an idea had its full development in the time that followed the Council of Ephesus. Theodore never goes beyond the idea of two natures and one πρόσωπον.39 He writes in the third chapter: "From the fact also that they (the Fathers of the Council of Nicea) referred both words to the one person (= prosopon) of the Son they showed us the close union between the two natures": [Syriac]
As the present work is a commentary on the Nicene creed and consequently covers the whole field of Christian religion, the readers will find in it many other interesting points besides Trinity and Incarnation. These last two points, however, are treated with much more detail than the others.
As a commentator Theodore has been criticised by no less an authority than Harnack 40 as too prosaic and monotonous. This stylistic defect is noticeable in the present work which is in some places marred by many verbal antitheses and repetitions arising from his desire to stress his point for his readers or rather hearers.
(iv) The Manuscript.
The MS. containing the present work of Theodore is found in my collection of MSS. and is therein numbered Mingana Syr. 561.41 As the MS. is not throughout in a good state of preservation and is in |18 many places wormed and damaged by damp, it was not found desirable to reproduce it in facsimile. For this reason I have had to copy all its text and edit it in the ordinary Syriac type instead of following the usual practice in my Woodbrooke Studies of giving facsimiles in case of unique texts.
1. 1 The Mingana Collection has now found a definite home in the newly erected Selly Oak Colleges' Library, Birmingham. The Library owes its existence to the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. Edward Cadbury.
2. 1 Mansi, Sacr. Conc. nova et amp. collectio, iii. 851.
3. 2 John of Antioch as quoted by Facundus in Migne's Pat. Lat., lxvii. 563.
4. 3 Ibid.
5. 4Facundus, Pat Lat., lxvii. 562. Facundus died shortly after 571.
6. 5 Ibid
7. 1 Ad Theodorum lapsum in Montfaucon's edition (Venice, 1734), p. 36 sq., and in Migne's Pat. Gr., xlvii. 310 sq. The late Dr. H. B. Swete in referring to this passage in Dict. of Christian Biography, p. 935, quotes also the sentence: "he was full withal of light-hearted joy as having found the service of Christ to be perfect freedom." I do not believe that in the context this sentence is meant to apply to Theodore. Chrysostom is here making a general statement that has no direct bearing on any particular person.
8. 2 Pat. Gr., lii. 668-669.
9. 3 Dictionary of Christ. Biography, iv. 936. I am indebted for the above references to this article which is permeated with sound scholarship.
10. 4Memoires, xii. 442.
11. 5 Pat. Gr., lxxvii. 340.
12. 6 Ibid., 343-346.
13. 1Pat. Gr., lxxxvi. 1237.
14. 2Eccl. Hist., v. 39.
15. 3 Pat. Gr., cxlvi. 1156.
16. 4 Synodicon Orientale, p. 459.
17. 1 Synodicon Orientate, p. 210 (of the text).
18. 2 Lit. "the hidden sign."
19. 3 Barhadhbeshabba `Arabaya edited by Nau in Pat. Orient., ix. 503-504.
20. 4 Meshihazekha in my Sources Syriaques, i. 141.
21. 5 Pat. Lat., xlviii. 110.
22. 6Ibid., 1042-1043.
23. 1 Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amp I. collectio, ix. p. 227.
24. 2 Mansi, ibid., p. 229.
25. 3 Mansi, ibid., pp. 229-230.
26. 4 Assemani, Bib. Orient., iii. 30-35.
27. 1 Pat. Orient., ix. 637-667.
28. 2 Bibl. Orient., iii. 33.
29. 3 In Pat. Orient., v. 290.
30. 4 Mansi, Sac. Conc. Nov. et amp. collectio, ix. 443.
31. 5Mansi, ibid., ix. 216.
32. 6 Seira, i. p. 18 (Leipzig, 1772). Which is the source of Theotokes, who died in a.d. 1800, for this statement?
33. 7 Mansi, ix. 216.
34. 8 Migne's Pat. Lat. lxvii. 747.
35. 1 Cf. Ephes. iv. 6.
36. 2 Cf. Acts ii. 24. Lit. "he loosed."
37. 1 Rom. i. 3.
38. 2 Theodore uses also in this connection the expression [Syriac] perfect union (chap. vi.).
39. 1The doctrine that "natura humana Christi immediate terminatur per hypostasim Verbi" is later than Theodore's time.
40. 2 E.B., 11th edition, xxvi. 767.
41. 3 For a description of the MS. see pp. 1041 -1044 of the Catalogue of the Syriac and Garshuni MSS. of my collection.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: theodore_of_mopsuestia_nicene_02_text.htm
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed (1932) pp.18-...
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed (1932) pp.18-116
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Translation.
[By Alphonse Mingana]
By the power of our Lord Jesus Christ we begin to write the exposition of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen (Fathers)1 composed by Mar Theodore the interpreter.
Chapter I.
What discourse is worthy of, and what mind is equal to, the greatness of the subjects placed before us? Or which is the tongue that is able to teach these mysteries? It is indeed difficult for our tongues to speak with accuracy even of the created natures, because they also are created with great wisdom by the Maker. As for those which are higher than our nature—because such are those of which we intend to speak—how much are they not higher than all the minds of men? They truly transcend our words! The blessed Paul bears witness concerning them in saying: "Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." 2
It is with these wonderful things that our discourse wishes to deal, and it is to the delight of these mysteries that we have been invited, because the time of the great festival of the holy Passover leads us to teach them. If God had wished those heavenly gifts not to be known to us, it is evident that we should not have been able to discourse on them, because how could a man have spoken of unknown things? Since, however, He wished from the first and before the foundations of the world to make manifest the wisdom that was in Him 3 through the Economy of our Lord Jesus Christ, He revealed to us these hidden mysteries and the greatness of these gifts, and He granted their knowledge to men through the Holy Spirit. It is indeed written that God revealed to us by His Spirit and showed us the sublime and ineffable mysteries which are performed by the power of the Holy Spirit so that through them we might proceed in a congruous way, by degrees and by |19 faith, to these future gifts.4 This is the reason why we desired to discourse with confidence, according to the grace of God vouchsafed to us, on these unspeakable things which are higher than ourselves. It is this time of this festival that has led us to speak with those who wish [to participate in] these awe-inspiring mysteries.
Now is the time for me to say: "Sing unto the Lord a new song for He has done marvellous things." 5 Indeed a new song is required for new things, as we are dealing with the New Testament which God established for the human race through the Economy of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He abolished all old things and showed new things in their place. Every man who is in Christ is a new creature; old things are passed away and all things are become new.6 Death and corruption have ceased, passions and mutability have passed away, and the life of the new creature has been made manifest, a life which we hope to reach after 7 our resurrection from the dead. At the resurrection from the dead He will make us new instead of old, and incorruptible and immortal instead of corruptible and mortal.
He gave us this new covenant which is fit for those who are renewed; and because of this covenant we receive the knowledge of these mysteries so that we should put off the old man and put on the new man who is renewed after the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all.8 This will take place in reality in the next world when we shall have become immortal and incorruptible, when we shall only contemplate Christ of whose Kingdom we shall partake, when the incident of being Jew or Greek, bond or free, shall be taken from us, and when all the ways of the image of this world shall have completely disappeared. Indeed what incidence of being Jew or Greek, bond or free, can remain with those who are in an immortal and incorruptible nature after the image of Christ, according to the testimony of the blessed Paul?
Because it was necessary that the faith in the truth of the future gifts should remain in us so that we should not throw doubts on them on account of their greatness—since we see them very much alien to our nature and above it—these awe-inspiring mysteries were confided |20 to us in order that through them as through symbols we might gradually approach our future hope, and in order to obtain a faith without doubts in these gifts, while cultivating a conduct that is in harmony with the new world and arranging our work in this world as much as possible in conformity with the following sentences: "Our conversation is in heaven," 9 and: "our building is of God," 10 and "we have a house in heaven not made with hands." 11
While still on the earth we have been inscribed 12 in that awe-inspiring glory of the future world through these mysteries, but we (ought to) live as much as possible a heavenly life in spurning visible things and aspiring after future things. Those who are about to partake now of these awe-inspiring mysteries are inspired to do so by the grace of God. They do not do this in order to partake of small and ordinary gifts, but to be transformed completely into new men and to possess different virtues which they will receive by the gift of the grace of God: being mortal they will become immortal, being corruptible they will become incorruptible, being passible they will become impassible, being changeable they will become unchangeable, being bond they will become free, being enemies they will become friends, being strangers they will become sons. They will no more be considered a part of Adam but of Christ; they will call as their head not Adam but Christ, who has renewed them; they will not cultivate a ground that will bring forth thorns and thistles to them,13 but they will dwell in a heaven which is remote and immune from all sorrow and sighing;14 nor will death rule over them but they will become themselves rulers in a new life where they will be not slaves of sin but warriors of righteousness, not servants of Satan but intimate friends of Christ for all time.
Adam, the father of mankind, received the abode of Paradise from which he was driven out through his disobedience and sin, and we, who became the heirs of his nature and his punishment, ascend to heaven by faith in Christ through our participation in these mysteries, as He said: "Except a man he born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." 15 The man, however, who receives this spiritual birth is immediately inscribed in heaven and |21 becomes the heir and partaker of those future gifts, as the blessed Paul said,16 because those who believed in Christ are in expectation of making their abode in heaven after the resurrection from the dead. Indeed we hope to go to heaven where the first man,17 Christ, went on our behalf. Through these mysteries we are truly inscribed in that abode.
We are in need of great care and immense diligence in order not to fall away from this great promise and suffer the fate of Adam who was driven out of Paradise. This is the reason why we partake in a wonderful way of these awe-inspiring mysteries with a true faith which has no doubt,18 and we ought not to forget this faith but to keep what we have received with great care. When we have received these heavenly gifts in a perfect manner so that we may delight in them, and when we have become their heirs in our actions, it is impossible that we should fall away from them. As long as we are on the earth, however, because we only receive them by hope through our participation in these mysteries, it is possible to fall away from them, as we have a changeable nature. We ought, therefore, to have great care and anxiety concerning them and to endeavour truly to possess the hope of the future in our souls.
Now which is the faith and which are the promises through which we have our part in mysteries in the hope of these heavenly gifts in which we will delight? These are found in the profession of faith which we make before Christ our Lord at the time of our baptism. If it were possible to comprehend their power by hearing only, our words would have been useless, because their mere recitation would have made them understood by those who heard them. Since, however, there is much power hidden in them—as our holy Fathers confided to us from the gift of God an ineffable treasure condensed in words which are easy to learn and to remember—it is necessary to teach those who are about to receive these mysteries and to show them the sense and the meaning that are hidden in them. When they have learnt the greatness of the gift to which they wish to make their approach, and have understood the meaning of their religion and their promises for the sake of which they receive such a great gift, they will keep with diligence in their souls the faith which has been handed down to them. |22
The principle of your faith and promise which is to be carefully kept in these mysteries is: I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible. By the grace of our Lord we will explain these words one after another, because it is good that you should know the power of all of them. Let us, therefore, rightly begin from where you also began in your profession of faith:
I believe in one God, Father Almighty. This is the foundation of the religion of the fear of God,19 "for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."20 This is the truth of the true teaching of the faith. Because the question of religion lies in the belief in things that are invisible and indescribable, it is in need of faith, which causes mind to see a thing that is invisible. The things that are visible we see them with our eyes, while the things that are invisible are only seen by faith, as "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." 21
This faith brings in substance to the mind the things that are not yet existent in reality. We accept by faith as true the resurrection from the dead to heaven and all the future existence, which is not yet in existence. Faith causes the soul to see and understand the things that are invisible and indescribable. We are enabled by faith to be worthy of seeing the nature of God "who is the sole invisible and incorruptible, who dwelleth in the bright light which has no equal, and whom no man hath seen nor can see."22
We are able to see the visible thing with material eyes, if these are sound and able to see, and if there is nothing to hinder them from seeing properly; but if they are affected by injury, all things that were visible become invisible, although in reality visible. In this same way we all see with accuracy the invisible and the indescribable things, which the question of religion has taught us, if our faith is sound, but they are not seen by those whose faith is not sound. The question of religion consists in two things: confession concerning God and concerning all the various and numerous things that were and will be made by Him, and both of these are in need of faith as is shown by the blessed Paul: "He that cometh to the religion of God must believe that He is" 23 and that the "worlds were framed by His |23 Word so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." 24
In these he shows first that even confession concerning God cannot consist in anything but the thought of religion 25 through faith alone; secondly, that we are unable to understand and confess the things that were made by Him if we do not receive their knowledge by faith. Faith perfects those who accept it thoroughly in the truth of religion while those who become remote from it sink in error completely.
Paul called the Church of God "the pillar and ground of the truth," 26 because it is sound in faith and well established in the teaching of religion. As to those who are outside the faith: pagans, Jews, and heretics, because they are devoid of faith, they greatly stray from the truth. Indeed because the pagans had no faith they were unable to understand how God was able to create and to make everything from nothing and establish it in substance, and in their error they gave fancifully to God a consort to whom He had given a seat with Him from eternity; and they strayed from the truth into various other insipid stories. As to Jews they recoiled from the name of a son, and because of their lack of faith they did not understand the one who is a true Son.
In this way all the heretics who are outside the Church and who have ascribed the name of Christ with untruth to themselves, because they have no faith, have erred and strayed from the truth. In order not to mention to your hearing all the heresies, it will be sufficient to refer to Arius and Eunomius and all those who subscribe to their opinion, and note how they were affected with the disease of the Jews; and because of their lack of faith they did not understand nor did they accept that the Son is of Divine nature, and that everything that is said of the nature of the Father is said also of that of the Son, while the nature of the Father in no way suffers from the fact that it has a true Son who in His nature is a true mirror of itself.27
These few things have been said out of many in order to rebuke |24 those who have strayed from the truth, and to show that they have strayed because of their lack of faith. Indeed, the error of men who have gone astray because of their lack of faith is great and possesses many ramifications, and as error increases in proportion to its remoteness from faith, so also knowledge increases in proportion to its nearness to faith. It is by faith that we know that God is, that He is the creator of everything and that He created everything from nothing. It is by it that we understand that those who have passed away and perished will come back again to life and existence, when the Creator wishes. It is by faith that we have known that the Father has a Son born of His nature and God like Himself. It is by faith that we have accepted that the Holy Spirit is of the same nature as God the Father and that He is always with the Father and the Son. It is by faith that we have no doubt nor suspicion concerning the preaching of the Economy of Christ which took place in the world.
It is, therefore, with justice that our blessed Fathers placed faith like a foundation in the forefront of our teaching and of the mystery of our covenant, and it is with right that they intimated to us to begin from there and say: I believe in one God, Father Almighty. We must not be astonished that our blessed Fathers included and handed down to us all the teaching of religion in a few words. They thought that a long discourse would better fit other times and other persons. As to you who for a long time have been weaned from the world, and have come nigh unto religion with a good will, and have made yourselves ready to receive the Divine mysteries with a clean conscience at a time full of fear, condensed words are more useful, as their fewness renders them more easy to keep in your memory when you wish to remember the faith which you professed and the promises which you made on account of these mysteries It is right, however, that a detailed teaching of them should be added to you so that you should understand them more accurately, and beware in your souls of all the words of the enemies of religion when you stand fast by this Divine teaching which is confided to you. I believe in one God, Father Almighty. See how our blessed Fathers, with the first word of the true profession of faith in one God the Father, removed us with care from the error of polytheism and from the fallacy of Judaism which puts in practice to-day all the teaching of the Old Testament in its entirety. |25
The words of the New Testament concerning Christ were found in the prophets of the Old Testament; they were indeed found in the prophets as a symbol and a sign whereby the Jews expected Christ to appear to them as a man, but none of them was aware of the divinity of the Only Begotten Son—the Word-God. (Our blessed Fathers) gave us a perfect doctrine which separates from paganism those who become initiated to religion, and which removes completely from the error of polytheism those who obey its commandments, while teaching that the natures of the Godhead are not many and separate, but that God is in one, single and eternal nature which is the cause of everything; that such a one is God, and outside Him there is no other God; that God is a being who is eternal and the cause of everything; that a being who is not like this is not God by nature; that a being who is eternal is the cause of everything; that a being who is not eternal and the cause of everything, is not God but the work of God, who alone is capable of creating everything from nothing.
He said: "The Lord Thy God is one Lord" 28 in order that we might learn that there is one nature in the Godhead to which is due the name of Lord and God. He also said: "the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens " 29 in order that we might understand that he who is not the cause of everything is not God. The one who is the cause of everything is God alone. He said to Moses, "I am the cause of everything," 30 in order that we might learn that He is truly the one who was from eternity and is always, and that He is God. He who does not possess this attribute and is not eternal, is not truly existent by Himself, but is made and has actually been made when he was not existent, at the time at which the one who is from eternity, that is to say God, wished to make him.
He also said: "I am the first and the last God and there was no other god before me and there shall be no other god after me," 31 in order that we might understand that He is the God who was first and from eternity and that it is impossible that another God that is created should exist. Divine nature cannot indeed fall within the notion of creation.32 |26
All these words teach us the doctrine of religion and expel the error of paganism. Among pagans gods are many and of different kinds: some of them are young, and some others old; some of them can do this, and some others that; some of them perish, and some others will continue their existence; and they are of different natures. That we ought to reject all these the Old Testament taught us in the prophets, who spoke through the Holy Spirit to the effect that all the gods of the Gentiles are false and are not gods because God is one, who is from eternity and is the cause of everything, as He said: "There shall be no strange god in thee," 33 that is to say a new god, and, "neither shalt thou worship a strange god" 34 because everything that is new is not God, and "they are new gods that came newly up." 35
Divine nature is one and eternal. It was in no need to be made by another, because it is the cause of everything. This is the reason why He is God alone, and anything that is made cannot by nature be God, as it is made by another. All the created things rightly attribute their existence to their Creator who is God, to whom they owe their being, and for this they are under an obligation of gratitude to Him who by His own good will and power vouchsafed to them to be what they are.
Our blessed Fathers succinctly included all this great teaching in the sentence: I believe in one God. Let us, therefore, accept the belief in one God according to the preaching of the prophets and the teaching of our Fathers. Divine nature is truly one, and it exists from eternity and is the cause of everything; this is not as the pagans erroneously state that there are many gods of different kinds.
It is necessary that we should offer you an oral teaching about everything, little by little, in order that you may be able to remember the things that are spoken to you, as these are indispensable to those who adhere to what has preceded. By the help of the grace of God we will keep our promise to you in other days, and now let the words that have been spoken suffice, and let us glorify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now, always and for ever and ever.
Here ends the first chapter. |27
Chapter II. On Faith.
Yesterday we spoke to your love sufficiently, and in the measure granted to us by the grace of God, of faith which is the foundation of the principle of religion. We approached the words of our profession of faith and showed how through faith in one God all the error of the polytheism of the Gentiles vanishes completely. We learned from the holy Books of the prophets to shake off from us all the aberrations of pagans, whose gods are different and numerous, and to believe that Divine nature which ought to be called God and Lord is one, because He alone is from eternity and is the cause of everything.
All the created beings are very remote from this nature, as it is impossible to admit that a created being is from eternity, and the created beings themselves will not suffer to be called rightfully Lord and God by nature. A being who is created by another cannot by any means create another being from nothing, or be called God with justice, but the one who created him is God by necessity. This is the reason why we say that there is only one God as the blessed prophets taught us; and by the grace of the Holy Spirit they spoke and defined the kind of nature which belongs to God. Beyond this they did not teach us anything clearly.
The doctrine concerning the Father and the Son was kept (to be promulgated) by Christ our Lord, who taught His disciples that which was unknown before and was not revealed to men, and ordered them to teach it to others also in saying to them plainly: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 36 As the blessed Moses said when he promulgated his doctrine: "The Lord, Thy God is one Lord" 37—a doctrine that was taught and handed down by all the prophets—so the Christ our Lord gave His teaching in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, but did not say what we had to learn and to teach others concerning the Lord and God, as this had been clearly done by the prophets. He ordered His disciples to teach all the nations that which was lacking to make the teaching of the prophets perfect, and for this He said: "Go ye and teach all nations |28 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not that we should think that one of these is not God nor that there is a God beside them, but that we should believe that they alone constitute Divine nature, which we had formerly learnt from the prophets to be one.
Because the Gentiles had previously taught the doctrine of the plurality of gods, who were numerous and different in youth and old age, in weakness and strength, so that some of them were able to do this and some others that—Christ ordered His disciples against this to teach all the nations to turn from all the error of paganism, and to believe in the unity of nature in the Godhead, as was the case with the doctrine first taught to mankind, from which the knowledge of religion was received; and also to learn that the one who is from eternity and is the cause of everything is one Divine nature known in the three persons of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
He would not have induced the Gentiles to turn away from names of false gods to the knowledge of the Father if He did not know that He (the Father) was truly Divine nature, nor would He have brought them to the knowledge of the Son if He did not know that He (the Son) was truly of the same Divine nature, nor would He have inculcated to them the knowledge of the Holy Spirit if He knew that He (the Holy Spirit) was alien to that nature, otherwise He would have caused them to turn from one falsehood to the knowledge of another falsehood. It is known that it is from false gods, who were wrongly called gods, that He ordered His disciples in His teaching to turn the Gentiles to the knowledge of the true God, which consists in the faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each one of these persons is a true God, but the Divine nature of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit which we believe to be eternal and the cause of everything, is one.
In this way the teaching of the Old Testament is in harmony with the teaching of the New Testament, and the words which the prophets uttered concerning God are not foreign nor contradictory to those which Christ our Lord delivered to the Gentiles through the Apostles, as His words are in full harmony with the true knowledge of religion according to the teaching of the prophets. Through the prophets we only understood God and the being to whom an uncreated nature belongs, but the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ gave us also with |29 certainty the persons in whom is Divine nature. This is the reason why our blessed Fathers placed first the doctrine of the belief in one God as it was written in the Old Testament in order to destroy the error of polytheism, and then imparted to us the knowledge of the persons according to the teaching of Christ. They were in a position—and it was easy for them—to repeat the words of our Lord "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," but because they wrote this profession of faith against the teaching of the heretics, they taught it as succinctly as possible with more words than those uttered by our Lord, for the demolition of error and the construction of the doctrine of the Church, so that by their meaning they should reprove those who contradict the true faith. For this reason they added with justice the name of the Father after they had said, I believe in one God.
After the words concerning God they proceeded to the teaching of the persons, which is the true teaching of the Christian faith and the true knowledge for those who become disciples of Christ. Because the sentence denotes Divine nature, it refers to the three persons, but as the teaching concerning the persons could not be considered as referring to one of them only, they rightly spoke to us of what is due to each person separately. At the beginning of their sentence they placed the Father from whom are the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is truly the one who is a Father alone, but we hold each one of the three persons to be God, because Christ included this true doctrine in His teaching concerning these three persons.
When we hear the name "Father" we do not hear it to no purpose, but we understand that God is a Father, and a true Father, because He is Father alone; and we hold that God is Father in a way that belongs only to Divine nature. All the created beings obtain the power of being fathers after their creation, and there is no human being that has the attribute of fatherhood concomitantly with his existence. Even Adam, the first man, who was not born of another man, had not the attribute of fatherhood concomitantly with his existence. He came first into existence by the will of God the Creator and afterwards received the power of becoming a father, as it is said: "Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bore a son." 38 He became and was called a father after his intercourse with Eve, after a long time of gestation, after pangs of travail, and after the birth of his child. It is iniquitous |30 to attribute any of those functions to Divine nature. He who had no need of time to exist was in no need of time to become a Father. Because He was from eternity, He was also a Father from eternity.
God the Father is truly a father; and He did not receive this in time, because He did not have a Son after a time, but the latter was with Him from eternity and was from Him as a Son also from eternity. It is for this that when our Lord gave this wonderful teaching to His disciples He said, "Teach in the name of the Father," and did not need to add another sentence in order to show whom He was calling "Father." It was sufficient for Him to say, "Teach and baptize" to show whom He was calling Father. He called God the Father in whom they had to believe and in whose name they had to be baptized, the God who was from eternity according to the teaching of the prophets.
It is not possible that the one who is from eternity should become Father after a time. The very name Father shows this without further addition. If like us He became Father later, He would also be identical with us in attribute and in the meaning of the word. Now since this vocable "father" is one and the same with many men, we should rightly inquire as to whom He called Father. Because He is a true Father, He is Father alone. As He is eternal by nature so He is eternally a Father. Since He is alone called by this name and in the full meaning of the word,39 we do not feel any necessity to inquire who is the one who is called Father, as His very name indicates to us the true Father. When He says: "I am that I am," this is my name for ever and this is my memorial unto generations," 40 we understand that God is called by this name, because He is truly "I am that I am" while all the created beings are not truly "I am that I am," 41 because they were created from nothing according to the will of their Maker. Because He is the true being, He is called I am that I am, and He is not made by another.
As He is not like us He is not a Father like us, because He did not receive the power of becoming a Father in time. So when we hear the word "father" we should rightly think of that true Father who did not acquire the power of becoming a Father in time, nor was He in need of an intercourse. He is a Father in truth and from |31 eternity, a complete nature, with whom His child exists also from eternity.
The sentence: I believe in one God the Father taught us all these things. It is rightly followed by the phrase Creator of all things visible and invisible, so that we should understand that He is not only the Father of the Son but also the Creator of all the creatures, and think of the difference which exists between Father and Creator, and between Son and creatures. He is the Father of the Son and the Creator of the creatures. The creatures were created later while the Son was from the beginning with Him and from Him. This is the difference between Father and Creator. He is called the Father of the one who was born of Him, and the Creator of all the natures which are outside Him and which were created from nothing by His will. This is the reason why they added nothing to the doctrine concerning the Father; indeed the very word Father sufficed to indicate the Son, as there is no father without a son, and as wherever there is a father there is also a son. As to the Son they were going to teach us as much as possible concerning Him later.
Because He is Creator they added, Of all things visible and invisible in order to show in this also the difference between the Son and the creatures: that He is the Father of the Son only, while He is the Creator of everything visible and invisible, as everything was created from nothing. He would not have been called Father of the Son and Creator of the creatures if there was not a great difference between the two: the difference that should exist between a Son and creatures. He is called and He is the Father of the Son, because He is of the same nature as the one who is said to be His Son, but He is the Creator of everything because everything was created from nothing; and although the natures of the visible and invisible things differ among themselves yet all these created things, whether visible or invisible, came into existence by the will of their Maker. The fact that they were made from nothing is common to all of them, as all were created from nothing by the will of their Maker.
This is the reason why the blessed David said: "Praise ye the Lord from the heavens. Praise ye Him all His angels. Praise ye Him all His hosts. Praise ye Him sun and moon." 42 And he gradually enumerated all other creatures found in the heavens and on |32 the earth, visible and invisible, mortal and immortal, rational and irrational, material and immaterial, those with life and those without life. When he invited them to the praise of God he gave one reason which holds good for all of them: "For He commanded, and they were created. He hath established them for ever and ever. He hath made a decree which shall not pass." 43 Because everything was created by Him and is sustained by His will, everything whether visible or not owes praise to the Creator.
Two things render it obligatory for us to praise God: because He is God and because He is Creator. We must, however, understand the difference between the two. It is not because He is Father that He is also Creator, and it is not because He is Creator that He is also Father. Indeed He is not the Creator of the One whose Father He is, nor is He the Father of those whose Creator He is. He is only the Father of the true and only Son who is in His Father's bosom, because He was born of Him and is with Him from eternity, but He is the Creator of all the things which are created and made, which are very remote from His essence and which were created by His will when He pleased. He is called and He is the Father of the Son because the latter is from Him and consubstantial with Him, and He is the Maker and the Creator of the creatures because He brought them to existence from nothing.
If He is called Father of men, He is not called their Father because He created them, but because of their proximity to Him and relation with Him. This is the reason why He is not called Father of all men but only of those who have relation with Him, such as "I have nourished and brought up children." 44 To these He granted by special favour to be called in this way. As such also is the sentence: "Israel is my son, even my first-born," 45 because the others were not sons. 46
Since we know the difference in our calling God: the Father of the Only Begotten Son who alone is the true Son because consubstantial with Him, and the Creator of everything which was created and came into |33 being from nothing—we should retain this meaning in our faith. When, therefore, we say "Father," "Maker" we ought not to conceive of God that which we conceive of men when we call them fathers and makers, but we ought to understand the difference between Father and Maker from the way they may be applied to us. Indeed, as with God so with us, a father is one thing and a maker another thing. We are called the fathers of those who are from us and are born of our nature, but the makers of those things which are not of our nature but which were made and came into existence outside us. A house, a ship and similar things are not of our nature, and are made by us.
Such being the case with us, we ought to think with a clear mind of the differences in God between the two terms of Father and Creator, and to understand that He is the Father of the Only Begotten Son who was born of His nature, and the Creator of all the creatures, which were created and came into existence from nothing. For this He did not need any matter but He created the natures through which they are seen and exist.
Since we were created in the image of God,47 we picture to ourselves the higher things that are said of God through an image taken from things that belong to us. In this way it is possible also to picture to ourselves what and how great is the difference in the belief in God as Father and as Creator from things belonging to us, although it is clear that there is a great difference between us and God; and this difference we ought not to overlook when thinking of Divine nature and the works done 48 by it. Indeed when we speak of Divine nature we must remove completely from our mind all things that happen to us through weakness. When we do a work we are in need of labour, matter and time; but God is above all these, because the moment He wished it, His works were completed out of nothing. From the fact also that we are born in labour and through human agency,49 when we become fathers we need the nature of a female as matter, and a long period of time. Without these we cannot become fathers. As to God He is a Father without all these, because He did not experience labour nor did He make use of any material agency 49 nor did He need |34 intercourse, nor did He wait for any lapse of time, but He was at once Father from eternity.
We should, therefore, rightly remove from God all unbecoming thoughts of things which happen to us through weakness whether in the domain of offspring or of work. We do everything in labour, and our nature itself emanates and suffers from it. As to God, He is above all these. Even when we reign, when we become governors, when we judge, when we work, when we speak, when we look, and do any other thing, we do all with labour; and when fatigue is protracted, it is followed by sweat; and because our nature is mortal and corruptible, it will perish through labour. As to God He does all things ascribed to Him, such as governing, providing, judging, reigning and the like without fatigue, without material agency and without injury.50
It is such an idea that we must have of God, and it is such a faith that we ought to possess concerning God the Father. When we call Him Father, we mean 51 Father of the Son; and He is truly a Father by nature, as we are. It is impossible to understand how He is truly a Father if He were not a Father by nature. He is eternally a Father because His nature, in which He is a Father, is eternal. When we call Him Creator we mean that He created everything in wisdom as it is said: "In wisdom Thou hast made them all," 52 as we also do things in the wisdom of the skill that we possess. God is creator in the sense that when He wished, the creatures came fully into existence, and He was in no need of time or any other intervening thing between His wish and the coming into existence of His creatures. Immediately after He wishes to create a thing, it comes into existence from nothing.
It is in this kind of profession of faith and with this meaning that our blessed Fathers gave us the belief in one God, Father and Creator, whom we have tried to explain to your love in a long teaching, which you should keep without modification, so that you should flee from the iniquitous opinions of the heretics, while your faith is sound, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom, in conjunction with His Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory and honour for ever and ever. Amen.
Here ends the second chapter. |35
Chapter III. On Faith.
I believe that from what has been said you have learnt sufficiently which are the things that those whose solicitude is the fear of God have to understand and utter concerning God the Father. Let us now quote and examine also the words uttered by our blessed Fathers in the profession of faith concerning the Son: And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God, the first-born of all the creatures.
It was right that after their doctrine concerning the Father they should teach concerning the Son according to the teaching of our Lord, while preserving the order and the sequence of their words. As when speaking of the Father they not only said "Father" according to the teaching of our Lord, but added, in one God the Father and the Creator of all things, and first placed the name of God in the profession of faith by saying that He is one in order to refute the error of polytheism, and then added, the Father and the Creator of all things—so also they acted concerning the Son: In one Lord Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God, the first-born of all the creatures. In this they clearly followed the preaching of the blessed Paul, who when teaching against idols and erroneous creeds said in refutation of the error of polytheism: "There is but one God," 53 and because he knew that we hold the doctrine of the faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, he strove openly to show us that the question of the faith in these persons does not inflict any injury on us in our faith 54 nor does it lead us to the error of polytheism.
Because we know that the Divine nature of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, when he desired to teach us this faith in a succinct manner he said: "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things." 55 In saying "one God the Father" he confuted all the error of polytheism, and showed that to us one Divine nature is preached. By the addition of the person of the Father he showed us the Son also, as after this he said: "And one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things" 56 in order to proclaim the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit together, while including also in his sentence |36 the Incarnation of our Lord which took place for our salvation and in which Divine nature became our Saviour. When he says: "one Lord by whom are all things" he alludes to God the Word who is a true Son consubstantial with His Father. He called Him rightly Lord in order to make us understand that He is from the Divine nature of God the Father.
We do not say that the Father is one God in the sense that the Son is not God, nor that the Son is one Lord in the sense that the Father is not Lord, because it is known and evident that any one who is truly God is also truly Lord, and any one who is truly Lord is also truly God, and any one who is not truly God is not truly Lord: "The Lord thy God is one Lord," 57 as He alone is so in truth. He who possesses these true attributes is alone called Lord and God in truth, and there is no other thing outside this nature which may be called Lord and God in truth. He who says "one God" shows also that there is one Lord, and he who says "there is but one Lord" confesses also that there is but one God. He (Paul) first said: "There is but one God" and immediately after "there is but one Lord," in order to separate the persons, because in repeating the word "one" about each one of them he showed that the two persons are to be known as of one Divine nature, which is truly both Lord and God.
In order to include in their sentence the human nature which was assumed for our salvation they said: In one Lord Jesus Christ. This name is that of the man whom God put on, as the angel said: "She shall bring forth a Son whose name shall be called 'Jesus.'" 58 They added also the word Christ in order to allude to the Holy Spirit, as it is written: "Jesus of Nazareth whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power." 59 And He is God because of the close union with that Divine nature which is truly God.
In this same way our blessed Fathers who assembled in that wonderful Council of the Catholic Church [of Nicea] first spoke, like Paul, of Divine nature while coupling with it a word which denotes the form of humanity which He took upon Him 60 and said: And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creatures. It is thus that they wished to teach mankind when they spoke of the Divine nature of the Son. His humanity, in which |37 is Divine nature, is also made known and proclaimed in it, according to the saying of the blessed Paul: "God was manifest in the flesh," 61 and according to the saying of John the evangelist, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." 62
Our Fathers rightly thought not to overlook the humanity of our Lord which possesses such an ineffable union with Divine nature, but added: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, as if they had said, 'We believe in one Lord who is of Divine nature, to which the name of Lord and God is truly due.' In speaking of God the Word they said: By whom are all things,63 as the evangelist said: "All things were made by Him, and nothing was made without Him." 64 It is as if they had said, ' This one we understand to be one Lord who is of the Divine nature of God the Father, who for our salvation put on a man in whom He dwelt and through whom He appeared and became known to mankind. It is this man who was said by the angel that he would be called Jesus, who was anointed with the Holy Ghost in whom He was perfected and justified, as the blessed Paul testifies.' 65 After saying these and showing the Divine nature and the human nature which God put on, they added: The "Only Begotten Son," the "first-born" of all creatures. With these two words they alluded to the two natures, and by the difference between the words they made us understand the difference between the natures. From the fact also that they referred both words to the one person 66 of the Son they showed us the close union between the two natures. They did not make use of these words out of their own head but they took them from the teaching of Holy Writ. The blessed Paul said: "Of whom Christ in the flesh, who is God over all," 67 not that He is God by nature from the fact that He is of the House of David in the flesh, but he said "in the flesh" in order to indicate the human nature that was assumed. He said "God over all" in order to indicate the Divine nature which is higher than all, and which is the Lord. He used both words of one person in order to teach the close union of the two natures, and in order to make manifest the majesty and the honour that came to the man who was assumed by God who put Him on. |38
In this same way they said also: The Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures. Because they were on the point of enlightening us concerning the two natures: how they are, which was the Divine nature which came down, and which was the human nature which was assumed—they used in advance these two expressions together in order to indicate the two natures through them. It is clear that they do not speak of one nature when they say: The Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures, because the two expressions cannot be said of one nature, as there is a great difference between an only son and a first-born. It is not possible that an only son and a first-born should denote the same man. A first-born is the one who has many brothers while an only son is the one who has no brothers. So great is the difference between an only son and a firstborn that it may be compared with the difference that nature places between the one who is alone and the one who is in company of others.
We call an only son one who has no other brothers at all while we call a first-born one who clearly has other brothers. This the Sacred Book teaches us also without ambiguity. In wishing to speak of an only son it says: "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." 68 It says also: "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father," 69 so that by His close proximity to His Father He might be known as an only Son. The sentence, "We beheld His glory, the glory as of an only begotten of the Father" shows that He alone is of the nature of the Father by birth, and He alone is a Son. In using the word "bosom" it conveys to us a union that never ceases, as it is unbecoming to understand this word to refer to a corporeal bosom of God. Inasmuch as they call eye "sight" and ear "hearing," so also they call a union that never ceases "bosom," as it is said: "Render unto our neighbours sevenfold into their bosom," 70 that is to say let them receive punishment continually and always. The expression "only Son" that has been used signifies, therefore, that He is alone born of the Father, that He is alone Son, that He is always with His Father and is known with Him, because He is truly a Son from His Father.
As to the expression "the first-born of all the creatures," we |39 understand it in the sense in which it is said: "For whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate, and He formed them to the image of His Son that He might be the first-born among many brethren." 71 (Paul) did not make use of this word in order to show us that He is Son alone, but in order to make us understand that He has many brethren and that He is known among many since they acquired with Him participation in the adoption of sons,72 and because of them He is called first-born as they are His brothers. In another passage He is called "first-born of all the creatures." 73 This is also said about the humanity of Christ, because (Paul) did not simply say "first-born" but "first-born of all the creatures."
No one is called first-born if he has no other brothers because of whom he is called and is a first-born, so the expression "the first-born of all creatures" means that He was the first to be renewed by His resurrection from the dead; and He changed into a new and wonderful life, and He renewed also all the creatures and brought them to a new and a higher creation. It is indeed said: "Everything that is in Christ is a new creature. Old things are passed away, and all things are become new through our Lord Jesus Christ." 74 He is the firstborn of all the creatures because all the creation was renewed and changed through the renewal which He granted to it by His grace from the renewal into which He Himself was renewed, and through which He moved to a new life and ascended high above all creatures.
He is rightly called the first-born of all the creatures, because He was first renewed, and then He renewed the creatures, while He is higher in honour than all of them. This is how we understand the difference between the two names. Our Fathers, who took their wisdom from Holy Writ, referred this difference to one person and said: In the Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures, in order to show us, as I said previously, the close union of the two natures. It is with justice, therefore, that they first said, "an only Son" and then, "the first-born." Indeed they had first to show us who was the one who was in the form of God,75 and who, because of His grace, took upon Him our nature, and afterwards to speak of that form of a servant which was assumed for our salvation. In this way and by the change in the terms that they used, they made manifest to us the two natures and |40 differences, and also the unity of sonship arising out of the closeness of the union of the natures, which was effected by the will of God. In this they kept also the right order of things as they taught first concerning Divine nature which by its grace came down to us and put on humanity, and then concerning that humanity which was assumed through grace, and afterwards they gave the true doctrine for the refutation of the heretics who strove to twist the truth.
In their teaching they began later to speak of Divine nature about which they had already spoken at the beginning of the profession of faith: Who was bom before all the worlds, and not made. It is clear that they said these words concerning Divine nature, although the word "only Son" was sufficient to teach the true doctrine concerning the Son to all non-contentious. If He is an only Son, it is clear that He alone is born of God, and He alone is a Son con-substantial with His Father. The expression "only Son" denotes all these things, and even more, because those who are called sons of God are numerous, while this one is alone the only Son. It is, indeed written: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High," 76 and again, "I have nourished and brought up children." 77 Since there are many who are called "sons" this one would not have been called "an only Son" if there was not a great difference between them. They were called sons by grace because they became near to God and members of the household,78 and because of this membership of the household they deserved by grace to be called by this name. This one, however, was called an only Son because He alone is a Son consubstantial with His Father. He was not called a Son, because He, like others, became by grace worthy of the adoption of sons, but because He was born of the very nature (of the Father) He was called and He is a Son. Although these things are clear and evident in the Sacred Books, and although it is patent to every one that no one can be called an only son except the one who is truly of the same nature as his father, the unholy and erroneous opinion of the heretics remained for some time without rectification.
Of all those who had received the knowledge of Christ, Arius was the first to dare and to say impiously that the Son was a creature 79 and was made from nothing: a novel theory alien to public opinion and |41 to the laws of nature, as any one who is created is not a Son, and any one who is a Son is not a creature, because it is impossible that a creature should be called a true Son or a true Son to be called a creature. This compelled our blessed Fathers to assemble from all regions and hold a holy Synod in the town of Nicea in the district of Bithynia, and to write this (profession of) faith in order to uphold the true faith, to confute the wickedness of Arius, to refute those who sprang up later and who are called by the name of their deceiver Eunomius, and to overthrow those heresies which arose out of erroneous opinions. Although the question was clear and evident to all from the law of nature, from common consent and from the teaching of the Sacred Books, they added and said: Born and not made.
They used words suitable to the belief in the Son, as if they had said: we call Him a Son, not a mere man and not like one who is figuratively called so—such as those who are by grace called children because of their adoption in the household—but alone a true Son. He is a true Son because He is an only Son; and He is truly born of His Father, is from Him and from His nature, and is eternally like Him. There is no created thing that is before the worlds, as the one who is before the worlds is the one who is alone from eternity. As the Father is from eternity so also the Son who is from Him is from eternity. He did not come into existence after a time nor was He born later, but He was born eternally before all the worlds from the one who is from eternity, and He is with Him from eternity as the evangelist said: "In the beginning was the Word." 80
He is from eternity, and did not come into existence later, but He was in the beginning before everything. He who comes into existence later is called "the last," and the last is not the first; and he who is not the first was not in the beginning. If, therefore, He was in the beginning, He was also the first, as there is nothing that precedes the beginning. If He is the first He is not the last, and if He is not the last He did not come into existence later.
In the beginning He was,81 and He was in the beginning from God, that is to say He was from eternity and before all the worlds with God. And to show that He was with God, and not from outside, as something foreign and not from the very nature of Divinity, the blessed evangelist called Him "Word," because a word belongs to |42 a man and is from a man; and since it is possible that the being who was with Him was from another he made use of this illustration so that the hearers should not doubt that He was from eternity from the one who is eternally from eternity. Indeed, the word of the soul, the rational character of which is accomplished in itself, is with it and in it by nature, and it is through it that this same soul is known to be rational. And it comes out of the soul, and is seen from it and in it, and is always with it and known through it.
In this same way the Son is from the Father like the word is from the soul. He is eternally from Him, with Him and in Him, and He is known from eternity with Him. "He was in the beginning," that is to say He was from eternity, from the beginning, and before everything; not that He came into existence later, but that He was in the beginning and always; that He was eternally from Him and eternally with Him, like the word is with the soul, from which and with which it always is.
The word, however, is seen as something different from the soul, and is the personality 82 of the soul, because not having its own personality it is seen in the soul. In order that, by following this illustration, we may not believe that the Son has no personality 82 or that He was alien to the nature of the Father he quickly added: "And the Word was God." After saying that He "was" and that He "was with God" he added "And the Word was God" so that he should show clearly that He was not from a nature different from that of God, or that He was different from Him in the Godhead, but that He was identical with the one from whom He was and that He was God with the one who was God.
He said wonderfully: "And the Word was God" in order to show that He is what God is, and that He is what our blessed Fathers rightly described: Born of Him before all the worlds. In this they wished to convey that from eternity and before all the worlds He was in the beginning from Him and with Him. Their words did not stop here but to complete the doctrine of truth, to warn the children of faith and to overthrow the error of the heretics, they added the sentence: And not made.
We should be in need of many words if we intended to comment fully upon all things said by our blessed Fathers concerning the Divinity |43 of the Only Begotten. In order, however, to lighten to you the burden of the many things that are said to you we shall utter them little by little so that you may better be able to hear and to learn them. With your permission, therefore, we shall put an end here to the things that were said to-day, and keep the things that follow (in the credo) to another day, and for all of them let us praise the Father, the Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
Here ends the third chapter.
Chapter IV.
Yesterday we endeavoured to interpret to your love, according to our ability and in a succinct manner, the things said by our blessed Fathers concerning the Divinity of the Only Begotten, while we kept the remainder of them for another day. In our commentary we reached, as you remember, the sentence in which it is said: Born of His Father before all the worlds, and not made, and there we ended our speech. If you wish, let us now begin by the grace of our Lord with this sentence. We were stating that in saying: Born of His Father before all the worlds they showed us that He is a Son truly and not figuratively only, as the heretics pretend that He is a Son only in a borrowed name like those who were called sons by grace. He is indeed alone the true Son of God the Father because He is the Only Begotten and is alone born of God His Father. This is the reason why they added: Born of His Father before all the worlds.
This was due to the Only Begotten Son of God, who is a true Son and not in name only. And He is from the nature of the Father and eternally from Him and with Him. It is not possible for us to imagine that there is anything between God the Father and God the Son, as God is high above everything. He who is above everything is also above the time and from eternity. If, therefore, God the Father is eternal, and if the Son is God, He is also eternal, God from God, and Eternal from Eternal, and there is nothing between God and God. As it is not possible to imagine that either times or worlds precede God, so there is nothing before the Son as He also is God, because He is born of His Father before everything, and is eternal, born of the One who is eternal. |44
For a perfect faith to those who have the good-will of religion this name of "Only Begotten" would have been sufficient, and they would have agreed to say that He was a true Son. (Our Fathers), however, added to it the sentence: Born of Him before all the worlds. Both phrases demonstrate how the Only Begotten is the Son of God, and it is with justice that they added for the refutation of the haters of truth: And not made. We confess that He is the Only Begotten, the Son of God, born of the Father before all the worlds, and that He is consubstantial with the Father; and we completely reject the opinion held by the ungodly people who said that the Son of God is created. He is indeed born of God and He is not made, and He is of the same nature as God and not a creature.83 A Son is very different from a creature.
If He is a Son He is not a creature, and if He is a creature He is not a Son. If He is a Son He is from Him and not from outside Him, and if He is a creature He is from outside Him. If He is a Son He is from Him and like Him, and if He is a creature He is from outside Him and not from Him and like Him. The natural law teaches us also these things, because we call sons those who are born of us; as to creatures they are made outside us while they were not. Likewise we understand that there are many creatures of God, but the Son is One whom we also call Only Begotten.
The Son is one alone, and He is eternally from Him; as to creatures they are many and exceed all numbering, and are composed of many natures which came into existence later according to the will of their Maker, both individually and collectively. He knew that diversity was useful to the creature because it is created, and some parts of it came into existence earlier, some later and some others later still; parts of it came into existence at the same time, and parts after many others. Since all the created things were to come into existence it was justifiable that some should come earlier and some later.
As there is a beginning to the existence of all created things, those which came into existence later are like those which came into existence earlier. As to the Son, because He did not come into existence to His Father later but was in the beginning from Him and was from eternity with Him, is alone Son. It was not possible that the one |45 who was similar to the one who is from eternity should have come into existence later, nor was it possible that the one who has a beginning should have been similar to the one who is from eternity. Indeed there is a great difference between one who is from eternity and one who began his existence later; the difference is so great that the two cannot exist concomitantly. What possible relation can exist between one who is eternal and another who was at one time nonexistent and began his existence later?
It is well known that the one who is eternal and the one whose existence has a beginning are greatly separated from each other, and the gulf found between them is unbridgeable. The one who is eternal has no limits, while the one whose existence has a beginning, his very existence is limited, and the one the beginning of whose existence is limited, the time that elapsed before he came into existence is also limited. It is not possible to limit and define the chasm that exists between the one who is from eternity and the one who began to exist at a time when he was not. What possible resemblance and relation can exist between two beings so widely separated from each other? And because the Son is from eternity, and from a Father who is from eternity, no other son like Him came into existence later. He remained Son alone because He is from eternity from one who is from eternity. It was fitting that such a one should be alone the Son from the Father.
In this way our Fathers warned us concerning the knowledge of the Son, and wrote to us the true doctrine to the effect that when we believe in the Only Begotten Son we should understand that He is from the Father. They taught us also to flee from the impiety of the heretics and reject their contention that the Son is made, as this is very remote from the truth. The Son should not be thought of as a made being nor as a creature, but we ought to profess concerning Father and Son what is congruous to both of them, namely that the Son is from the nature of the Father and is not a being made by the Father and created outside Him from nothing.
Our blessed Fathers taught us these and added something that fits the sequence of the sentence: True God of true God. Indeed what else were we justified in thinking of the one who is from God and not from outside Him but from the very nature of the Father, except that He was what God is by nature, that is to say a true God? |46
In this they followed the teaching of the Gospel in which it is said: "And the Word was with God, and the Word was God," 84 as if the evangelist had said, "And God was with God, and He was what He was, as He was with Him and from Him." In this way our Fathers said also: True God of true God. They added to the sentence, "God from God" that of, "True from true" because of the wickedness of those who wish to show contention and insolence even concerning heavenly 85 things.
The sentence which they used does not differ from that found in the Gospel, as it is clear that the one who says, "God with God" says also "A true one with a true one." The (Gospel) does not say "And He is called God," like those who are called gods by men, nor, "He was with the one who was called God by name only," but, He was God with the one who was God, and God by nature with the one who was God by nature. Men are called gods, but are not assumed to be gods by nature: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High, but ye shall die like men,86 because I only called you so to bestow honour upon you, as you are not gods by nature; you are mortal men by nature, which is very different from Divine nature; this is evident from the nature of things, because if you had been gods by nature you would not have been entangled in sin for which you received death."
God is not only called God by name, but He is in reality by nature that which is implied by His name; and God the Word who is with Him is not only called God figuratively, but is also God by nature; and he who is God by nature what else can he be except true God? What is there truer than nature, and how is it possible that the one who is (God) by nature should not be so in truth? If He is not God by nature, He is neither God in truth. Indeed this name "god" is either applied to demons, who falsely and insolently dare to call themselves by it in their arrogance, or to men who are called so by God's gracious permission as an honour. As to the Son He is God by nature like the Father.
Although the heretics dare to call the Only Begotten, "Son of God" in a different sense, yet since He is God by nature it is evident that He is also God in truth, as there is nothing truer than the one who is what he is by nature. It is indeed evident that the one who is God by nature is also God in truth. And there is nothing truer than |47 a true one—(and this contrary to) the new wisdom of the heretics— when each of them is a true (God) by nature. Indeed they say that God the Father is God by nature and that God the Son is also God by nature, but they refuse to admit that the Son is God in truth, in spite of the fact that they admit that He is God by nature, and in this they introduce a new law to us in their innovations to the effect that He is a true God but not like God His Father. If each one of them is God by nature, how is it possible for us to understand that one of them is higher and the other lower while both of them are assumed to have an identical nature? It is impossible to find an addition or a diminution in the one whom the Sacred Books and those who followed their doctrine teach us that He is God by nature.
Our blessed Fathers also followed the Books and warned us against the unholy opinion and the ineptitude of the heretics, in saying: True God of true God. The Books had already stated that He was "God," and they (our Fathers) added prudently the word "true" so that we might believe that the Son is a true God like the Father, because like the Father He is a true God by nature. And as the Father was confessed as God for the confutation of the error of the multiplicity of gods—who were falsely called gods by the peoples of the earth—so also is the case with the Son of God, because we believe that God the Father and God the Son are one God, inasmuch as the Divine nature of the Father and of the Son is one.
To this our blessed Fathers added that the Son was "consubstantial" with His Father, a word that confirms (the faith of) the children of faith and rebukes the unbelievers. Although this is not explicitly written in Holy Writ yet its meaning is found therein. They explained here by means of a clear word the meaning of that which they had previously stated, because the sentence: Consubstantial with the Father is not different from that of: True God of true God. They did not wish to insinuate by this sentence "Consubstantial with the Father any other thing than that the being who, as previously stated by them, was God and born of His Father before all the worlds and not made—is God. Indeed, if He is born of Him before all the worlds and is not made, and if He is not a creature but a true Son of His Father, it is evident that He is from Him and not from outside Him, and that He is born of the nature of the Father and consubstantial with Him; and if He is true God of true God, it is |48 evident that He is consubstantial with Him,87 because any one who is truly God in nature is consubstantial with one who is truly God in nature.
The meaning of the sentence "consubstantial with His Father" is clearly found in the Book. When it says: "In the beginning He was with God and He was God," 88 it shows by means of these two phrases that He is God in nature and that He is consubstantial with God. This is also the meaning of the sentence: "My Father and I are one." 89 If the Son is one with His Father in power and in nature, He is consubstantial with Him. By His statement: "My sheep hear my voice and follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand," 90 He bore witness to His omnipotence and to the fact that no man can prevail against Him; and because this sentence conveyed higher things than the simple man who was seen in Him, He added: "My Father who gave them me is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck (them) out of my Father's hand." 91 He lowered the significance of the sentence by the addition: "He gave me." What He said of Himself to the effect that no man can prevail against Him, He said it of His person; and to show that He did make use of such words for the purpose of showing that the power of both (the Father and the Son) was identical and that no man was able to prevail against Him in the same way as no man was able to prevail against the Father who was believed to be higher than all, He said: "My Father and I are one."
He made clear in this (sentence) that which He had implicitly insinuated in the meaning of the preceding words which He had uttered; it is as if He had said, "my power is identical with that of my Father and higher than all like His power, and no man can prevail against me even as no man can prevail against my Father, because my Father and I are one, and have one power and one dominion that is higher than all." This is the reason why the Jews called Him a blasphemer. Indeed they did not know the Divine nature that was dwelling in Him, but knew only that which was visible in Him, and wished to stone Him like a man making use of blasphemous words.
To the same effect is the sentence: "He that hath seen me hath |49 seen my Father," 92 and: "I am in my Father and my Father in me." 93 If the Father is seen in the Son it is evident that both have one nature, and each of them is seen and known in the other. In this way their mutual equality shows also the unity of their nature, and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. This is likewise the meaning of the sentence: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son." 94 If each of them is not known and seen except by the other, it is evident that they are invisible to all men because of their equality in nature, each of them only knowing the other. If this is so then the Son is consubstantial with the Father.
In spite of the fact that all these things are manifestly evident in the Sacred Books, those who incline towards evil, to the condemnation of their souls, and are not upright, dared to say that the nature of the Son is different from that of the Father, a saying which also implies that He is not a Son. It is known that he who is truly a son is of the same nature as his father. Our blessed Fathers were well advised, therefore, to make use of this expression the meaning of which was implicitly found in many words of the Sacred Books, in order to warn the faithful of their time and to rebuke the heretics; and they wished also to make it known in condensed words. If the blessed Paul did not hesitate to quote in his teaching sentences that were used by Greek philosophers, such as: "we are of the offspring of gods," 95 and: "The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies," 96 and if he did not shrink from writing them for the reproval of his adversaries, it was all the more right for our blessed Fathers to make use in the profession of faith of the expression that the Son was Consubstantial with the Father, and although this word is not explicitly written in the Sacred Books, its meaning was implicitly found in many passages.
After this they said: By Whom the worlds were made and all things were created.
As in the section of the faith which deals with the Father, after the word "Father" they added "Creator of all things," so also in the section which deals with the Son, after stating that He was born of the Father and was consubstantial with Him, they rightly added that He was the creator of all things, because a true Son |50 who is consubstantial with His Father is also a true creator like Him. In this same way the blessed John the evangelist, after having said "in the beginning He was with God, and He was God" 97 added: "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made," 98 in order to show us that He was a creator like God His Father.
In this same way after our blessed Fathers had said that the Son was from the Father, that He was true God from true God and that He was consubstantial with His Father, they added: By whom the worlds were made and all things were created. They said this because as He is with His Father before all the worlds, He is the creator of all things like God His Father. And since the worlds were made by Him, He is the creator of all creatures, and He is before all the worlds, because He is from eternity and did not begin to exist later, but was in the beginning and is the creator of all the worlds, as the blessed Paul said: "By Him He made the worlds." 99
Our blessed Fathers also after saying like him: "By Him the worlds were made," added that He was the creator of all things. In this way they taught us the divinity of the Only Begotten while stating something which was in harmony with the Sacred Books; and gave also encouragement to those who are zealous in their religion, and confuted those who deny the divinity of the Only Begotten.
As to us we have explained to your love the meaning of the (profession of) faith in a succinct manner, according to our ability. If you wish it let the measure of the things which we said suffice for our teaching of to-day, and let us praise the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.
Here ends the fourth chapter.
Chapter V.
I know that you remember what we spoke to your love concerning the divinity of the Only Begotten, and how our blessed Fathers after their teaching about the Father came to the words written in the Sacred Books concerning the Son, and taught us both about the divinity of the Son and the form of man which He assumed for our |51 salvation.100 They thought not to keep silent on the human nature which He put on because it is through it that we received the knowledge of the Divine nature of the Only Begotten.
After saying: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, in order to make manifest the Divine nature and the human nature they added: The Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures, and they further instructed us concerning Divine nature and the form of man which was put on for our salvation so that little by little they might teach us everything with accuracy.
They first taught us how to believe in the divinity of the Only Begotten by saying that the Only Begotten Son was consubstantial with the Father, and not a Son with only an assumed name like other men who are so by grace and not by nature, but that He was a true Son from the Father; that He was an only Son, because He alone was born of the nature of His Father; that He did not become Son or was called so later, but that He was in the beginning, before all the worlds and eternally from His Father, and was not made. The reason why the Son of God should not be called a creature of God, is that He did not come into existence from nothing according to the law of all created beings, but He is eternally from His Father, "a true God of true God, and consubstantial with His Father," because He is a true Son and is by nature what the one who begat Him is.
Our fathers taught us these things with accuracy concerning the divinity of the Only Begotten, and fixed the profession of faith in our souls while removing from us the contention of the ungodly who dare to assert that the Son of God, who was born eternally from His Father before all the worlds, is made and created. After having shaken from our mind all the falsehood of the error of the heretics, they began to speak of the Incarnation of our Lord which took place for our salvation, in saying: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate and became a man.
It is with justice that they first used the sentence "for us children of men and for our salvation." Because they were on the point of speaking about the Economy of His humanity, they were bound to show the purpose of it, as they could not do this with the words which |52 dealt with the divinity of the Only Begotten and in which they spoke to us how He was eternally from His Father. Since they took pains to teach us concerning His humanity, it is with justice that before everything they set forth the reason for which Divine nature humbled itself to the extent of taking upon itself the form of a servant for us 101 and of its caring for our salvation. It is with justice, therefore, that our Fathers, in beginning their teaching concerning the Economy of His humanity, formed the starting-point of their discourse from this purpose: For us children of men and for our salvation. It was also fitting on their part to place the words "for our salvation" after the words "for us children of men," in order that they might show the aim of His coming, which was not only for the "children of men" but also "for their salvation." He came down from heaven to save and to deliver from evil, by an ineffable grace, those who were lost 102 and given up to iniquities.
He came down not in the sense that He moved from place to place. We are not to think that Divine nature which is everywhere moves from place to place; because this Divine nature has no body, it cannot be circumscribed in a place.. He who is not circumscribed is everywhere, and He who is everywhere it is not possible for us to think of Him that He moves from place to place. To this the blessed John bears witness when he says: "He was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own and His own received Him not." 103 He says here that "He was in the world" and that "He came unto the world"; but if He was in the world how did He come to it? Indeed, how can we say that a man came to a place where he was? He, therefore, said "He was in the world" in order to show that He is everywhere; and he added: "He came unto His own," about the Economy of His humanity. Likewise the blessed David said: "He bowed the heavens and came down," 104 in order to make manifest to us the deliverance from their tribulations which God effected for them. He called the condescension of God the "coming down" of God, in the sense that He who was so much above all condescended to deliver them from their tribulations. |53
It is in this sense that God the Word, the only Son of God, is said to have come down for our salvation, because He is eternally from His Father, is always with Him, and is above all as He is the cause of everything. For our salvation He condescended to come down to such a humility as to take upon Him the form of a servant 105 and be in it so that through it 106 He might grant us the delight of His abundant gift. It is with justice, therefore, that our blessed Fathers said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven. They called the Economy of His humanity a "coming down from heaven," at which the blessed David was awe-struck and said: "What is man that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that Thou visitest him?" 107
Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven: what is His coming down and what is its aim? And what did [man] do that He humbled Himself to such an extent for him as to become like him, and to take upon Him the form of a servant, and to be a man for our salvation, and to make Himself manifest to all, and to assume upon Himself all that which belonged to the nature of that man, and to be exercised in all (human) faculties? And He perfected him by His power, so that He did not remove from him the (bodily) death which he received according to the law of his nature,—but while He was with him He delivered him by act of grace from (real) death and from the corruption of the grave,108 and raised him from the dead, and made him worthy of a high honour concerning which he said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," 109 which he did; and He was not separated from him in his crucifixion nor did He leave him at death, but He remained with him until He helped him to loose 110 the pains of death,111 and He delivered his soul from bonds which were indissoluble; and He raised him from the dead and transferred him to immortal life,112 and made him immortal, incorruptible and immutable; and He caused him to go up to heaven where he is now sitting at the right hand of God; |54 and he is "far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come" 113 as the blessed Paul testifies; and he constantly receives adoration from all creation because of his close union with God the Word.
It is with justice, therefore, that our blessed Fathers said that He was incarnate and became a man, so that for the sake of our salvation He might act according to all this Economy whereby He was believed to be a mere man by those who were unaware of the Godhead which was dwelling in Him and who only saw that which was visible. Indeed the Jews said to Him: "For good works we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God." 114 And Paul also said, "He was in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man." 115 The (sentence) "He was in the likeness of men" does not mean any other thing than that He became a man. When the Book said: "God sent His own Son who became in the likeness of the sinful flesh," 116 the "likeness of the flesh" does not mean any other thing than flesh itself; and so also when in another passage it says: "He was manifest in the flesh." 117 In this passage it uses "flesh" and in the other "likeness of the flesh," but by the two expressions "flesh" and "likeness of the flesh" it does not show us any other thing than that it teaches us that He was manifest in the flesh, in the same way as "in the likeness of man" does not mean any other thing than "man."
It is with justice, therefore, that our blessed Fathers said: He was incarnate and became a man in order to show that He was a man, as the blessed Paul testifies, and that He fulfilled this Economy for the salvation of all. It is with justice then that our blessed Fathers made use of this word in the profession of faith for the refutation of the error of the heretics, while conforming with the true belief of the Church. And on account of the numerous schisms that had taken place among men concerning that ineffable Economy and concerning the man whom our Lord assumed, they rightly made use of the sentence: He was incarnate and became a man.
The Marcionites and the Manicheans together with the followers of Valentinus and the rest of the heretics who were affected with |55 a like malady, say that our Lord did not assume any of our natures either of the body or the soul, but that He was a phantasm that struck the eyes of men like the form of the visions which the prophets saw and the apparition seen by Abraham of three men of whom none had a corporeal nature but who were only in appearance men who performed human acts, walked, talked, were washed, ate and drank. They say that in this same way our Lord did not assume any body but that He was only in appearance a man who performed and felt everything according to the requirements of men, while the one who was seen had no human nature but was only seen in appearance to be so, and that in reality He felt nothing but only the onlookers believed that He was feeling.
The partisans of Arius and Eunomius, however, say that He assumed a body but not a soul, and that the nature of the Godhead took the place of the soul. They lowered the Divine nature of the Only Begotten to the extent that from the greatness of its nature it moved and performed the acts of the soul and imprisoned itself in the body and did everything for its sustenance. Lo, if the Godhead had replaced the soul He would not have been hungry or thirsty, nor would He have tired or been in need of food. All these things befall the body because of its weakness, as the soul is not able to satisfy its wants, but does for it only those things that belong to itself 118 according to the nature given to it by God. The soul is in need of a body which is perfect in everything that deals with its sustenance, and if something is missing in it, not only this same soul is unable to help it but will itself be overcome by the weakness of the body, and will be compelled to leave it against its own will.
If, therefore, the Godhead was performing the acts of the soul, it would also by necessity have performed the acts of the body. Only in this way could be right the opinion of the misleading heretics who deny that He assumed a body and was only seen in the same way as the angels (were seen in the Old Testament), and was a man in appearance only while He did not possess any qualities of human nature. Indeed the Godhead was able to accomplish everything so that the eyes which were seeing believed that they were seeing a real man,119 in the same way as the angels were, by the will of God, seen by Abraham. |56
If, however, Divine nature was sufficient for all these things, human nature which was in need of the grace of salvation from God should not have been assumed, as according to the opinion of the heretics this same Godhead would have satisfied the requirements of human nature, and in this case it would have been superfluous to assume a body at all as the Godhead was able to perform all its acts. This, however, was not the will of God, who indeed wished to put on and raise the fallen man who is composed of a body and of an immortal and rational soul, so that "as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, so also the free gift and the grace of God by the righteousness of one man might abound unto many." 120 As death was by man so also the resurrection from the dead (will be) by man, because "as we all die in Adam, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," 121 as the blessed Paul testifies. Therefore it was necessary that He should assume not only the body but also the immortal and rational soul; and not only the death of the body had to cease but also that of the soul, which is sin. Since according to the sentence of the blessed (Paul) sin entered the world through man, and death entered through sin, it was necessary that sin which was the cause of death should have first been abolished, and then the abolition of death would have followed by itself. If sin were not abolished we would have by necessity remained in mortality, and we would have sinned in our mutability; and when we sin, we are under punishment, and consequently the power of death will by necessity remain.
It was, therefore, necessary that sin should have first been abolished, as after its abolition there would be no entry for death. It is indeed clear that the strength of the sin 122 has its origin in the will of the soul. In the case of Adam also it was his soul which first accepted the advice of error and not his body, because it was not his body that Satan persuaded to yield to him, to forsake God and to believe that his Helper was a deceiver, in his desire for higher things; and in following the advice of Satan he transgressed the commandment of God and chose for himself those things which were contrary to the commandment of God. It was not his body that had to know these things but his soul which, on the promise of higher things, yielded and accepted the advice of the deceiver and lost the good things that it possessed. |57
It was, therefore, necessary that Christ should assume not only the body but also the soul. The enemy of the soul had to be removed first and then for the sake of it that of the body, because if death is from sin and the same death is the corruption of the body, sin would have first to be abolished and the abolition of death would follow by itself.
It would be possible to save the body from death and corruption if we first made the soul immutable and delivered it from the passions of sin, so that by acquiring immutability we would also obtain deliverance from sin. The abolition of death would then be effected by the abolition of sin, and after the abolition of death it would be possible that our body should remain without dissolution and corruption. If the soul had only sinned in those things that befall it from the passions of the body, it would perhaps have been sufficient for our Lord to have assumed only the body in order to deliver (the soul) from sin. Many, however, and of different kinds are the iniquities and sins that are born of the soul. The first (sin) through which it shows its association with Satan is that of pride, about which the Apostle said: "Lest being lifted up in pride he should fall into the condemnation of the Devil." 123 In this sentence the Apostle has shown that any one who falls into pride becomes the associate of the Devil in condemnation. The one, therefore, who possesses the uncorporeal Devil in his evil thought, feels passion in his soul; and consequently it is clearly evident that the soul was greatly in need to be delivered from sins and be saved also from the passions of the body which overcome it by the power that the latter adequately possesses.
The blessed Paul bears witness to our words when he counts the evils to which men were drawn, to which they degraded themselves and from which Christ came into the world to deliver them; he says thus: "Wherefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do that thing which is not convenient, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, fornication, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; and are disobedient to their parents, implacable and unmerciful." 124 These (evils) are clear and evident and in no need of a comment, and the majority of them are not born of the passions of the body but exclusively of the will of the soul. Indeed wickedness, maliciousness, envy, debate, deceit and malignity, together with pride, boasting, invention of evil things, disobedience to parents, |58 non-understanding, covenant-breaking, and unmercifulness—all these are clearly from the soul.
It is with justice, therefore, that our Lord assumed the soul so that it should be first delivered from sin and be transferred to immutability by the grace of God through which it overcomes also the passions of the body. When sin is abolished from every place and has no more entry into the soul which has become immutable, every kind of condemnation will rightly be abolished and death also will perish. The body will thus remain immune from death because it has received participation in immortality. The blessed Paul confirms this in saying: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, for the law of life in Christ Jesus hath made thee free from the law of sin and death." 125
He said that all the sentence of death,126 together with all condemnation, has been removed to those who believed in Christ, because they became alien to the way of mortality and received the Spirit and immortality, and with it they assumed immutability and became completely free from sin and mortality. It is, therefore, great madness not to believe that Christ assumed the soul; and he would even be madder who would say that He did not assume human mind, because such a one would imply that He either did not assume the soul or that He did assume the soul not of man but an irrational one akin to that of animals and beasts.
Human soul differs only from that of animals in the fact that the latter has no distinct person 127 of the soul except in the (material) composition of the animal,128 and so it has no separate existence, and is not believed to survive after the death of the animal. This is the reason why what is called the soul of the animal, which is said to reside in its blood,129 perishes when the blood is shed; and it is the soul that was believed to reside in the person and in the movements of the animal |59 before its death. The soul of men, however, is not like this, but it resides in its own person and is much higher than the body, as the body is mortal and acquires its life from the soul and dies and perishes whenever the soul happens to leave it. As to the soul, when it goes out it remains and does not perish but lasts forever in its own person because it is immortal and is incapable of receiving any injury 130 in its nature from men. When (Christ) said: "Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul," 131 He clearly showed that the body is capable of death because it is mortal, but that the soul will remain immortal because it cannot be injured by men in its nature.
The difference between the soul of men and the soul of animals is such that the latter is irrational and has no person,132 while the former is immortal and is rightly believed to be also rational. Who is, therefore, so mad and devoid of human understanding as to assert that human soul is without knowledge and without reason, unless he wishes to be a teacher of a novel theory not found previously in the world to the effect that there exists an immortal nature which lives in an imperishable life but which is itself irrational? Such a thing is indeed impossible, because anything that is immortal in its nature and dwells in an imperishable life is also truly rational and endowed with reason.
Because of all this our blessed Fathers warned us and said: He was incarnate and became a man, so that we should believe that the one who was assumed and in whom God the Word dwelt was a complete man, perfect in everything that belongs to human nature, and composed of a mortal body and a rational soul, because it is for man and for his salvation that He came down from heaven.
They rightly said that He assumed a man who resembles 133 those from whom He was assumed, because the man whom He assumed resembles Adam who introduced sin into the world, so that He might abolish sin by one who was of the same nature. Indeed, He put on a man resembling Adam who after having sinned received the punishment of death, so that He might eradicate sin from us and abolish death by similar means. When He said: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me," 134 He showed that such was the |60 reason for His resurrection from the dead, because Satan was holding the reins of the power of death on account of the sin that was cleaving to us, as Paul said,135 and was always working 136 for death.
And because when we were subjected to sin 137 we had no hope of deliverance, the grace of God kept that man whom God put on for us free from sin, but Satan came with his deceitfulness and brought death upon Him as upon (any other) man, when he roused all the Jews against Him; and since He was not touched by sin which would subject Him to death, Christ our Lord received also upon Himself the death which with wickedness the tyrannical Satan brought upon Him. He showed to God that there was no sin in Him and that it was through injustice that He was enduring the trial of death. And He effected 138 the abolition of condemnation with ease, and He rose from the dead by the power of God and became worthy of a new and ineffable life which He generalised to all the human kind.
This is the reason why our Lord said here: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." In another passage He said: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be condemned and cast out, and I when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all (men) unto me." 139 In the first passage He shows that Satan had not one just cause for bringing death upon Him, and in the second that He had summoned the Rebel to a kind of judgment 140 where he had condemned him and cast him out of his iniquitous power, and that after obtaining these good things He would make all men partakers of His glory.
Our blessed Fathers said that He became incarnate so that you might understand that He assumed a complete man, who was a man not only in appearance but a man in a true human nature, and that you might believe that He assumed not only the body but the whole man who is composed of a body and of an immortal and rational soul. It is such a man that He assumed for our salvation and it is through Him that He effected salvation for our life, because He was justified and became blameless by the power of the Holy Spirit, as the blessed |61 Paul said: "He was justified in the Spirit," 141 and again: "Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God." 142 If He suffered death according to the law of men, because He had no sin He rose from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit and became worthy of a new life in which the wishes of the soul are immutable, and He made the body immortal and incorruptible.143 In this He made us all participants in His promises, and as an earnest of His promises He gave us the first-fruits of the Spirit 144 so that we might possess a faith without doubts concerning future things; and "He established us with you in Christ and sealed us and gave the earnest of His spirit in our hearts." 145
We also expect to be immortal and incorruptible at the resurrection from the dead when there will be no entry for sin into us. The blessed Paul bears witness to this in saying: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality; and when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality, there shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, ' Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." 146 He means that when we have risen from the dead immortal and incorruptible and our nature has received immutability, we shall be unable to sin, and when we have been freed from sin we shall not need the law. Indeed what is the need of the law for a nature which is freed from sin and which has no inclination towards evil.
Well did the blessed Paul say after these: "Who gave us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 147 This shows that it is God who was for us the source of all good things, and it is He who gave us the victory over all adversaries, either death or sin or any other evil born of them: He who for us put on the man our Lord Jesus and transferred Him through His resurrection from the dead to a new life, and placed Him at His right hand, and gave us by His grace |62 communion with Him,148 when, in truth, as the blessed Paul said: "our vile body shall be changed and be fashioned like unto His glory." 149
Because the things said by our blessed Fathers concerning the humanity of our Lord are many let us put an end here to our teaching of to-day, and let us praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit now, always, and for ever and ever.
Here ends the fifth chapter.
Chapter VI.
In what we have already said we have explained to your love that which was said by our blessed Fathers concerning the humanity of our Lord in the profession of faith, which they wrote and handed down to us according to the teaching of the Books. We were obliged to use many words so that you might thoroughly understand all the meaning of their sentences, and if it were possible we would have said more in order to confirm the truth and to refute the deceitful words of the heretics, but the measure of what we said was considered by us to be sufficient to all those who possess goodwill in religion, because to those who have an unwilling mind, even a long discourse will be of no avail, while to those who possess a good will a short discourse will suffice for the demonstration of the truth, when (this discourse) is drawn from the testimony of Holy Writ. Let us then embark to-day, by the assistance of the grace of God, on the continuation of that which we said previously.
After having said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate and became a man (our blessed Fathers) added: And was bom of the Virgin Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. They might have said many things that happened in the meantime such as He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was laid in a manger, was under the law,150 was baptised and made manifest the works of the Gospel and many more things. If they had wished it they would have narrated all that the Sacred Books have taught us about Him and that |63 which was accomplished by Him for our salvation, as He fulfilled thoroughly the law of nature for us, because He was going to reform our nature, and He further observed the law of Moses so that He might pay our debt to the Lawgiver; and He was baptised so that He might give an emblem to the grace of our baptism; and He showed effectively in Himself the Economy of the Gospel to all men. After all these He went to crucifixion and death so that He might destroy the last enemy, which is death, and make manifest the new and immortal life.
Our Fathers, however, took trouble to say all these things in short terms so that the hearers might learn them with ease, and so that we might also learn thoroughly every one of them from the Sacred Books. They wrote and arranged the Creed in short terms, and this is the reason why they said: Who was born of the Virgin Mary and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. They only said the beginning and the end of the Economy that took place on our behalf, as the beginning of all grace is His birth of Mary, and its end is crucifixion. They called crucifixion the Passion, and all those things which took place in it. They included all of them in one word because from the Cross arose death and from death immortal life, as the blessed Paul said also 151: "The preaching of the Cross is to them that do not believe 152 foolishness, but unto us which are saved 153 it is the power of God." He also said: "Though He was crucified through weakness yet He liveth by the power of God." 154 He showed here that the word of the Cross is the power of God to those who are saved because it is with His hand that He destroyed death and made new life manifest.
In their profession of faith our blessed Fathers wrote, therefore, in short terms, at the beginning and at the end, all those things that were done in the interval, in order to extend their knowledge to all those willing to learn the truth. It is obvious that they do not teach that the Divine nature of the Only Begotten was born of a woman, as if it had its beginning in her, because they did not say that the one who was born of His Father before all the worlds and who is eternally from Him and with Him had His beginning from Mary, but they followed the Sacred Books which speak differently of natures |64 while referring (them) to one prosopon on account of the close union that took place between them, so that they might not be believed that they were separating the perfect union between the one who was assumed and the one who assumed. If this union were destroyed the one who was assumed would not be seen more than a mere man like ourselves. The Sacred Books refer the two words 155 as if to one Son, so that they might show in the same faith both the glory of the Only Begotten and the honour of the man whom He assumed.
Indeed, after the blessed Paul had said: "Of whom Christ (came)," he added: "according to the flesh," 156 in order to separate the natures and to show that he is speaking of Christ who is from the Jews according to the flesh and that he is naming neither the nature of the Godhead of the Only Begotten, nor God the Word who was from the beginning with God and who is eternally in the bosom of His Father, but the form of the man which He assumed. And so that by this word and this addition to the effect that the human nature of Christ was taken "from the Jews" the glory of Christ might not be brought low, or that He might be believed that since He is man by nature and is born of children of men, He has nothing more, he added the sentence which follows: "He is God over all" in order to show the glory of Christ, which is from God the Word who assumed Him and united Him to Himself, as He is the cause of all and Lord over all. And because of the close union that this man has with God the Son, He is honoured and worshipped by all the creation.
While the blessed Paul might have said: "In whom is God over all" he did not do so, but said: "He is God over all," because of the close union between the two natures. He did not believe that He who was born of the Jews according to the flesh is God over all by nature, nor did he profess that the human nature is the cause of all and is Lord of all by nature, but he professed that the form of man which He assumed was Christ in the flesh, and Him who assumed that form he called God over all; he, however, mentioned these two things together in order to show the distinction found between the natures. Nobody believes that He who is from the Jews according to the flesh is God by nature, nor that God who is above |65 all is from the Jews by nature;157 he said the two things together in order to show the close union that took place between the one who was assumed and the one who assumed, and in order that together with the difference in natures the honour and the glory that came to the man who was assumed from his union with God who assumed him, might be known to all.
He wrote something similar to this to the Philippians in saying: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men and was found in the fashion of a man." 158 Here also he clearly made a distinction between the natures and between Him who is in the form of God and Him who is in the form of a servant, between Him who assumed and Him who was assumed, and (he showed) also that He who assumed became in the fashion of a man in Him who was assumed. He who was assumed was truly in the fashion of a man, in whom was found the one who assumed Him; and He who assumed, while not a man, became in His incorporeal and immaterial nature in the form of a servant, which by nature was corporeal and material; and He was a man 159 according to the law of human body. He thus hid Himself at the time in which. He was in the world and conducted Himself with the children of men in such a way that all those who beheld Him in a human way and did not understand anything more, believed Him to be a mere man.
In saying this he made a clear distinction between the natures of the one who is in the form of God and the one who is in the form of a servant, of the one who assumed and the one who was assumed. And he taught us also about the human nature in which our Lord was, as he said congruous things concerning the form of the servant which He assumed: "He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and that every |66 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God His Father." 160
It is not Divine nature that received death, but it is clear that it was that man who was assumed as a temple to God the Word, (a temple) which was dissolved and then raised by the one who had assumed it. And after the Crucifixion it was not Divine nature that was raised but the temple which was assumed, which rose from the dead, ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of God;161 nor is it to Divine nature—the cause of everything—that it was given that every one should worship it and every knee should bow, but worship was granted to the form of a servant which did not in its nature possess (the right to be worshipped). While all these things are clearly and obviously said of human nature he referred them successively to Divine nature so that his sentence might be strengthened and be acceptable to hearers. Indeed, since it is above human nature that it should be worshipped by all, it is with justice that all this has been said as of one, so that the belief in a close union between the natures might be strengthened, because he clearly showed that the one who was assumed did not receive all this great honour except from the Divine nature which assumed Him and dwelt in Him.
Our blessed Fathers wrote in the Creed something that is in harmony with this. They first taught us about the nature of the Godhead of the Only Begotten, that He is from the Father before all the worlds, that He is born of the nature of the Father and not made, and that He is a true God and consubstantial with God because He is born of His Father. After having taught us these things concerning the divinity of the Only Begotten they proceeded to teach us concerning the Economy of His humanity and said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate and became a man like us in order to effect salvation for all the human race. And they taught all those things that happened to the human nature: things through which God wished His Economy to be accomplished on our behalf. And He who was assumed for our salvation bore upon Himself all things affecting mankind, and became worthy of perfection and a source of benefits for us through our communion with Him. |67
They said the above things as of one in conformity with the teaching of the Books; not that human acts were affecting God in His nature, but they referred these human acts to Him because of the close union, so that the high things that happened to Him after the Passion—things that transcend human nature—might be believed, and so that all might accept them when learning that it was Divine nature which put on man and that by its union with Him He received all this honour and glory.
Many things, as we have said, happened to Him according to human law; things which we may learn from the Gospel. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes after He was born and laid in a manger;162 He was circumcised after the custom of the law and was brought to the temple according to the order of Moses; He was shown before the Lord and endured all things dealing 163 with His increase in stature, wisdom and favour, while He was subject unto His parents;164 He practised in a right way all (things dealing with) the justification of the law, and then received baptism, from which He gave the New Testament as in a symbol; He endured the temptation of Satan and bore upon Himself the toil of journeys and the offering of prayers with great devotion; and, to shorten my speech, He performed all the work of the Gospel with much labour and sweating, showed much patience with His enemies, and finally drew nigh unto death by crucifixion, through which He abolished death by His resurrection from the dead.
Our blessed Fathers omitted all these and said: And was born of Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, because the beginning of His Economy for us is one thing and its end is another, and they included between both headings, one after another, all those things that the Book of the Gospel taught us. He was born of the Virgin Mary as a man, according to the law of human nature,165 and was made of a woman.166 Indeed the Apostle said thus: "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." 167 In saying that He was made of a woman He showed that He entered into the world from a woman according to |68 the law of the children of men, and the fact that "He was under the law to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons," happened so that He might pay our debt to the Lawgiver and procure life for us.
Since He became one of us in nature it is with justice that He paid the debt of His human kinship; on account of His nature which was identical with ours He was bound to do this, and He did it. We were delivered from the yoke of bondage 168 because of the freedom which He gave us in His grace. The fact that He was not born of a man but was only fashioned by the Holy Spirit in the womb of His mother, is beyond the nature of the children of men, and the (Apostle said) that He was made of a woman in order to show us that He was fashioned from the nature of a woman and was born according to the law of nature; and this does not cause any injury to nature, because Eve also was made of Adam, and her birth is different from that of all men since she received her existence from a rib only, without marital intercourse. She had an identical nature with Adam because she received the beginning of her existence from him.
In this way we should also think about Christ our Lord. It was a novel thing to have been fashioned from a woman without marital intercourse, by the power of the Holy Spirit, but He is associated with the human nature by the fact that He is from the nature of Mary, and it is for this that He is said also to be the seed of David 169 and Abraham, as in His Nature He is related to them. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak, but unto the one concerning whom the Book testifies, saying, 'What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the Son of Man that thou visitest him'?" 170 And again: "He took not from the nature of angels but from the seed of Abraham." 171 His words show that our Lord did not take a body from the angels, nor did He make the angels the head and renovator of the future creation which we are expecting, but the man whom He assumed from the seed of Abraham and through whom He performed all this ineffable Economy and whom He first raised from the dead and transferred to immortal and unchangeable life, Him He made the head and renovator of all the |69 creation, so that He was with justice set over the government of the new creation.
As a man He was born of a woman according to the law of nature, and although this happened to Him in a novel way, in the sense that He alone, to the exclusion of the rest of mankind, was fashioned in the womb by the Holy Spirit without any marital intercourse, yet all that which He did for us He did according to the law of our nature, so that He grew little by little, reached full age and performed also carefully the requirements of the law. And because He paid our debt to the law and received victory from the Giver of the law on account of His having put into practice all the requirements of the law, He drew, with His own hand, to all His human race that blessing which the law had promised to all those who keep it.
He was also baptised so that He might perform the Economy of the Gospel according to order, and in this (Economy) He died and abolished death. It was easy and not difficult for God to have made Him at once immortal, incorruptible and immutable as He became after His resurrection, but because it was not He alone whom He wished to make immortal and immutable, but us also who are partakers of His nature, He rightly, and on account of this association, did not so make the firstfruits of us all 172 in order that, as the blessed Paul said, "He might have the pre-eminence in all things." 173 In this way, because of the communion that we have with Him in this world, we will, with justice, be partakers with Him of the future good things. And as after He was born of a woman He increased little by little according to the law of humanity, and grew up fully,174 and was under the law and acted according to it, so also in the life of the Gospel He became an example as man to man.
Because it was necessary that we who were born later should receive faith concerning the above future good things and that we should believe that our Saviour, our head and the cause of all of them for us, was Christ our Lord, it was imperative that He should also arrange as much as possible our mode of life in this world according to the hope of the future. It is with justice, therefore, that in this also He became our model.175 He was baptised so that He might give a symbol to our own baptism. In it 176 He was freed from all the |70 obligations of the law. He performed also all the Economy of the Gospel: He chose disciples to Himself, established the teaching of a new law and a new doctrine, promulgated ways of acting congruous to His teaching and different from the teaching of the (old) law, and taught that the ways of acting of us who believe should be in harmony with His new teaching.177
We also when we are baptised show (in ourselves) the symbol of the world 178 to come; we die with Him in baptism, and we rise symbolically with Him, and we endeavour to live according to His law in the hope of the future good things which we expect to share with Him at the resurrection from the dead. If Christ our Lord had immediately after His rising from the dead, raised also all men who had previously died, and had bestowed upon them new life fully and immediately, we should have been in no need of doing anything; as, however, He actually performed only on Himself the renewal which is to come and through which He rose from the dead and His body became immortal and His soul immutable, it became necessary that this decrepit and mortal world should last further in order that mankind might believe in Him and receive the hope of communion (with Him) and future life.
It is with justice, therefore, that He paid the debt of the law, received baptism, and showed the new Economy of the Gospel, which is the symbol of the world to come, so that we also, who believed in Christ and became worthy of baptism, through which we received the symbol of the world to come, should live according to His commandments. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." 179 In this he shows that through baptism we have received the teaching of the new Economy which is the symbol of the world to come, and as much as possible we strive to live according to it, while remote from all sin, and so not according to law. Indeed we are baptised as men who die with Him and will rise symbolically with Him, because "so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into His death and were buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead in the glory of His Father, even so we should walk in newness of life." 180 |71
After having received the grace of baptism we become strangers to all the observances of the law and we are as in another life: "You are become dead to the law by the body of Jesus Christ." 181 He (Paul) said this because you have attained new life in the baptismal birth and have become part of the body of Christ our Lord; and we hope to have communion with Him now that we are freed from the life of this world and dead to the world and to the law, because the law has power in this world and we become strangers to all this world according to the symbol of baptism.
When Christ our Lord performed all these things for us He drew nigh unto death, which He received by crucifixion, not a secret death, but a death that was conspicuous and witnessed by all because our Lord's resurrection was going to be proclaimed by the blessed Apostles, while the miracles wrought wonderfully by the Holy Spirit were sufficient for the corroboration of their testimony. His death had to be seen by all, as His resurrection meant the abolition of death. Indeed, He loosed the pains of death 182 completely by his resurrection from the dead, ascended unto heaven and sat at the right hand 183 of God, and is for us a true surety 184 by our participation in His resurrection. "You were saved by the grace of Him who raised us with Him 185 and placed us at the right hand in heaven in order that He might show to the future worlds the greatness of the wealth and the sweetness of His mercy which was shed on us abundantly through our Lord Jesus Christ." 186
And in order that we may believe in the good things which He promised to us, in spite of their greatness and in spite of the fact that they transcend us, He gave us the earnest of the future things, the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit,187 as the blessed Peter said: "He was exalted by the right hand of God, and He confirmed the promise of the Holy Ghost which He had received, and shed forth this upon us abundantly, as you now see and hear." 188 He calls "the promise of the Holy Ghost" the grace which was given for the confirmation of the future good things by the Holy Ghost. Indeed, these future things are confirmed in us by the power of the Holy Ghost. As the blessed Paul said: "It is sown a natural body and it will rise a |72 spiritual body." 189 And in order that we may possess these future good things in a firm faith 190 without doubt, He gave us even in this world 191 the firstfruits of the Spirit which we received as the earnest, of which the blessed Paul said: "In whom ye believed, and ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit (of promise) which is the earnest of our inheritance." 192 And the Economy of the grace of Christ our Lord, for which we receive baptism, is like unto this.
Our blessed Fathers did well, therefore, to hand to us our faith by going to the firstfruits of the faith, and including in them all the necessary things in saying: And was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. I believe, however, that my speech has exceeded the limits as the words (which express) the Economy of the grace of Christ have only been delivered to us (in short terms) as given above. In order, therefore, that you may not receive a teaching which is not perfect and that we may not trouble you with many words, let us, by the permission of God, leave off here the things which will follow what has been said, and be satisfied with what has already been spoken to-day, and let us praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit now, always, and for ever and ever.—Amen.
Here ends the sixth chapter.
Chapter VII.
Let us proceed now to deal with the grace of the Economy of the humanity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and see what our blessed Fathers have handed down to us about it in the creed. This is the third day I am discoursing on this subject to your love, as I am anxious that you should learn it little by little and keep my words in your memory. Let us, therefore, begin to-day also to speak to you concerning things that fit the sequence of those already said.
Immediately they began the words which deal with the Economy (of our Lord) our blessed Fathers first showed for whom was all this Economy accomplished, and said: Who for us children of men, to which they added: And for our salvation in order that the purpose of the Economy might be known. To this they added also: Came down from heaven, in order that they might make us understand the |73 boundless humility that was involved in His coming down to us, as if they were repeating the sentence of the blessed Paul: "Though He was rich yet for your sakes He became poor," 193 and humbled Himself to our wretchedness from the height of His glory and from His mighty greatness. And in order to show us how He came down they said: And became a man. He did not humble Himself here by an ordinary act of Providence nor by the gift of the assistance of (Divine) power that He had in the same way as He performed many other things, but He assumed and put on our nature in which He was,194 and in which He dwelt so that He might perfect it with sufferings and unite it to Him. In this they (our blessed Fathers) showed us the gift of His grace which they saw in the human race, and through which He assumed a man from us, was in Him and dwelt in Him, and they taught us that He endured and bore all according to human nature so that we might understand that He was not a man in appearance only, but that He was a real man who suffered all the human [passions] according to human nature.
And in order not to lengthen their speech they omitted all the things which He gradually performed and which we may learn with accuracy from the reading of the Gospel, and they rightly made use of condensed words and said: And was born of the Virgin Mary and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, and in this way they included all the Economy in its beginning and its end. We remember that we told your love that it is the habit of the Books to include all the Economy of Christ in the mention of the crucifixion, because death came to Him by crucifixion, and He abolished death by death and made manifest the new, immortal and immutable life.
In this way our blessed Fathers included also all the Economy in these words, but were aware that especial attention had to be paid to the words said of the Passion or of the things that happened in the Passion, as they transcend all human intellect. In order that no doubt concerning the reality of the Passion might enter the mind of the hearers on account of the sublimity of this same Passion, and in order that they might not think that it took place in appearance only, they stressed their words so that they should be believed in the sense that He died in reality and so as to show that human death and all |74 passions were abolished by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Indeed, if Christ endured death by crucifixion in order to make manifest His death to all and with His death His resurrection also by which death was abolished, it is with justice that our blessed Fathers warned us first on the subject of His death and then taught us concerning His resurrection.
This is the reason why, after having said, And was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, they added: And was buried, in order to teach us that He did not die only in appearance and in an unreal way but that He actually died a natural death so that after His death His body was also buried according to the law of human nature. In this they followed also the teaching of the blessed Paul, who, when speaking to the Corinthians of the resurrection of the dead because of which he made mention of the resurrection of Christ our Lord—so that he might confirm the general resurrection from the resurrection of Christ— first taught about His death in saying that Christ died a real death, since His death once established the words concerning the preaching of His resurrection will be readily accepted. He said in effect: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried." 195 He did not make use of the additional sentence "and was buried" to no purpose, but he made use of it to show that He truly died according to the law of human nature and that He duly endured death according to a mortal nature.
In this same way, after our blessed Fathers had said, And was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, in order to show that He had died they added the sentence: And was buried, so as to demonstrate, according to the preaching of the Apostle, that He had truly died.
Further, as the blessed Paul, after having said that He was buried and that He had truly died, added: "He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" 196 —and it was in this way that he was able to teach concerning the resurrection of Christ after His death and to fix the true belief in His death in the souls of the hearers—so also our blessed Fathers, after having said, And was buried, added: And rose the third day according to the Scriptures. They made |75 an accurate use of the words of the Scriptures in delivering to us the belief in the resurrection. The question involved in the resurrection is not an unimportant one because to those who do not believe it implies the danger of death and of falling away from all benefits, but on those who believe this same resurrection bestows confidence, and puts the seal on all the wonderful things accomplished in the Economy of Christ. Indeed this resurrection is the end of all the Economy of Christ and the principal object of all the reforms wrought by Him, as it is through it that death was abolished, corruption destroyed, passions extinguished, mutability removed, the inordinate emotions of sin consumed, the power of Satan overthrown, the urge of demons brought to nought and the affliction resulting from the law wiped out. An immortal and immutable life reigns by which all the above evils are abolished and destroyed, and it was through them that the demons entered to fight against us.
This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised, and if Christ be not raised then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain." 197 If it is not possible that the dead should rise it is evident that Christ also did not rise, because in His body He was of the same nature and received death according to the law of nature. If we believe that Christ rose it is clear and obvious that resurrection is a true fact, as that which is impossible would not have happened, even to Him, but since it happened to Him it is clear and evident that it is possible.
We ought not, therefore, to deny resurrection as an impossible thing, but it is imperative for us to believe in it, because it did happen once and had its beginning in Christ our Lord. He who denies the general resurrection denies also the resurrection of Christ, because in His flesh He was part of human nature, and he who denies this shows that "our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain." Because resurrection is the principal benefit of all the Economy of Christ in the flesh—since by it all evil things vanish and an entry is effected for all good things—He who denies this same resurrection makes our preaching and your faith vain. If death is not abolished the dominion of evil things is still standing and we do not look yet for good things. It is indeed plain that if the resurrection did not take place death |76 would still be holding dominion, from which it could not have been overthrown, and because of this same death sin would also be in the ascendant and all evil things would be surrounding us, because he (Paul) said: "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised, and if Christ be not raised then your faith is vain and you are yet in your sins." 198 In this he shows that death was abolished through resurrection, and sin through death, as after the resurrection we become immortal and immutable, and if the resurrection does not take place faith is vain and death holds sway together with sin, and you also are still in your sins and have no hope of good things which we announced as coming to you through the resurrection.
It is with justice, therefore, that in accordance with the words of the Apostle our blessed Fathers first mentioned the principal benefit of the Economy of Christ in saying: And rose from the dead, and then added the sentence: And ascended into heaven. It was necessary that after having known that He rose from the dead we should also know where He is after His resurrection. As the Sacred Book, after saying that God made Adam, added how, from what, and also in which locality He placed him to lead his earthly life, so also in the case of Christ our Lord who was assumed from us and was according to our nature, because after (our blessed Fathers) said that He rose from the dead they rightly added that He ascended into heaven so that we should learn that He moved into an immortal nature and ascended into heaven, as it was necessary for Him to be high above all. All the evangelists narrated to us His resurrection from the dead and with it they ended their respective Gospels, because they knew that it was sufficient for us to learn that He rose from the dead, moved to an immortal and immutable life and gave us the hope of participating with Him in the future good things. The blessed Luke, however, who is also the writer of a Gospel, added that He ascended into heaven 199 so that we should know where He is after His resurrection. It is also known that he taught us this at the beginning of his teaching when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles,200 where he further added the rest of the facts, one after another, as it fitted the sequence of the narration.
As it is not only in His resurrection that Christ became our |77 firstfruits 201 but also in His ascension into heaven—in both of which He made us partakers of His grace—it is right that we should be instructed in both of them, because we do not expect only to rise from the dead but also to ascend into heaven, where we will be with Christ our Lord. In this same way the blessed Paul said also that "our Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet our Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with our Lord." 202 In another passage he said also: "For our conversation is in heaven from whence we look for the Saviour our Lord Jesus Christ who shall change our vile body that it may resemble His glorious body," 203 in order to show us that we shall be transferred to heaven from whence Christ our Lord will come and change us at the resurrection from the dead and make us like the form of His body and take us up to heaven so that we may ever be with Him. And again he said: "For we know if this our earthly house were dissolved, we have a building of God and an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," 204 in order to teach us that at the resurrection we will become immortal and dwell in heaven. And a little further on he said: "While we are in the body, we are absent from our Lord, for we walk by faith and not by sight; we are confident and willing to be absent from the body and to be present with Christ," 205 and showed that as long as we are in this mortal body we are as it were absent and remote from our Lord, as we are not actually enjoying yet the future good things since we have only received them by faith, but in spite of their being so we have great confidence in possessing them,206 and we are looking with great eagerness to the time when we will divest ourselves of this mortal body and cast it away from us and become immortal and immutable at the resurrection from the dead, and then we will be with our Lord like men who for a long time and for the duration of this world were absent and expecting to be present with Him.
This is the reason why he said: "Jerusalem which is above is |78 free, which is the mother of us all." 207 He called "Jerusalem which is above" the abode which is in heaven and in which we, reborn at the resurrection, shall become immortal and immutable, when we shall truly enjoy perfect freedom and happiness, and when nothing will constrain us and no pain will affect us, but we will be in ineffable pleasures and in a happiness that will have no end; and we are expecting to enjoy these pleasures in which Christ our Lord became our firstfruits,208 (Christ) whom God the Word put on, and who through the close union that He had with Him became worthy of all this glory and gave to us also the hope of communion with Him.
It is with justice, therefore, that the Sacred Book taught us that not only He rose from the dead but ascended also into heaven, so that we too should preach that which is implied by our blessed Fathers who, after having said, He rose the third day, added: And ascended into heaven. And they further added to their words: And sat at the right hand of God, in order to show first the great honour that came to the man who was assumed, from His union with God the Word who had put Him on, and secondly in order that we might understand the nature of the good things in which we shall dwell if we have truly communion with Him. Indeed, after the blessed Paul had said, "You were dead in your trespasses and your sins and He quickened you with Christ," 209 he added: "Ye are saved.210 And He hath raised you up and made you sit together in heaven in Jesus Christ" 211 in order to show us the sublimity of the communion that we shall have with Him.
After our Fathers wrote down this they added with justice: And He shall come again to judge the living and the dead, in order to inform us concerning His second coming in which we shall receive communion with Him while truly looking for Him coming from heaven to fashion us, according to the saying of the Apostle, like unto His glorious body.212 They added after His coming the sentence: To judge the dead and the living, so that with the mention of the good things done to us they should also implant fear into us and make us ready for the gift of the glory of all this Economy. They said, "of the dead and the living," not that the dead shall be judged—what kind of judgment can there be to the dead who do not feel?—but |79 that at the time of His coming He will raise all of us born of Adam, that is all the children of men who had died, and will transform them into an immortal nature.
Those men who will be overtaken by the general resurrection while still alive He will only transform, and from being mortal He will make immortal. This is the reason why they said, "the living and the dead." Those who will be alive at that time they called "the living," and those who had already died and passed away they called "the dead," in order to show us that all the children of men shall be judged and none shall escape scrutiny, and that when they have been judged they shall receive a judgment commensurate with the nature of their actions in a way that some of them will be rewarded and some others punished.
The blessed Paul said also in the Epistle to the Corinthians: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment and in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." 213 By these words he shows that all of us shall not die but that all of us shall be changed; the dead shall rise incorruptible and immortal, and the living shall be changed into an immortal nature. Both acts will be accomplished in the twinkling of an eye. He said the sentence, "we shall be changed" of those who shall then be alive because when he wrote it he himself was alive, and thus he personified the living.
He wrote something similar to this to the Thessalonians: "We which are alive and remain shall not prevent them which are asleep, for the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with our Lord." 214 He says that all these things will happen with the swiftness of the twinkling of an eye and that those who are alive will not prevent those who are dead when these go out to meet our Lord, and he shows that the latter will rise and the former will be changed, and both will be caught up together to meet our Lord.
Our blessed Fathers said these things to warn us, to inspire us with fear and to induce us to prepare for the future account (that we |80 shall give of ourselves). They rightly ascribed the sentence: To judge the living and the dead to the prosopon of the man who was assumed on our behalf so that they should show us the honour that came to the temple 215 of God the Word, that is to say to the man who was assumed for our salvation, and so that they should implant fear into us when teaching us by their words concerning the future judgment, which will be all the harder for us if we have a bad and inordinate will. It would be against our duty to minimise that man who was assumed on our behalf; who possesses such a great honour; who will judge the living and the dead because He was freed from all sin and was, on account of the honour that came to Him, in a position to be immune from death—as He said: "I have power to lay my life down, and I have power to take it up again," 216 in order to show that He was the Lord and had power to die and not to die—who received the death that came His way, and in the confidence that He had (with God) was able to conquer it; who granted immunity from death to all the human race; who was from us and from our human nature and was immune from death because of the greatness of His excellence and was always without stain by the power of the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless received upon Himself death and passion—an ignominious death by crucifixion—so that He should grant us to delight in the future pleasures, (it would indeed, I say, be against our duty to minimise that man) who endured all these things for us and not to remain steadfast in His love and not follow His commandments and value His love and affection more highly than anything else. We ought to show forth such feelings because of the ineffable benefits that through Him will accrue to us.
Examine the strength of their statement from the fact that in speaking of His humanity, His Passion and His resurrection they affirmed that the very same prosopon to whom all this happened shall sit in judgment. In order, however, that no one might be led to believe that a mere man will be the judge of all the creation they added the word Again, so that they should refer (the act of judging) as by a sign to the Godhead of the Only Begotten who was in Him and from whom He received all that honour. If they did not wish to imply this it would have been sufficient to say: He shall come to judge the living |81 and the dead, but with the addition of again they referred to His Godhead. He who shall come openly is in truth the man who has been assumed from us, and it is He who shall come from heaven, and He of whom it may rightly be said that He moves from place to place, as it is written: "This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." 217 This was to demonstrate to them that it would be the very man who was seen by them, and was with them, and was now being separated from them, who would be coming and be seen by all men. To this man the word again is not fitting. Indeed, it is not He who came but it is the Godhead that came down from heaven, not that it moved from place to place, but by its condescension and its Providence for us which it manifested 218 in the man who was assumed on our behalf. The word again will refer in the next world to the man whom (the Godhead) assumed on our behalf. The man who was assumed on our behalf went now first into heaven and will come again first from heaven, but because they (our blessed Fathers) were referring in their words to the Divine nature they counted His coming twice, first when He came down through that man, and secondly when He will come again through the same man who has been assumed, because of the ineffable union that that man had with God.
This is the reason why the blessed Paul, after saying, "We look for the glorious appearing of the great God," added: "and the Saviour Jesus Christ." 219 He shows that we are looking for the Divine nature, which is higher than everything, to come and appear to all men, and because this Divine nature cannot be seen with material eyes, it will make its appearance to men according to the power of the onlookers. And he showed us the way in which we expect the Divine nature to appear by adding: "and our Saviour Jesus Christ." He refers here to that corporeal man and shows clearly that it is in the coming and the vision of that man that the Divine nature will make its appearance. It is in this man by whom it had formerly saved us that it will make its appearance in order to grant these ineffable benefits.
It is with justice, therefore, that our blessed Fathers added the word again in order to show us the Divine nature from which the |82 great honour of judging was given to that visible (man). It is that (Divine nature) that will judge all the world according to the sentence of the Apostle who said that it will judge all the earth through the man Jesus.220 It is clear that the blessed Paul shows us that it is God who will judge all the earth through that man who was assumed on our behalf and who rose again from the dead for the confirmation of our faith.
Let what has been spoken suffice for the teaching of to-day, and let us praise God the Father, and the Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, now, always and for ever and ever.
Here ends the seventh chapter.
Chapter VIII.
In the last days we spoke gradually and sufficiently to your love of the doctrine concerning Christ, according to the teaching of our blessed Fathers. It behoves you now to remember the things spoken to you with so much care. They gave us a two-fold teaching concerning Christ our Lord according to the meaning of the Books, that He is not God alone nor man alone, but He is truly both by nature, that is to say God and man: God the Word who assumed, and man who was assumed. It is the one who was in the form of God that took upon Him the form of a servant,221 and it is not the form of a servant that took upon it the form of God. The one who is in the form of God is God by nature, who assumed the form of a servant, while the one who is in the form of a servant is the one who is man by nature and who was assumed for our salvation.
The one who assumed is not the same as the one who was assumed nor is the one who was assumed the same as the one who assumed, but the one who assumed is God while the one who was assumed is a man. The one who assumed is by nature that which God the Father is by nature, as He is God with God, and He is that which the one with whom He was, is, while the one who was assumed is by nature that which David and Abraham, whose son and from whose seed He is, are by nature. This is the reason why He is both Lord and Son of David: Son of David because of His nature, and Lord because of the honour that came to Him. And He is high above David His father because of the nature that assumed Him. |83
This is the reason why when our Lord asked the Pharisees: "Whose son was the Christ?" and they answered: "The son of David," 222 He did not disapprove of the answer given. It is the same evangelist Matthew, in whose account is the fact that the Pharisees were asked this question by our Lord, who wrote also at the beginning of his Gospel: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham." 223 He would not have taught this at the beginning of his Gospel had he known that our Lord did not approve of it; indeed he who took so much trouble to write faithfully his Gospel according to the orders of Christ would not have dared to put down in writing a statement that was detrimental to Christ. It is indeed evident that our Lord did not disapprove of that which was said to the effect that Christ was the son of David, in the sense that it was not well and rightly said, the reason being that all the Pharisees and the Jews were expecting Christ to come as a simple man from the seed of David. In this they were in harmony with the words of the prophets, and were not aware that the one who assumed the other who is from the seed of David, was the Only Begotton of God, who dwelt in Him and through Him performed all the Economy of our salvation, and united Him to Himself and made Him higher than all the creation.
It is because the Pharisees were not aware of all this that our Lord asked them: "Whose son was the Christ?"; and after they answered what they knew to the effect that He was the son of David, He said to them: "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying: 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool?' If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?" 224 In these words He gave them, by a hint only and not openly, the doctrine concerning the Godhead. At that time they transcended the intelligence of the Jews so much so that even the blessed Disciples were not aware of their meaning before the crucifixion. "If ye had known me ye should have known my Father also." 225 And again: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" 226 And again: "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall |84 shew you plainly of the Father." 227 And again: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name." 228 And again: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit when the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth." 229
One finds in the Book of the Gospel many passages which demonstrate that the Apostles were not aware of the Divinity of the Only Begotten before the Crucifixion, nor were they aware that God the Word was the Son of the Father and a true Son of God, whom we understand to be consubstantial with His Father. He knew that it was not yet time to promulgate openly this doctrine of His Godhead, but in His question He only gave a hint that they would not possess a complete knowledge about Christ as long as they believed that He was only a man and did not understand the Divine nature which was in Him and because of which the one who was from the seed of David became worthy of the honour of being Lord. David, from whose seed He was by nature, would not have called him His Lord if he did not believe that the one who was of the same nature as himself was something higher and better than the nature of men, and one who by His union with the Lord was elevated to such a great honour that He was believed to be Lord. He is, therefore, of the same nature as David because He is of his seed, but we understand Him to be also Lord because of the union that He had with the Divine nature which is the cause and the Lord of all.
We ought, therefore, to know the natures of both, the one who assumed and the one who was assumed, and realise that the former is God and the latter is the form of a servant, and that it is God who dwells and man is His temple which He built and constituted as His dwelling. This is the reason why He said: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," 230 which the evangelist interpreted and said: "For He spake of the temple of His body." 231 He called the man who was assumed His temple while showing that He Himself was dwelling in that temple, and through His dwelling He clearly showed us His power when He delivered it (His dwelling) to the destruction of death, according to His desire, and then raised it by the greatness of His might; and so that it might die He allowed it to suffer according to its nature while He, as Lord, impeded it from seeing |85 corruption 232 and from being delivered to dissolution. He allowed it to die because He wished it, and after its death, He raised it up according to His will.
He would not have said, "Destroy this temple" had He not known that He had the power (to say so), and since He is Lord He implied two things in the sentence "Destroy this temple": although it is in its nature to be destroyed yet I have it in My power that this should happen or not. I will allow it to be destroyed according to its nature, and if I do not wish it I have the power to impede it from being destroyed. "Destroy this temple," because it is impossible that I myself should be destroyed, as My nature is undestroyable, but I will allow this (temple) to be destroyed because such a thing is inherent in its nature; I would not have allowed this to happen to it had I not intended to do a higher thing to it; I am allowing this (to happen) to it because I am prepared to do another thing:
What is the meaning of the sentence "and in three days I will raise it up"? (It means) that when it has been destroyed I will build it up again and will raise it up at the resurrection from the dead in a state higher and better than the first; it will not be then mortal and destroyable in its nature as it is now, but immortal, indissoluble, impassible, and immutable; it is in this way that I will raise it up to a much higher state than that in which it is at present by nature; I will allow it to be destroyed in order that I may do something higher to it. Destroy, therefore, this temple; fulfil your wish; make use of your artifice; I will allow you to do what you wish so that after you have done it you should feel my power which is higher than all, as it is by it that I will raise it up from the dead and make it 233 into something higher than it is now. You will then realise that you would not even have been in a position to destroy it if I had not willed it, and that it would not have died if I had not permitted it; since I will it, however, it will be good to it: "destroy, therefore, this temple and m three days I will raise it up."
In these words He showed sufficiently the difference between Him and the one who was destroyable, because the latter was the temple and the former its dweller; the latter His dwelling as a temple, and the former its dweller as a God; not a temple for a short time only |86 and not one in which God the Word sometimes dwelt and sometimes not, but a temple from which it will never be separated, as it possesses an ineffable union with the one who is dwelling in it. He made Him perfect through His sufferings, as the blessed Paul said,234 and He received these sufferings according to His nature while He was in need of the One who was to deliver him from passion, the One who changed His nature and made Him impassible and crowned Him with sufferings. As to Himself He dwelt in Him, and He is by nature impassible, and has the power to make Him impassible also although (by nature) passible. In this way He perfected through sufferings and made immortal and immutable in everything the form of a servant 235 which was assumed as His temple, that is to say the man who was assumed for our salvation.
The blessed Paul said: "For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak, but unto the one about whom the Book testifies, 'What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels, Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands and Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.'" 236 After having shown that He did not take on Him the nature of angels but of man,237 he explained to us who was this man and said: "We see Jesus Christ who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of His death crowned with glory and honour " 238 in order to show that this man Jesus, who was assumed for our salvation, became a little lower than the angels because He tasted death, and that honour and glory are also placed on His head because He rose from the dead and through His union with God became higher than all creation.
And in order to teach us why He suffered and became "a little lower" he said: "Apart from God He tasted death for every man." 239 |87 In this he shows that Divine nature willed that He should taste death for the benefit of every man, and also that the Godhead was separated from the one who was suffering in the trial of death, because it was impossible for Him to taste the trial of death if (the Godhead) were not cautiously remote from Him,240 but also near enough to do the needful and necessary things for the nature that was assumed by it. It was necessary for the one through whom and for whom everything was (done) to perfect with sufferings the source 241 of the life of the many children whom he 242 brought to His 243 glory. He 244 Himself was not tried with the trial of death but He was near to him 245 and doing to him the things that were congruous to His nature as the Maker who is the cause of everything, i.e. He brought him to perfection through sufferings and made him for ever immortal, impassible, incorruptible, and immutable for the salvation of the multitudes who would be receiving communion with him.
In this way the Sacred Books teach us the difference between the two natures, and so it is indispensable for us to ascertain who is the one who assumed and the one who was assumed. The one who assumed is the Divine nature that does 246 everything for us, and the other is the human nature which was assumed on behalf of all of us by the One who is the cause of everything, and is united to it 247 in an ineffable union which will never be separated. This is the reason why on account of our association with it the gift which we are expecting to receive will also remain truly with us. The Sacred Books also teach us this union, not only when they impart to us the knowledge of each nature but also when they affirm that what is due to one is also due to the other, so that we should understand the wonderfulness and the sublimity of the union that took place (between |88 them). As such is the statement: "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ (came), who is God over all." 248 It is not the one who is of the Jews in the flesh who is by nature God over all, nor the one who by nature is God over all is also by nature from the Jews, but in his sentence the Apostle showed us the two natures. In saying, "of whom is Christ concerning the flesh" he alluded to His humanity, and in saying, "who is God over all" he taught us concerning the nature of His divinity; and he referred his teaching to one only by saying, "of whom Christ concerning the flesh, who is God over all."
As such also are the words uttered by our Lord in the Gospel: "If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before." 249 Lo, it is known that the Son of man who was a man by His nature was not in heaven before, but ascended up because of the Divine nature which was in Him, and which was in heaven. When He said also of His body that it can give immortal life to those who eat it,250 because the words that He uttered were not believed by the hearers, He endeavoured to convince them from the fact that although His words were incredible at the present time they will be credible later, as if He were saying to them: When you see that I have become immortal and have ascended up to heaven you will believe that you will partake of the things that will happen to me because of your association with me in those things, as the Divine nature which dwells in me and which was before in heaven will grant immortality to this one 251 and will take Him up to heaven and will grant you also communion with Him. He (Christ) uttered these words as of one in order to demonstrate the close union that took place:252 If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before—If this were not as we said He was bound to say: If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where the One who is in Him was,—you will understand the greatness of the Divine nature which is dwelling in Me and you will be astonished at the wonderfulness of the things that will happen to Me, and because of Me to you also.
As such also is the meaning of the sentence: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven." 253 He did not say that no man hath |89 ascended up to heaven, and I ascended up because of the Divine nature which dwells in Me and which is even now in heaven, but He referred His words jointly to one: "no man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven." He did not wish to say separately that no man ascended up to heaven but the Son of man who was dwelling in Him and who came down and was in heaven. He did not approve of this method of speaking and uttered His sentence in a way that it refers to one individual, and this in order to demonstrate and confirm the wonderful things done to the one 254 who was visible.
Any time the Book wishes to speak of the things done to the human nature, it rightly refers them to the Divine nature because they are high above our nature; in this it shows the union (of the Divine nature) with that man in order to make credible the things done to Him: it shows also that it is through the wonderful Divine nature which was united to Him that He became worthy of all this honour and glory, and it assures us that these same things will in the future be done to us. Indeed that man would not have been the possessor of such great benefits if He had no union with God, nor would we be hoping for all the future good things if the Divine nature that put on the form of a servant had not wished to grant to Him all those good things and extended their delight to us.
Because of all this let us learn the distinction between the natures and their union from the Holy Scripture and let us hold steadfast to this doctrine and understand the difference between these natures: that the one who assumed was God and the Only Begotten Son, while the one who was assumed was the form of a servant, which is man; that God assumed (man) for the benefit of our human race, and that (man) was assumed so that He 255 should remain in virtues and bestow on us the communion of His grace. We should also be mindful of that inseparable union through which that form of man can never and under no circumstances be separated from the Divine nature which put it on. The distinction between the natures does not annul the close union nor does the close union destroy the distinction between the natures, but the natures remain in their respective existence while separated, and the union remains intact, because the one who |90 was assumed is united in honour and glory with the one who assumed according to the will of the one who assumed Him.
From the fact that we say two natures we are not constrained to say two Lords nor two sons; this would be extreme folly.256 All things that in one respect are two and in another respect one, their union through which they are one does not annul the distinction between the natures, and the distinction between the natures impedes them from being one. So in the sentence: "I and my Father are one" 257 the word "one" does not annul the fact of "I and my Father," who are two. In another passage He said about the husband and wife that "they are no more twain but one flesh." 258 The fact that the husband and wife are one flesh does not impede them from being two. Indeed they will remain two because they are two, but they are one because they are also one and not two. In this same way here (in the Incarnation) they are two by nature and one by union: two by nature, because there is a great difference between the natures, and one by union because the adoration offered to the one who has been assumed is not differentiated from that to the one who assumed Him, as the former is the temple from which it is not possible for the one who dwells in it to depart.
All things said of two take the qualification of two when one of them is not differentiated by the object through which it receives the number two; as such is the sentence of the Scripture in which mention is made of four beasts: a lion, a bear, a leopard and another more dreadful.259 The Book said "four" because each one of them is a beast in its nature. As such also is the sentence: "The testimony of two men is true," 260 because each one of them is by nature that which the other is. Likewise in the sentence: "No man can serve two masters" 261 because any man who serves mammon with the same care as he serves God has both as masters.
Here 262 also if each of them was Son and Lord by nature it would be possible for us to say two Sons and two Lords, according to the number of the persons,263 but one 264 being Son and Lord by nature and |91 the other 265 being neither Son nor Lord by nature, we believe that the latter received these (attributes) through His close union with the Only Begotten God the Word, and so we hold that there is one Son only; and we understand that the one who is truly Son and Lord is the one who possesses these (attributes) by nature, and we add in our thought the temple in which He dwells and in which He will always and inseparably remain on account of the inseparable union which He has with Him and because of which we believe that He is both Son and Lord.
In any other passage in which the Book calls the one who was assumed "Son," it will be seen that He is called Son because of the close union that He had with the one who assumed Him. When it says: "Concerning His Son who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," 266 it is evident that it calls here Son the one who was made of the seed of David in the flesh and not God the Word but the form of the servant which was assumed. Indeed it is not God who became flesh nor was it God who was made of the seed of David but the man who was assumed for us, and it is Him that the blessed Paul clearly called Son.267 We understand Him to be Son and we call Him so; not for Himself 268 but because of the union that He had with the true Son.269 It is in this sense that our Lord taught His disciples when He said: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 270
This teaching we uphold in this way: as we call the Father Divine nature, and the Holy Ghost Divine nature from God the Father,271 so we call the Son the Divine nature of the Only Begotten, as in the case of the Father and of the Spirit, but to our knowledge concerning the Godhead we add the man who was assumed and through whom we received our knowledge of the Divine nature of which is the one who assumed Him, who is God the Word, and also His Father |92 and of the Holy Ghost. It is written: "The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth these works" 272 and of the Holy Spirit it is written that it descended like a dove and dwelled in Him.273 Indeed as the Father cannot be separated from the Son nor the Son from the Father—"I am in my Father and my Father is in me 274—so also the Father cannot be separated from the Holy Spirit. The Scripture says: "For what man knoweth the things of a man save the Spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God," 275 in order to show us that the Holy Spirit is always and without separation with God the Father in the same way as our soul is never separated from us as long as we live and are human beings. He was, therefore, Son by necessity in that form of a servant which was assumed, and the Father was with the Son and the Holy Spirit.
If He said concerning all men: "He that loveth me keepeth my commandments, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him," 276 and: "I and my Father will come unto him and make our abode with him," 277 why should you wonder if in the Lord Christ according to the flesh dwelleth the Father together with the Son and the Holy Spirit? Inasmuch as when we say ' Father, Son and Holy Spirit,' we name the Godhead 278 in which we ought to be initiated to religion and be baptised, so also when we say "Son" we refer to the Divine nature of the Only Begotten while rightly including also in our thought the man who was assumed on our behalf and in whom God the Word was made known and preached and is now in Him, while the Father and the Holy Spirit are not remote from Him, because Trinity is not separable, consisting as it does of one, incorporeal and uncircumscribed nature. We learned these things from the Sacred Books, and we ought to think and to believe accordingly.
Since the measure of things said suffices let us add here to our discourse glory to God the Father, to the Only Begotten Son, and to the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.—Amen.
Here ends the eighth chapter. |93
Chapter IX.
You have heard from what has been spoken to you how our blessed Fathers instructed us successively and according to the teaching of the Sacred Books concerning the Father and the Son without neglecting the Economy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Let us now bring forth what is written after this. The question will deal now with the Holy Spirit, and our blessed Fathers who assembled from all parts in the town of Nicea for the sake of that wonderful Council wrote about Him simply and without amplification by saying: And in the Holy Spirit. They thought that this would be sufficient for the ears of that period. Those who after them handed to us a complete doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit were the Western Bishops who by themselves assembled in a Synod, as they were unable to come to the East on account of the persecution that the Arians inflicted on this country. And later, when Divine grace put an end to the persecution, the Eastern Bishops gladly accepted the doctrine handed down by (the Bishops of) that Western Synod, concurred in their decision, and by subscribing to what they had said, showed their adhesion to them.279 If one looks deeply into the matter, however, one will find that they derived their reason for the complementary addition that they made later in their teaching concerning the Holy Spirit from the blessed Fathers who had assembled from the whole world in the first Council held in the town of Nicea.
The reason why our blessed Fathers did not hand down to us in a complete form all things that were said later concerning the Holy Spirit is clear and evident, and it is that at that time had risen the unholy Arius who was the first to blaspheme against the Son of God, and assert wickedly that the Only Begotten Son of God, and God the Word, was created and made from nothing. Because of this our |94 blessed Fathers rightly assembled and held a wonderful Council. The time was propitious for their gathering because the God-loving and the blessed Constantine urged them to it in order to destroy the wickedness of the heretics and to confirm the faith of the Church. This is the reason why they made use in their doctrine concerning the Son of clear statements and copious words for the destruction of the heresy of Arius and the confirmation of the true faith of the Church of God. They did not do the same in the case of the Holy Spirit because at that time no question had yet been raised concerning Him by the heretics. They thought that for a complete belief in the true faith it would be sufficient to insert in their creed the name of the Spirit in its right place according to the teaching of our Lord, and to teach all men that in the Creed and in the profession of faith it ought to be pronounced with that of the Father and of the Son. It is not possible for any one to have faith 280 if he does not name, profess, and believe in, the Holy Spirit together with the Father and the Son.
This is the meaning of their words in saying: And in the Holy Spirit. Men who did not include (in their words) any created being would not have inserted the Holy Spirit with so much care in their faith and in their creed side by side with the Father and the Son had they not wished to separate in this same creed all the created beings from the uncreated nature. It was thus necessary that the Spirit should be named and professed side by side with the Father and the Son, because He also is from the uncreated nature, existing from eternity, and cause of everything, to which adoration is due to the exclusion of all created beings. That this is so our profession of faith testifies; indeed faith is not professed in a created nature but in a Divine and uncreated nature; nor did our blessed Fathers discover and write a new doctrine from their own head but they clearly followed the teaching of our Lord who taught His disciples, saying: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 281
It is clear and evident that He made His disciples the teachers of all the world and ordered them to convert all men from the error of polytheism to which they were formerly clinging—by ascribing the name of God to creatures and giving honour to natures which did not |95 deserve honour—and to teach them to offer true worship only to the Divine nature which is eternal, not made, and the cause of everything. He did not order them to convert all nations from the error of worshipping those who are not gods by nature in order to bring them to the discipleship of one who is not God by nature, but He did order them to preach, instead of those who were wrongly called gods, the nature which is not made, is eternal and the cause of everything, and to which is rightly due the name of Lord and God because it is Lord and God by nature. The knowledge of religion consists in this faith, and it is (this faith) that is the cause of all good things.
It is in this name that we are baptised and expect that the communion of the ineffable Divine benefits will accrue to us through baptism. We would not have named at baptism a being that was not the cause of the benefits that we are expecting to possess. We name (Him) because we know that He has the power to grant us the heavenly and imperishable benefits in the hope of which we receive the gift of baptism. In the same way as (the Book) said: "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk" 282 and showed that it was Christ who was the cause of the cure of the lame man, in this same way where it 283 ordered: "Baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" it clearly showed that these names which are pronounced at baptism are the cause of all the benefits which we are expecting to possess. It is not to no purpose that it says: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," but in order that from their names we may derive our hope of enjoying the future good things.
As such also is the sentence uttered by the prophet: "Beside Thee we know no other Lord. We are called by Thy name." 284 (The prophet) shows here that they did not recognise nor did they name another Lord beside the one who is truly Lord. And again: "Because of Thy name we shall tread down our enemies," 285 and: "In Thy name our horn shall be exalted," 286 in order to show that they prevailed against their enemies through His name. In another passage he said: "I will call on the name of the Lord," 287 that is to say, I have believed that He is the Lord and also the cause of all |96 good things to me. (Our Lord) said here also: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in order that His disciples might learn from Him that all the nations were looking for this name as the cause of all their good things, because the nature which is called "Father, and Son and Holy Ghost," and in which we are baptised, is truly the Lord who is able to give us the heavenly good things which we are expecting and in the hope of which we draw nigh unto the grace of baptism.
As He ordered us to name the Father in the act of our disciple-ship and our baptism, because He is the Divine nature which is eternal and cause of everything and because He is able to vouchsafe unto us the benefits involved in the promise of baptism; and as He ordered us to name the Son because He has an identical nature and is able to vouchsafe unto us the same benefits, it is likewise evident that He named the Holy Spirit side by side with the Father and the Son for this very reason, that is to say because He is of the same nature as that which is eternal and cause of everything, to which is truly due the name of Lord and God. If in this creed He had wished to refer to a nature which was created and to another which was uncreated, we must admit that He neglected to name myriads of other created natures, that is to say, everything! A man with a sound mind will not think of such a thing.
It is clear that our Lord was handing down to us the doctrine of the Divine knowledge and teaching us the religious name which was congruous to the Divine nature in which we were to be baptised and which was able to vouchsafe unto us the future good things. We are thus ordered not to look for another name as the cause of the future good things except to that of the Divine nature which is eternal and cause of everything. It is, therefore, evident that He would not have named the Spirit side by side with the Father if they were not one Divine nature which was eternal and cause of everything, to which the name of Lord and God was truly due, and by the grace of which we shall also participate in the future good things.
Our blessed Fathers also meant this when they said: And in the Holy Spirit. They said this so that they might be understood by others that they were following the teaching of our Lord and so that they might intimate to every one that they also named the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son according to our Lord's doctrine, |97 because He also is, like the Son, of the same Divine nature of the Father, and we ought to believe in Him and to worship Him as the cause of the future good things. They left their statement in the above simple sentence without any amplification because no question had yet been raised by the heretics against the Holy Spirit; and they thought that the addition "Holy" placed after the name of the Spirit, according to the teaching of our Lord, was sufficient as a perfect doctrine for those by whom truth is honoured.
To men of good will the sentence used by our blessed Fathers according to the teaching of our Lord was indeed adequate, because they could not have taught us how to believe in things concerning a man in our profession of faith concerning God. They who taught clearly concerning the Son of God to the effect that we ought to believe in Him as consubstantial with God, would not have added in their profession of faith a word concerning the Holy Spirit had they not known that He also was of the same Divine nature of God the Father. The mere 288 mention of the name "Holy Spirit" was sufficient to demonstrate His nature as taught to us by the Divine Book, which indeed would not have called Him by this exclusive name if He was not of Divine nature. Actually there are many things referred to by the word "spirit" in the Holy Scripture: the angels are called by it: "He made his angels a spirit," 289 and also our soul: "His spirit goeth out and he returneth to his earth," 290 and likewise the winds: "He causeth the spirits to blow and they cause waters to flow." 291 Similarly all things which have a subtile nature in comparison with the visible objects, which our senses cannot accurately comprehend and which are not clearly defined, we call spirits.
Although numerous are the things which in common parlance are called spirits, yet this word "spirit" refers in an exclusive way, as the Holy Scripture teaches us, to the Godhead,292 which is incorporeal and can never be circumscribed. Holy Writ bears witness to the fact that it is called and is truly a spirit. This is the reason why our Lord said to the Samaritan woman who had believed that God was worshipped in a special place, and was contending against the Jews and asking |98 whether the place which was fit for worship was Mount Gerizim or Jerusalem: "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." 293 What He showed here amounted to this: all of you are in great error in believing that God is more in this or in that place. God being incorporeal and uncircumscribed is not confined to a place, but is in all places equally. A worship of duty and of truth 294 is good and obligatory when man worships while believing that God is incorporeal and uncircumscribed, and thinks in clear conscience that God is not confined nor circumscribed in a place.
As there are many beings who bear the name of "I am" 295—as all things created from nothing are so called because they "are"— when God was asked by the blessed Moses about His name He answered: "I am that I am. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." 296 He did not mean to say that there is nothing else that is "I am," but that this name "I am" belongs prominently to Him, not that He once was "I am" and once was not, but that He was "I am" eternally and always. In this same way there are many beings who bear the name of "spirits," but the word "Spirit" refers pre-eminently and is due to Divine nature which is truly incorporeal and uncircumscribed. If, therefore, it were possible to contend that when the Scripture says "Holy Spirit" it says it in a general sense and throws ambiguity in the minds of the hearers, who in hearing this very name "Holy Spirit" mentioned might think and say: "What is the precise meaning conveyed by the Scripture, since this name is applied to all the other beings who are called spirits?"—the case would be similar with regard to the name "I am" which Holy Writ applies to God because we would not be able to understand to whom it is precisely ascribed, as there are many beings who are referred to by the word "I am" 297 and it is not known whether man or another being is implied; this general term would, therefore, be in need of an addition through which the one who is called by it is distinguished. |99 We do not, however, understand God in this sense, either when we call Him "I am" or when we call Him "Spirit," because if we call Him "I am" we understand that in truth He is "I am" alone, and if we call Him "Spirit," He is in truth "Spirit" alone.
It is imperative now that we should discuss also the Holy Spirit and see to what kind of "Spirit" (the Book) refers when it says, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." There is no one who is so mad as to believe that this passage requires discussion, because it is known that the Divine Book is wont to refer by this name exclusively to one whom it everywhere names side by side with the Father and the Son, in the same way as it named Him when baptism was handed down to us. While all spirits have by general usage assumed one common name (of spirit) because they are subtile in their nature in comparison with the visible things, which are in no way grasped by any of our visible senses—this name "spirit" is rightly said with pre-eminence of the Divine nature as it is truly a spirit which is incorporeal and uncircumscribed. Thus we have understood Divine nature to be, and the Holy Spirit is called and professed by this name alone side by side with the Father and the Son because He possesses an identical nature with them.
As when we hear the name of the Father, although there are many other fathers, we nevertheless understand it to refer truly to one mighty God who is eternal; and as, although many are called sons, we, nevertheless, think only of one Son, who did not become, neither is He, a Son through the process of transformation—like the sons whom we have with us and who are born through the transformation of the (human) seed and are afterwards called sons—but He is truly alone Son of a Father who is eternal, and He is eternally from Him and with Him—, in this same way when we hear [the name of] the Holy Spirit we do not think of one of those beings who are called spirits but of the one who is truly called alone by this name and is incorporeal, uncircumscribed and confessed side by side with the Father and the Son in one Divine nature.
The addition "Holy" is characterised by the same implications as the name "Spirit." Although there are many beings that are "holy," as in the sentence, "When He shall come in the glory of His Father and of His holy angels," 298 and although there are also |100 many objects called by this name of holiness, such as "The tabernacle of the Most High is holy," 299 these are called holy by common usage only as having derived their holiness from God. The one who is truly holy is Divine nature. It is indeed said: "Thou art holy and Thy name is reverend"; 300 and even the Seraphim when they glorify they say in their canticle which is congruous to this Divine nature as follows: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the whole heaven and earth are full of His glory." 301
The one who is truly holy is He whose nature is immutable and unchangeable and He who has not received holiness from another but alone can bestow holiness on all He pleases. In this way the Divine Book calls Holy Spirit the one who is alone confessed, at baptism and in the act of discipleship, side by side with the Father and the Son, because this name Holy Spirit is truly due only to Divine nature. This is the reason why when we hear this name Holy Spirit we do not ask who is meant by it, because we know that He is the one who is alone (holy) by nature and who is named with the Father and the Son as an act due to His nature, because the nature of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one.
From this it is easily understood by men of good will that our blessed Fathers taught us sufficiently concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit when they placed Him on the same level with the Father and the Son, because in this they clearly taught us something that is in harmony with the words which our Lord pronounced to His disciples and which ascribed to Him a name congruous to Divine nature. It was deemed sufficient by them simply to insert this name in the profession of faith which they taught, because by its exclusiveness it is capable of demonstrating the nature of the one who is named.
This being the case it is only men of ill will who make show of insolence and call the Holy Spirit a servant or a creature, while some others amongst them although refraining from these words yet refuse to call Him God. It is with a sense of duty, therefore, that the Doctors of the Church,302 who assembled from all parts of the world and who were the heirs of the first blessed Fathers,303 proclaimed before all men the wish of their Fathers and in accurate deliberations made |101 manifest the truth of their faith and interpreted also their mind.304 They wrote to us words which warn the children of faith and destroy the error of the heretics. As their Fathers did in the profession of faith concerning the Son for the refutation of the ungodliness of Arius, so they did in their words concerning the Holy Spirit for the confutation of those who blasphemed against Him.
They thought that it would be the height of folly to call creature and servant one who by the mention of His name frees us from death and corruption through baptism, and renews us according to the teaching of our Lord, because a creature is not able to free us nor is a servant able to renew us. It was considered by them to be folly to hesitate to call God one who is truly God, as it is clear that one who is neither a creature nor a servant is God. If He be a creature, He is also a servant, and no creature and no servant are truly God. To call creature or servant one by whose name we expect to be renewed and freed—since in calling Him by His name side by side with that of the Father and the Son we believe that He will grant us renewal and freedom—is a great error 305 and an outrageous blasphemy. Duty compels us, therefore, to call Him God because no other nature can create, renew and free except Divine nature, which is neither created nor made, but is the cause of everything, is able to renew its works according to its will and has the power to give us freedom as it wishes.
Because of this and for it, it was right on the part of our blessed Fathers to proclaim in their creed that the Holy Spirit was Divine nature with the Father and the Son, and by the addition of short words to confirm the true doctrine of the Church which was to be made manifest to those who draw nigh unto the holy baptism: And in ONE Holy Spirit. What our Fathers wrote does not differ in meaning from: And in Holy Spirit. Although they made use of this word,306 well knowing that the Holy Spirit that was called by this name was one as the Divine Books had taught us, they nevertheless made its meaning clear by saying: And in one Holy Spirit, and thus brought themselves into harmony with the usage adopted by Holy Writ which in saying "one" Father and "one" Son says also "one" Holy Spirit. |102
This is the reason why the blessed Paul said in one passage: "By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." 307 And in another passage: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one God Father of all, who is above all and through all and in us all." 308 And again: "There are diversities of gifts but the Spirit is one, and there are diversities of administration but the Lord is one, and there are diversities of operations but it is the same God which worketh all in all." 309 He clearly shows here that as there is one Lord, because He is the Lord and there is no other beside Him, and as there is one God and there is no other beside Him, so there is one Spirit and there is no other beside Him. The created beings are numerous and different in their nature, but there is only one immutable nature which is the cause of everything, and outside this nature there is no uncreated being who is the cause of the created beings, and He who is of that nature is truly uncreated and cause of everything.
This is the reason why there is only one Father who is truly Father alone and Divine nature, and there is only one Son who is truly Son alone from the Divine nature of God, and there is only one Holy Spirit who is Holy Spirit alone and whom we have learnt from the sacred Books to call by this name, because He also is from that eternal nature and is God and cause of everything. He is also truly God and Lord alone because He created everything, and has power over everything, and is called and is truly Spirit because He is truly incorporeal and uncircumscribed, and to Him is due the attribute of holiness, as He is alone holy and immutable by nature, and as it is He who bestows holiness upon those He pleases and frees them from inclination towards evil.
All the created beings are not holy by nature but are receivers of holiness from the one who is the cause of their being. It is with justice, therefore, that when the blessed Paul exhorted the Ephesians to unity and to be of one mind, made mention of this nature by which they were to be of one mind: "Endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," 310 and as you were born of one Spirit in order to be one in your motherly bond 311 so you ought to be united and |103 joined one to another. In amplifying his sentence he said: "one body and one Spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling," 312 because as you were born of one spirit you have become one body of Christ who is the head:313 the man who was assumed so that through Him we might have relationship with Divine nature, as we are expecting to have communion with Him in the next world, because we believe that our vile body shall be changed and fashioned like unto His glorious body.314 We have been called to the hope of these (benefits), and we were born of baptism by the power of the Holy Spirit; and as a symbol and earnest of the future things we received the firstfruits of the Spirit,315 through whom we were reborn and by whom we obtained the gift of being one body of Christ.
In expanding further his sentence the blessed Paul said: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, and one God the Father who is above all and through all and in us all." 316 One is the Spirit of whom you were born, in the same way as one is the Lord and one is God whom we believe to be our Lord and our Maker and whom by the grace of baptism we have been worthy to call Father. One faith and one baptism: because although we say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we only profess one nature of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in which we are initiated to our faith and which we have agreed to name at baptism. It is evident that he would not have said one faith if he did not know that the names of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit through whom disciple-ship is effected were one nature; nor would he have said one baptism had he not been aware that those names which are pronounced at baptism had only one power, one will and one act through which the grace of our second birth 317 was accomplished.
The addition of the word one has, therefore, taught us sufficiently and accurately the Divine nature of the Holy Spirit. He is one as the Father is one and as the Son is one, and we believe that the (nature) of each one of them is identical, because the Divine nature, which is uncreated, eternal, and cause of everything, is one. It is known that the created beings are numerous and possess various and |104 different natures according to the wish of their Maker, and are bound to be always dependent on 318 that nature which is uncreated and the cause of everything.
Things that have now been spoken will suffice us for to-day, and we will leave off the rest for another day if God wishes. Let us, therefore, put an end here to our discourse and praise God the Father, the Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen. Amen.
Here ends the ninth chapter.
Chapter X.
I know that you remember what we spoke to your love concerning the Holy Spirit, when we showed the greatness of His glory from the fact that in the initiation 319 of baptism He is believed in side by side with the Father and the Son. We adduced another reason which is no less cogent than this from the fact that He is alone called exclusively Holy Spirit, a name which in the teaching of the Books is simply ascribed to Divine nature; and also from the fact that He is called one Spirit like one Son, one God and one Lord. To those who have goodwill in religion the words written in the sacred Books would have been sufficient; these have been written also in the teaching of our blessed Fathers, who, however, because there are no adequate words easily to convince an evil mind, added of necessity to their teaching a statement which they chose in order to warn the children of the faith and refute the error of the heretics. They inserted, therefore, in their doctrine words that resemble those said of the Son. In speaking of the Son it was sufficient for those who do not refuse to be convinced to state that the one who was called an Only Begotten Son was truly a Son consubstantial with His Father, but on account of the wicked men who are bent on perversion they added: Born of Him before all the worlds, and not made, true God of true God, consubstantial with His Father, and in this they made |105 clear to all the meaning of the name '' Only Begotten" in order to confirm the faithful and rebuke the haters of truth.
In this same way they inserted here also a word which gives us the true meaning of the name which is handed down to us by the Divine Books concerning the Spirit, who at the time of our initiation and baptism is confessed side by side with the Father and the Son. For people of goodwill in religion a word which would show that the Holy Spirit was of the Divine nature of God the Father would have been sufficient, but on account of people inclined to insolence 320 and steadfast in it and in blasphemy, our blessed Fathers were rightly advised, even after all this credible teaching, to corroborate the doctrine of faith by means of a short addition, for the benefit of all and especially for your benefit, you who are on the point of drawing nigh unto the gift of the Spirit. They, therefore, said: And in ONE Holy Spirit. They did not invent this expression but took it from the teaching of our Lord, who, speaking to all His disciples before His passion wished to instruct them on the kind of resurrection from the dead which He will grant to mankind, and said that He will bestow upon them the grace of the Holy Spirit from which is derived the happiness of the future good things, which are so wonderful and have such a permanent effect on those who are worthy to receive them.
He rightly instructed us in His teaching on the greatness and glory of the Holy Spirit, and by this He showed us the greatness of the grace which was to be given to the faithful, so that we should firmly believe in the wonderful benefits which from it would be granted to us and would never be taken from us. He said thus: "If ye love me, keep My commandments, and I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever." 321 He showed them in these words: You should persevere in keeping My commandments, never to deviate from them in any way, and since you will not be receiving a casual and ordinary thing only, you will have to show great care and diligence: you will be receivers of no less a gift than the grace of the Holy Spirit, which will be always with you and bestow heavenly gifts upon you. And in corroboration of what had been said He added something that shows the honour due to the Holy Spirit, and said: "The Spirit of Truth." 322 Indeed, it is |106 the nature of the Spirit to give everything in truth without any change, and because He is eternal, immutable and unchangeable in His nature He is able to bestow upon others the delight of heavenly gifts which will not perish nor suffer any change.
(The Book) calls falsehood a perishable thing that is not permanent, and truth an imperishable thing that is permanent. Because the one who affirms a thing which does not exist lies, and the one who affirms a thing which exists tells the truth, it (the Book) calls falsehood a thing which does not last because it becomes like a thing which does not exist, while it calls truth a thing which lasts and exists permanently. This is the reason why the blessed David said: "I said in my haste, All men are liars," 323 that is to say because I became proud and thought highly of myself I suddenly fell into dire calamities and was in danger, as if I was nothing, and was about to perish, if Thy wonderful help had not assisted me; I was astonished at the great number of calamities that assailed me and understood that it was falsely that I had thought highly of myself; I found by experience that human things are nothing and that in truth they are all false: wealth, power, might, and all things which are considered by men to be great and wonderful. All these things, nay, even the fact of our existence are also false, because we make show of this fact of our existence to deceive those who see us, while eventually we are cut off by death and reminded that we are nothing, and all the great things that we are supposed to possess leave us at the end of our life.
As (the Book) calls falsehood a thing that has no enduring effect so it calls truth a thing that is lasting and does not perish, as it is said, "Mercy and truth will meet us" 324 to show us that He (God) will truly grant us mercy. He is, therefore, called God of truth because He is truly able to give us all. It is said: "Thou hast saved us O Lord God of truth," 325 that is to say, Thou hast saved us from the calamities that are known to us because Thou alone art able to grant benefits that are lasting and imperishable to whomsoever Thou wishest. The blessed David said these things of God and called Him God of truth in order to show that He is truly able to grant everything.
Our Lord also said similar things of the Holy Spirit in order to confirm the truth of the future good things that will be granted to us |107 in the next world by the same Holy Spirit. It is as if He had said: The Holy Spirit, the gift of whose grace you will receive, is one who gives heavenly and imperishable benefits to all He pleases, and because He is eternal in His nature and immutable and unchangeable, the things which He will give will also last for ever and will not change or perish. It is not possible that the one who grants benefits which are unchangeable and imperishable should not Himself be eternal and imperishable in His nature, and such a one is indeed Divine nature which is eternal. In created things there is nothing that can last by itself; the one who may be so constituted is so through another; indeed, how can a created being have by himself the attribute of permanency unless this be given to him by his Maker? The one, however, who is eternal, because immutable in His nature, is able to grant imperishable benefits to others as He pleases.
In short, Christ our Lord gave us a great testimony about the nature of the Spirit, in saying, "The Spirit of Truth." This expression cannot in any way fit the created beings because they are very far from being able to give any lasting thing to others, as they themselves are in need of their Maker to remain in the state in which they had once been created. And He fittingly added: "Whom the world cannot receive because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him." 326 There is no reason to wonder that the Holy Spirit is so in His nature and in His power, as in His nature He is higher than all creation and there is no created being that can see Him and receive Him in His nature or understand Him, if He Himself does not reveal His knowledge to mankind by His will. This is the reason why He added: "But you know Him for He is with you and dwelleth in you," 327 and you rightly receive His knowledge because you have received from Him the gift of grace, which will remain with you for ever for the confirmation of the pleasures of the future good things in which you will be immortal and immutable.
Our blessed Fathers inserted this expression concerning the Holy Spirit as they had received it from our Lord, and added another: Who proceeds from the Father. This is also found in the teaching of our Lord to His disciples: "When the Spirit Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father, He will testify of me." 328 Here also He |108 revealed in advance the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit which was to be bestowed upon all the disciples after His ascension. In saying: "When the Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you" He refers to the grace of the Spirit which He was about to bestow on them. He was not going to send unto them the Divine nature of the Spirit which was everywhere, but He said this of the gift of the grace which was poured upon them and in which He called also the Paraclete the "Comforter," because He was able to impart unto them the knowledge which was required of them for comforting their souls in the numerous trials of this world.
After having spoken of the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit He began to speak of His nature and of the greatness of the honour due to Him, in order to show the character of the grace which they were going to receive, and said: "The Spirit of Truth." This expression denotes the greatness of His nature and His power to grant imperishable benefits to all He pleases. Then He added the sentence that "He proceeds from the Father" to signify that He is always with God the Father and inseparable from Him. This has also been said by the blessed Paul: "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit who is from God." 329 He meant by this that as the spirit of man is not separated from him as long as he is and remains a man, so also the Holy Spirit is not separated from God the Father because He is from Him and from His nature, and is always known and confessed side by side with Him To this our Lord referred as by a hint when He said: "He proceeds from the Father," because the Holy Spirit is a spring which is always with God and has never been separated from Him. He has not been created later but He is eternally in Him, and He is from the nature of God the Father, and eternal; and like a river with undiminishing flow, He bestows His gifts upon whom He pleases.
In this way He said also in another passage: "He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," 330 and the blessed evangelist interpreting this expression said: "This spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." 331 He explains here clearly that He was |109 speaking of the gift of the Spirit. He did not speak of the person 332 or of the nature of the Holy Spirit that they were not yet, when he said that Jesus was not yet glorified, because He was eternally before all creation, but He said it of the gift of the Holy Spirit which after the ascension of our Lord into heaven was poured and seen on the blessed Apostles and on those who were with them. He said that the gift of the Holy Spirit will be poured on those who will believe in Him, like an undiminishing flow of water, because it 333 will be given by God the Spirit, who thus makes manifest His work of giving eternal life to those who believe in Him.
He who says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father shows that He is eternally with God the Father and is not separated from Him, because He is always and eternally in Him. Indeed if gifts proceed from the Holy Spirit like a river, and if this Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is clear that He is eternally from Him and with Him and He did not come into existence later. As when the Book says that "a river proceeded from 334 Eden to water the garden, and from thence it was parted and became into four heads," 335 we rightly understand that the source which made these rivers to flow from Eden was not parted for the reason that it was from thence that it had to flow, so also when our Lord says in parable of the Holy Spirit that He proceeds from the Father, He gives us to understand that the Holy Spirit is not separated from Him, but He is eternally from Him, in Him and with Him, and like an undiminishing river He distributes gifts to all creatures according to the measure of the faith of His receivers, as the blessed Paul said: "There are diversities of Gifts but the Spirit is one," 336 and also "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." 337
In explaining this expression of our Lord our blessed Fathers said that He proceeds from the nature of the Father, that He proceeds from Him eternally, and that He was always in the Father and did not come into existence later. It is evident that he who is eternally from the Father and with Him, proceeds also from His nature, because it is impossible that anything should be with God which is not by nature from Him. |110
After this they added in their teaching concerning the Spirit: Giver of Life,338 an expression which aptly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is God like the expressions 339 discussed above. Our Lord said: "The water that I shall give shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." 340 He refers by His words to the gift of the Holy Spirit which gives everlasting life to those who are worthy of it. And again in another passage: "He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." 341 He calls living water the gift of the Holy Spirit because it can grant everlasting life. And the Apostle also said: "The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life" 342 and showed us that He will make us immortal. And again in another passage: "The first Adam was made a living soul and the second Adam a quickening Spirit." 343 He shows by his words that Christ our Lord was changed in His body, at the resurrection from the dead, to immortality by the power of the Holy Spirit. He likewise said in another passage: "He was declared to be the Son of God with power and by the Spirit of holiness, and rose up from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." 344 And: "If the Spirit of Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall also quicken your dead bodies because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you." 345
Our Lord also said when teaching us concerning His body: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing" 346 in order to show that He also had immortality from the Holy Spirit and to demonstrate this point to others. Such an act belongs indeed to the nature that is eternal and cause of everything, because to Him who is able to create something from nothing belongs the act of giving life, that is to say, to make us immortal so that we should always live. Even among created beings those who have an immortal nature are considered higher in rank, and it is, therefore, clear and evident that he who is able to perform this act 347 is also able to perform other acts. God Himself shows that it is the prerogative of the Divine nature to |111 do this in saying: "Know now that I am He and there is no God beside Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal." 348 He shows that it is His exclusive prerogative to raise from the dead and to free from their pain those who are wounded.
It is with the (above) words that our blessed Fathers warned us and taught us that we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit was from the Divine nature of God the Father. This is the reason why He is confessed and believed in side by side with the Father and the Son at the time of initiation and baptism. Each one of us is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of our Fathers, which is derived from the teaching of our Lord, so that it should be made clear and manifest to all that our blessed Fathers handed down to us the doctrine of the true faith by following the order of Christ. Even the words of the creed contain nothing but an explanation and interpretation of the words found in the teaching of our Lord. Indeed, He who ordered to baptise the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit showed us clearly that the Divine nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one. It was not possible that He should induce the Gentiles—who were converted to the true faith by casting away from them the error of polytheism and rejecting those who were falsely called gods—to receive a teaching that drew them nigh unto the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, if He did not know the oneness of their Divine nature which exists eternally and which is the cause of everything; (nor would He have induced us) to secede from those who are not truly gods and to believe in one Divine nature which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; to desist from calling creatures gods and to believe that the uncreated nature is one, which from nothing can make everything because it is truly Lord and God to whom this name and this honour are justly due.
This is the reason why our Lord caused baptism to follow catechumenate 349 so that baptism should be the end of catechumenate. It was necessary for those who had rejected false gods and learnt that Divine nature was one, eternal and cause of everything, which is |112 Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to receive through these names the gift of baptism which is bestowed for the sake of a wonderful happiness and is the earnest of the future and ineffable benefits. Faith is professed at baptism by the mention of these names, because those who mention them 350 designate one Divine nature which is eternal, cause of everything, and able to create all things from nothing while always caring and providing for them. We also rightly expect to be renewed and to receive the freedom of truth through these names of Father, Son and Holy Spirit which are pronounced at baptism.
Immediately after the profession of faith in baptism they (our blessed Fathers) added the profession of faith in: One Catholic Church. (It is as if the catechumen says): I shall be baptised in order to be a member of the great body of the Church, as the blessed Paul said: "One body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling." 351 He does not call Church the building made with hands, even if we suppose that it has been so called because of the congregation of the faithful who are in it, but he calls Church all the congregation of the faithful who worship God in the right way and those who after the coming of Christ believed in Him from all countries till the end of the world and the second coming of our Saviour from heaven, which we are expecting. When our Lord also said to His blessed disciples: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you," He added: "Lo, I am with you in all days even unto the end of the world." 352 He said the words "with you" in the person of the Apostles to all who will believe in Him in every country, and who will be baptised according to this teaching till the end of the world.
This congregation of the faithful and God-fearing men our Lord called also Church when He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 353 He promised to assemble together all God-fearing men to this faith and to this creed, and their gathering will not perish nor be prevailed against, in their fight with the enemies. Upon this the blessed Paul said: "To the intent that unto the principalities and powers in heaven might be known by the Church the depth of the wisdom |113 of God, which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord before the worlds." 354 He shows here that in this manifold wisdom of God the invisible powers were astonished that He assembled together all men to the worship of God, and made them as one body of Christ at the second birth from the holy baptism, and prepared them to hope that they will participate with Him in the future good things of the next world. He calls this Church the body of Christ because it received communion with Him through the regeneration of baptism, symbolically in this world but truly and effectively in the next, when "our vile body shall be changed, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body." 355 As we are in this world like unto the body of Adam and we resemble him also in our body, so we shall be called the body of Christ our Lord, because when our vile body is changed we shall receive the glory of His body.
The blessed Paul shows this in another passage: "I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is His church, whereof I am made a minister." 356 He clearly calls the Church the body of Christ, for the maintenance of which he became a minister, and because of this he endured and suffered much; and he shows also that all the faithful became one body through one power of the Holy Spirit because they were called to one future hope. This is the reason why in writing to the Corinthians he said: "You are the body of Christ our Lord." 357 Our Lord also said by way of prayer in His words to His disciples: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them which shall believe on Me through their word, that they all may be one as Thou Father art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us," 358 i.e. I desire that not only these but all those who shall believe in me through them, be one in the change (which they will undergo for the possession) of the future benefits; as I have with Thee a close and ineffable union so let them also be one in their faith in Us, through the perfection of their change (for the possession) of those benefits, and be like unto My glory and possess union with Me, by means of which they will gradually move to the honour of relationship with the Divine nature.
We symbolise this state in baptism, since we die with Christ in baptism and rise again according to the testimony of the blessed Paul.359 |114 This is the reason why each one of us declares: "I will believe and be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit through one holy Catholic Church." (The catachumen) shows by his words: I am not preparing for baptism for the sake of little things but for the sake of great and wonderful things and heavenly benefits, as I am expecting that through baptism I shall be made a member of the Church, which is the congregation of the faithful, who through baptism became worthy to be called the body of Christ our Lord and received an ineffable holiness and the hope of the future immortality and immutability. And it is one Church, which embraces all, on account of those who believe in all countries and expect to receive heavenly life, as the blessed Paul said: "The heavenly Church in which are written the firstborn of God." 360 He called them "The firstborn" because they will receive the wonderful adoption of sons 361 in a primary predestination, not like that of the Jews which was of a changing character, but an ineffable immortality and immutability in good, which is granted to those who are worthy of it. He called them also "written in heaven," because it is there that they will dwell.
They called the Church "holy" because of the holiness and the immutability which it will receive from the Holy Spirit, and "Catholic" in order to refer to all those who believed in all countries and at all times, and "one" because only those who believed in Christ will receive the future good things, and it is they who are "one holy Church." 362
In order to show the utility that accrues from this profession of faith they (our blessed Fathers) said: For the remission of sins. In these words they did not mean a simple remission of sin but its complete abolition. Our Lord said also: "This is My body which is broken on behalf of many for remission of sins," 363 that is to say all |115 sins will be wiped off, because a true remission consists in the remission not of some sins but of all of them, as the blessed John said: "Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." 364 This, however, will take place fully in the next world when after the resurrection we shall be immortal and immutable and when all the impulses of sins will cease. This is the reason why the blessed Paul also said: "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised, and if Christ be not raised your faith is vain and ye are yet in your sins." 365 He shows in this that in the future resurrection from the dead we are expecting complete abolition of sin.
Our blessed Fathers, therefore, after having said, Remission of sins, added: For the resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting. They show here that we shall receive these when we shall have risen from the dead and received the happiness of the everlasting good things, and then after we have become truly immutable, the complete abolition of sin will take place, and we shall become one, holy and Catholic Church, as we shall receive an ineffable holiness and become immortal and immutable and be worthy to be always with Christ: "When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O grave, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of the sin is the law." 366 Then will truly take place the abolition of all these: of death, sin and corruption, and with them the law also will be abolished because saints who have become immortal and incorruptible are in no need of the law.
Our blessed Fathers did, therefore, well to give us first the profession of faith through which we receive our teaching according to the doctrine of our Lord, and understand that which we have to learn concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, to the effect that the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Divine nature, which is eternal and cause of everything, and that this nature is rightly and alone called Lord and God, whom we ought to confess, in whom we ought to believe and to whom worship is due from all created beings. After this, they taught us the profession of faith (which is to be made) at baptism in order to show that all this is in |116 accordance with the sequence of the teaching of our Lord who said: "Go ye, teach and baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 367 Thus they 368 are taught and thus they perform the (sacrament of) baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Those who are about to be baptised in the hope of ineffable benefits ought not to name another nature beside the one from which all benefits are bestowed on all created beings. This is the reason why they added to this the profession of faith concerning the future benefits in the hope of which we draw nigh unto the grace of baptism, as by necessity we have to know what kind of benefits are granted to this discipleship, and also that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Divine nature, and also that at the second birth from the holy baptism we receive the faith in the heavenly and imperishable benefits that the Divine nature, which is eternal and cause of everything, is able to bestow upon us.
We have in many past days spoken to your love in a comprehensive way that embraces the explanation of all the creed. It behoves you now to remember carefully the words that have been spoken to you in order that by keeping without modification the creed of the religion of the fear of God you may truly receive the happiness of the future benefits, of which may God make us worthy by the grace of His Only Begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom and His Father, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, be glory and honour, now, always and for ever and ever. Amen. Amen.
Here ends the transcription of the ten chapters 369 on the exposition of the creed, written by the righteous and lover of Christ, Mar Theodore, bishop and interpreter of the Divine Books.
1. 1 Of the Council of Nicea.
2. 2 1 Cor. ii. 9.
3. 3 Cf. Eph. i. 8-9; Col. i. 26; iv. 3-4, etc.
4. 1 1 Cor. ii. 11-13.
5. 2 Ps. xcviii. 1. (Peshitta has "a marvellous thing.")
6. 3 2 Cor. v. 1 7.
7. 4 Lit. from.
8. 5 Col. iii. 10-11.
9. 1 Phil. iii. 20.
10. 2 2 Cor. v. 1.
11. 3 Ibid. Cf Heb. ix. 11, 24.
12. 4 Or written.
13. 5 Cf. Gen. iii. 18 etc.
14. 6 Cf. Is. xxxv. 10.
15. 7 John iii. 5.
16. 1 Cf. Rom. viii. 1 7; Gal. iii. 29; iv. 7; Tit. iii. 7.
17. 2 Lit. our first.
18. 3Or: religion, confession.
19. 1 Or: godliness. Does it possibly render the Greek Θεοσέβεια?
20. 2 Rom. x. 10.
21. 3 Heb. xi. 1.
22. 4 1 Tim. vi. 16.
23. 5 Heb. xi. 6.
24. 1 Heb. xi. 3.
25. 2 The word that I translate by "religion" literally means "fear of God," and it is possibly the Greek word used by Paul (θεοσέβεια) which the English Bible renders by "godliness."
26. 3 1 Tim. iii. 15.
27. 4 Lit. " who fully shows His Father in it."
28. 1 Deut. vi. 4; Mark xii. 29, etc.
29. 2 Jer. x. 11.
30. 3 Cf also Deut. xxxii. 39.
31. 4 Is. xliv. 6, etc.
32. 5 Lit. high above creation.
33. 1 Ps. lxxxi. 9.
34. 2 Ibid.
35. 3 Deut. xxxii. 1 7.
36. 1 Matt, xxviii. 19.
37. 2 Deut. vi 4.
38. 1 Gen. iv. 1.
39. 1 i.e.. He is Father par excellence.
40. 2 Exod. iii. 14-15.
41. 3 See on all this, p. 98.
42. 1 Ps. cxlviii. 1 -3.
43. 1 Ps. cxlviii. 5-6.
44. 2 Is. i. 2.
45. 3 Exod. iv. 22.
46. 4 The words baitayutha and kaributha used in these sentences may also be understood in the sense of the Pauline "adoption of Children" and of the doctrine of the membership of the Household of God spoken of in Eph. ii. 19. See the following chapter.
47. 1 Gen. i. 24.
48. 2Or: "servants created," if we read `abde for `ebade of the MS.
49. 3Or "human seed," or "movement" or "lapse of time." (Syr. marditha.)
50. 1 Here again is the Syriac word marditha.
51. 2 Lit. let us call Him.
52. 3 Ps. civ. 24.
53. 1 1 Cor. viii. 6.
54. 2 Lit. fear of God.
55. 3 1 Cor. viii. 6.
56. 4 Ibid.
57. 1 Deut. vi. 4.
58. 2 Matt. i. 21; Luke i. 31.
59. 3 Acts x. 38.
60. 4 Philip. ii. 7.
61. 1 1 Tim. iii. 16.
62. 2 John i. 14.
63. 3 1 Cor. viii. 6.
64. 4 John i. 3.
65. 5 Acts x. 38; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ii. 9-10.
66. 6In the text: Parsopa = πρόσωπον.
67. 7 Rom. ix. 5.
68. 1 John i. 14.
69. 2 Ibid, 18.
70. 3Ps. lxxi. 9, 12.
71. 1 Rom. viii. 29.
72. 2 Ibid., 23; Galat. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5.
73. 3 Col. i. 15.
74. 4 2 Cor. v. 17.
75. 5 Phil. ii. 7.
76. 1 Ps. lxxxii. 6.
77. 2Is. i. 2.
78. 3 Eph. ii. 19.
79. 4 Or "a servant," if we read `abda, instead of `ebadha.
80. 1 John i. 1.
81. 2 Ibid.
82. 1 Lit. person (Kenoma).
83. 1 The word "creature" may be translated in all this section by "work," "a created being," a sense which in reality fits some sentences better.
84. 1 John i. 1.
85. 2 Lit. high.
86. 3 Ps. lxxxii. 6.
87. 1 Lit. "one is consubstantial with the other," or "this is consubstantial with that."
88. 2 John i. 1.
89. 3 John x. 30.
90. 4 Ibid, 27-28.
91. 5Ibid, 29.
92. 1 John xiv. 9.
93. 2 Ibid., 11.
94. 3 Matt. xi. 2 7.
95. 4 Acts xvii. 28.
96. 5 Tit. i. 12.
97. 1 John i. 1.
98. 2 Ibid, 3.
99. 3Heb. i. 2.
100. 1 Cf. Rom. viii. 3; Phil. ii. 7, etc.
101. 1 Phil. ii. 7.
102. 2 Cf. Matt, xviii. 11.
103. 3 John i. 10-11.
104. 4 Ps. xviii. 9.
105. 1 Cf Phil. ii. 7.
106. 2 Lit. "from there."
107. 3 Ps. viii. 4.
108. 4 Cf Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27; xiii. 35.
109. 5 John ii. 19.
110. 6 Lit. "until with help he loosed."
111. 7 Acts ii. 24.
112. 8 This passage is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix., p. 218). It is stated in this Council that it is culled from Theodore's book ad baptizandos. See the "Prefatory Note."
113. 1 Ephes. i. 21.
114. 2 John x. 33.
115. 3 Phil. ii. 7-8.
116. 4 Rom. viii. 3.
117. 5 1 Tim. iii. 16.
118. 1 I.e. to the soul.
119. 2 Lit. "a man like a man."
120. 1 Rom. v. 12, 15 and 1 7.
121. 2 1 Cor. xv. 22.
122. 3 Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 56.
123. 11 Tim. iii. 6.
124. 2 Rom. i. 28-31.
125. 1 Rom. viii. 1-2 where "me" for "thee."
126. 2 Cf. 2 Cor. i. 9.
127. 3 I.e., personality, existence. I prefer here also to use the word "person" (in Syr. Kenoma) which is probably a translation of the Greek u9po/stasij in order to preserve the nature and the character of the theological terms used in the fourth century.
128. 4 I.e., as long as the animal qua animal is alive.
129. 5 The ancients believed the soul of the animal to reside in the blood. See Barsalibi's treatise against the Armenians, vol. iv., p. 33 of my Woodbrooke Studies, and `Ali Tabari's Book of Religion and Empire, p. 82 of my edition. Cf. Aristotle, De anima, i. 2, and Levit. xvii. 18.
130. 1 Lit. Receiving anything.
131. 2 Matt. x. 28.
132. 3 Lit. person of the soul.
133. 4 Possibly: because he resembles.
134. 5John xiv. 30
135. 1 Rom. v. 21.
136. 2 Note the use of the word ethhayyal.
137. 3 Cf. Rom. vi. 17, etc.
138. 4 Lit. received.
139. 5 John xii. 31 -32.
140. 6 Lit. "that He had a kind of judgment with the Rebel."
141. 1 1 Tim. iii. 16.
142. 2Heb. ix. 14.
143. 3 This passage is also quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix. 218). It is again stated in this Council that it is culled from Theodore's work ad baptizandos. See the "Prefatory Note."
144. 4 Rom. viii. 23.
145. 5 2 Cor. i. 21-22.
146. 61 Cor. xv. 53-56.
147. 7 Ibid, 57.
148. 1 This passage is also quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix. 218). It is again stated in this Council that it is excerpted from Theodore's work ad baptizandos. See the "Prefatory Note."
149. 2 Phil. iii. 21.
150. 3 Gal. iv. 4, etc.
151. 1 1 Cor. i. 18.
152. 2 Lit. in all versions: "that perish."
153. 3 Lit. "alive," as in the Peshitta.
154. 4 2 Cor. xiii. 4.
155. 1 I.e. natures.
156. 2 Rom. ix. 5.
157. 1 This sentence is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council. See "Prefatory Note."
158. 2 Phil. ii. 6-7.
159. 3 Lit. was found to be a man.
160. 1 Phil. ii. 8-11.
161. 2 Col. iii. 1, etc.
162. 1 Luke ii. 7.
163. 2Text: All these together with.
164. 3 Luke ii. 51-52.
165. 4 Lit. of men.
166. 5 Gal. iv. 4.
167. 6 Gal. iv. 4-5.
168. 1 Gal. v. 1.
169. 2 2 Tim. ii. 8, etc.
170. 3Heb. ii. 5-6.
171. 4Ibid., 16.
172. 1I.e. Christ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 23
173. 2 Col. i. 18.
174. 3 Lit. was perfected.
175. 4 Lit. head.
176. 5 In His baptism.
177. 1 Lit. with those.
178. 2 Lit. that world.
179. 3 Rom. vi. 17.
180. 4 Ibid., 3-4.
181. 1Rom. vii. 4, where no "Jesus."
182. 2 Acts. ii. 24.
183. 3 Col. iii. 1, etc.
184. 4 Heb. vii. 22.
185. 5 2 Tim. i. 9, etc.
186. 6 Tit. iii. 6.
187. 7 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. i. 14.
188. 8 Acts ii. 33.
189. 1 1 Cor. xv. 44.
190. 2 Lit. faith like this.
191. 3 Lit. here.
192. 4 Eph. i. 13.
193. 12 Cor. viii. 9.
194. 2I translate "He was" literally.
195. 1 1 Cor. xv. 3-4.
196. 2 Ibid., 4.
197. 1 1 Cor. xv. 14, 16-17.
198. 1 1 Cor. xv. 17.
199. 2 Luke xxiv. 51.
200. 3 Acts i. 9-10.
201. 1 1 Cor. xv. 23.
202. 2 1 Thess. iv. 16-17.
203. 3 Phil. iii. 20-21.
204. 4 2 Cor. v. 1.
205. 5 Ibid., 6-8, where "with the Lord" for" with Christ."
206. 6 Lit. those future things.
207. 1 Gal. iv. 26.
208. 2 1 Cor. xv. 23.
209. 3 Eph. ii. 1.
210. 4 Ibid., 5.
211. 5Ibid, 7.
212. 6 Phil. iii. 21.
213. 1 1 Cor. xv. 51-52.
214. 2 1 Thess. iv. 15-17.
215. 1John ii. 21.
216. 2 John x. 18.
217. 1 Acts. i. 1 1.
218. 2 Lit. did.
219. 3 Tit. ii. 13.
220. 1 2 Tim. iv. 1.
221. 2 Phil. ii. 6-7.
222. 1 Matt. xxii. 42.
223. 2 Matt. i. 1 (not literal quotation).
224. 3 Matt. xxii. 43-45.
225. 4 John viii. 19.
226. 5 John xiv. 9.
227. 1 John xvi. 25.
228. 2 Ibid., 24.
229. 3 Ibid., 12-13.
230. 4John ii. 19.
231. 5Ibid, 21.
232. 1Cf. Ps. xvi. 10.
233. 2 Or: do to it.
234. 1Heb. ii. 10.
235. 2 Phil. ii. 7.
236. 3 Heb. ii. 5-8.
237. 4Ibid., 16.
238. 5 Ibid, 9.
239. 6Ibid. The Pauline sentence ὅπως χάριτι Θεοῦ ὑπερ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου is rendered in the English Bible as follows: "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man." In this translation Jesus tastes death by the grace of God. In the West Syrian or Monophysite Versions of the Bible we generally read: "Because He, God, by His grace tasted death for every man." ([Syriac]) In this translation it is God who tastes death. Against such an idea the East Syrian or Diophysite versions of the Bible read as above: "Apart from God He (Jesus) tasted death." In this rendering death is removed from God. The sentence played a great part in the Christological controveries of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries. The Vulgate reads: "Ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem." For a full discussion of this passage and the different readings of the ancient Greek MSS. concerning it see Moffatt in International Critical Commentary (Hebrews), pp. 25-28.
240. 1 This passage is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix., 21 7). See the "Prefatory Note."
241. 2Lit. "the head" designating Christ.
242. 3 I.e. the man Jesus.
243. 4 I.e. God's glory.
244. 5 I.e. God.
245. 6 I.e. Christ.
246. 7 or: did.
247. 8 I.e. human nature of Christ.
248. 1 Rom. ix. 5.
249. 2 John vi. 62.
250. 3 Ibid. 51.
251. 4 I.e. Christ.
252. 5 Between the two natures, the human and the Divine.
253. 6 John iii. 13.
254. 1 I.e. one person, individual.
255. 2 I.e. man—Jesus.
256. 1 This sentence is quoted by Facundus and Marius Mercator. See the "Prefatory Note."
257. 2 John x. 30.
258. 3 Matt. xix. 6.
259. 4 Dan. vii. 4 sqq.
260. 5 John viii. 1 7.
261. 6 Matt. vi. 24.
262. 7 I.e. in the case of Christ.
263. 8 Text: [Syriac] = πρόσωπον.
264. 9 Lit. this.
265. 1 Lit. this, or that.
266. 2 Rom. i. 3.
267. 3 This sentence is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix., 21 7) as from Theodore's work ad baptizandos. See the "Prefatory note."
268. 4 Lit. nakedly.
269. 5 All this long passage is quoted by Marius Mercator in his book. See the "Prefatory Note."
270. 6 Matt, xxviii. 19.
271. 7 There is no mention of the Spirit proceeding also from the Son.
272. 1 John xiv. 10.
273. 2 Matt. iii. 16 where "lighting upon Him."
274. 3 John xvii. 21.
275. 4 1 Cor. ii. 11.
276. 5 John xiv. 21.
277. 6 John xiv. 23.
278. 7 Lit. Divine nature.
279. 1 Theodore is referring here either to the "tome of Damasus" against the Macedonians, which in 378 received at Antioch the subscriptions of 146 Bishops (see Hefele's History of the Councils, ii., 291 and 360-363) or to the Council of Constantinople in 381, or even possibly to the Synod held at Alexandria in 363 under the guidance of Athanasius, in which the Deity of the Spirit was affirmed. See Migne, Pat. Gr., xxvi., 820. On an earlier Synod held at Alexandria on the same subject in 362, see Socrates, H.E., iii., 7 and Rufinus, H.E., i., 28.
280. 1 Lit. to be fearer of God.
281. 2 Matt. xxviii. 19.
282. 1 Acts iii. 6.
283. 2 or: He (Christ).
284. 3 Isa. xxvii. 13 (Septuagint).
285. 4 Ps. xliv. 5.
286. 5 Ps. lxxxix. 24 (where his horn).
287. 6 Ps. cxvi. 17.
288. 1 Lit. oneness.
289. 2 Ps. civ. 4.
290. 3 Ps. cxlvi. 4 (Septuagint and Peshitta).
291. 4 Ps. cxlvii. 18 (Septuagint and Peshitta).
292. 5 Lit. Divine nature.
293. 1 John iv. 24.
294. 2 Lit. "of name," i.e. the name of the true God.
295. 3 I.e. who exist.
296. 4 Ex. iii. 14-15.
297. 5 In all this passage I have (for the sake of convenience) followed in the translation of the Divine name the English Version which renders the Hebrew words [Hebrew] by I am that I am and I have preserved throughout the first pron. sing. which is not always the case in the text.
298. 1Luke ix. 26, cf. Matt. xxv. 31.
299. 1 Ps. xlvi. 4 (Septuagint and Peshitta).
300. 2 Ps. cxi. 9 (with changes).
301. 3 Isa. vi. 3.
302. 4 Allusion to the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 381.
303. 5 Allusion to the Fathers of the Council of Nicea.
304. 1 The text repeats "of their Fathers."
305. 2 In a more literal sense: fear.
306. 3 Theodore refers here to the word "one" added to the creed by the Council of Constantinople in 381, or possibly to the "tome of Damasus" as accepted by 146 Bishops assembled at Antioch in 378.
307. 1 1 Cor. xii. 13.
308. 2 Eph. iv. 4-6.
309. 3 1 Cor. xii. 4-6.
310. 4 Eph. iv. 3.
311. 5 Lit. "from your mother." I.e. the Spirit. That the Spirit is our mother is found in John iii. 5. The word ruha, "spirit," is feminine in Syriac and corresponds linguistically with the neuter pneu=ma.
312. 1Eph. iv. 4.
313. 2Ibid. 15.
314. 3 Phil. iii. 21.
315. 4 Rom. viii. 23.
316. 5 Eph., ibid, (where in you all).
317. 6 Spiritual birth through baptism.
318. 1 Lit. "to have their whole look at."
319. 2 In the text talmidhutha. Evidently the author refers sometimes by this word to the "catechumenate" or the state of the "Catachumens" who were taught the principles of the Christian faith before their baptism. I have rendered it a few times by "initiation," "teaching," "discipleship."
320. 1 Lit. whose all look is towards insolence.
321. 2 John xiv. 15-16.
322. 3 Ibid.. 1 7.
323. 1 Ps. cxvi. 11.
324. 2 Ps. lxxxv. 10 (Septuagint and Peshitta).
325. 3 Ps. xxxi. 5.
326. 1 John xiv. 17.
327. 2 Ibid.
328. 3 John. xv. 26.
329. 1 1 Cor. ii. 1 1 (where τοῦ Θεοῦ).
330. 2 John vii. 38.
331. 3 Ibid., 39.
332. 1 Text: kenoma.
333. 2 Text: He.
334. 3I use in this section the verb "to proceed" in order better to follow the author's argumentation.
335. 4 Gen. ii. 10.
336. 5 1 Cor. xii. 4.
337. 6 Ibid., 7.
338. 1 It is said that the expression "Giver of life" was added by the Council of Constantinople in 381.
339. 2 Text only, "those."
340. 3 John iv. 14.
341. 4 John vii. 38.
342. 5 2 Cor. iii. 6.
343. 6 1 Cor. xv. 45.
344. 7 Rom. i. 4 (Peshitta and partly also the Greek text).
345. 8 Rom. viii. 11.
346. 9 John vi. 63.
347. 10 I.e. to give immortal life.
348. 1 Deut. xxxii. 39.
349. 2 See Matt, xxviii. 19. As stated above Theodore seems to refer by the word talmidhutha to the state of the "Catechumens" who were taught the principles of the Christian faith before their baptism.
350. 1 The text repeats "names."
351. 2 Eph. iv. 4.
352. 3 Matt, xxviii. 19-20.
353. 4 Matt. xvi. 18.
354. 1 Eph. iii. 10-11.
355. 2 Phil. iii. 21.
356. 3 Col. i. 24.
357. 4 1 Cor. xii. 27.
358. 5 John xvii. 20-21.
359. 6 Rom. vi. 4.
360. 1 Heb. xii. 23 (not literal).
361. 2 Gal. iv. 5; cf. Eph. i. 5.
362. 3 It is to be noted that Theodore does not mention the article of the Council of Constantinople in 381: "We acknowledge one baptism." This article was evidently lacking in the Nicene Creed. Below he refers to baptism but only in connection with the words pronounced by the baptizandus. There is, however, a reference above to the fact that after the "profession of faith in baptism they added the profession of faith in one Catholic Church." This sentence may possibly refer to the addition inserted by the Council of Constantinople.
363. 4 Matt. xxvi. 26, etc. (not literal but in a liturgical sense; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 24).
364. 1John i. 29.
365. 21 Cor. xv. 16-17.
366. 3Ibid, 54-56.
367. 1 Matt, xxviii. 19.
368. 2 The catechumens.
369. 3 Maimra more often means "discourse," "homily," and this sense seems to be more fitting for these catechetical lectures of Theodore. I have used the word "Chapter" throughout in order to maintain more clearly the book character given to the work either by the author or by his disciples.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: theodore_of_mopsuestia_lordsprayer_01_intro.htm
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, Baptism and the Eucharist (1933) pp.i-xxv.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, Baptism and the Eucharist (1933) pp.i-xxv.
WOODBROOKE STUDIES
CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS EDITED AND TRANSLATED WITH A CRITICAL APPARATUS
BY
A. MINGANA
VOLUME VI
COMMENTARY OF THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA ON THE LORD'S PRAYER AND ON THE SACRAMENTS OF BAPTISM AND THE EUCHARIST
CAMBRIDGE
W. Heffer & Sons Limited
1933
PREFATORY NOTE.
THE following pages contain the text and the translation of the second part of the Liber ad Baptizandos by Theodore of Mopsuestia. The first part, dealing with the Commentary on the Nicene Creed, was published in the preceding volume of the Woodbrooke Studies.
This second part is divided into six homilies or discourses which treat successively of the Lord's Prayer, the sacrament of baptism and that of the Eucharist, and like the first part is characterised by the high standard of Biblical erudition and theological acumen that stamp their illustrious author as one of the most profound thinkers of the Golden Age of Christianity.
In the opinion of some East Syrian scholars this second part of the Liber ad Baptizandos constituted a separate work from the preceding part. `Abdisho` in his Catalogue 1 calls the first part "Book on the Faith," and this second part "Book on the Sacraments." 2 The same thing is done by the author of the Chronicle of Seert 3 who even makes use of the Syriac word raze. The indications of the MS. favour this opinion. On the other hand, the Acts of the Fifth Council, as will be seen from the quotation given below, rightly attach it to the first part as one continuous text.
The Manuscript which contains the text of this volume is Mingana Syriac 561 from which I gave a facsimile reproduction in the preceding volume of the Woodbrooke Studies. Although the headings of the work give it, in the MS., as a separate treatise, we are entitled to consider it as one work with the |x commentary on the Nicene Creed, since the copyist himself, the actual author of these headings, places it in an unbroken sequence side by side with that commentary.
From the fact that all the discourses dealing with the sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist are preceded in the text by a synopsis of their contents, we may infer that they were used in the Greek Church of the Patriarchate of Antioch as a kind of text-book for the Catachumens, before they were translated into Syriac. On linguistic grounds we may also state with confidence that the first part and the second part of the work were not translated by the same man, and that the translator of the second part must have lived some years after the translator of the first part.
In the chapter that deals with the Lord's prayer, Theodore argues from the short words of the prayer which our Lord ordered us to recite that "Prayer does not consist so much in words as in good works, love and zeal for duty. Indeed, any one who is inclined to good works, all his life must needs be in prayer.... Prayer is by necessity connected with good works, because a thing that is not good to be looked for, is not good to be prayed for.... If you care for prayer, know that it is not performed by words but by the choice of a virtuous life and by the love of God and diligence in one's duty. If you are zealous in these things you will be praying all your life."
So far as the words "daily bread" are concerned Theodore holds that they mean our necessary food, i.e., the food that is necessary for the sustenance of the human body.
Theodore's Commentary on baptism and the Eucharist is of outstanding importance for the right understanding of the historical and theological background of these two Christian sacraments. In the sphere of history this importance can hardly be overestimated. In examining the extant Greek liturgical Manuscripts which contain these two sacraments, one is struck by the scarcity of old Manuscripts, and by the changes that their contents have undergone at the hand of liturgiologists and copyists of later generations. In this connection it is useful to remark that the text and the sequence of events, as exhibited by Theodore, are to be considered identical in every detail with |xi the very text and sequence of events that were current in the liturgical book of the Greek Church of the fourth century. Theodore's work is a commentary on the text of the Liturgy, and this commentary having been translated into Syriac shortly after his death, there is every reason to believe that it has come down to us without any alteration, addition or subtraction.
In the domain of Liturgy, the Byzantine Church generally made use of the Liturgies attributed to St. James and to St. Mark, and later, of the Liturgies attributed to SS. Chrysostom and Basil.4 In early times the Greek speaking Church of Antioch apparently made use of some such Liturgy as that found in the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions 5 and, with some omission and modification, in Didascalia Apostolorum.6
Taking first the Liturgies of SS. James and Mark, we find that the oldest Greek Manuscripts are represented by two pieces of a parchment roll of the end of the tenth, or the beginning of the eleventh century, formerly belonging to the Basilian Monastery of S. Salvator in Messina, and by Vat. Gr. 1970 of the thirteenth century. All other MSS. are of the fifteenth century and later. For the Liturgy of St. James, however, we have also Cod. Vat. 2282, of the ninth century,7 and for that of St. Basil we have MS. iii, 55 of Biblioth. Barberina, of the end of the eighth century. The manuscript evidence of the oldest of the above Liturgies is, therefore, some four hundred years after the time of Theod ore. Hans Lietzmann,8 who submitted all of them to a masterly study, does not seem to have a very high opinion of their authenticity through the ages. On page 261 of his work he rightly thinks that the Nestorian Liturgy of the Apostles may be older than all of them.9 "Aus der gleichen |xii antiochenischen Wurzel ist die fär den Jerusalemer Sprengel massgebende Jakobusliturgie erwachsen, die vielfach wie eine Parallelbildung zur byzantinischen Liturgie wirkt, vermutlich auch direkte Einflässe von dort erfahren hat. Sie ist ihrerseits wieder Vorbild fär die meisten der zahlreichen national syrischen Formulare geworden, die im Gegensatz zu der Erstarrung der Byzantiner in immer neuer Schöpfung die produktive liturgische Freiheit der alten Kirche bewahrt haben. Möglich, dass die nestorianische Apostelliturgie eine ältere Form repräsentiert."
As to the section of the Liturgy found in the Apostolic Constitutions Lietzmann is of opinion that many ceremonies described in it are of Jewish origin.10
The Liturgy commented upon by Theodore has many points of resemblance with that exhibited in the aforesaid Apostolic Constitutions,11 and with the exception of the generalities that are found more or less in all Liturgies, it has much less in common with the Liturgy of St. James, and that of St. Mark. Historical reasons would strongly militate against the theory that the Liturgies that pass under the names of SS. Chrysostom and Basil had spread to such an extent in North Syria as to justify a theologian like Theodore to comment upon them. Theodore himself makes use of sentences which suggest that he was commenting on an ancient and not a modern Liturgy ascribed to one of his contemporaries of the fourth century:
"There is an ordinance found (in the Church) from the beginning, to the effect that all those who have been deemed worthy to do the work of priesthood, should begin all the functions performed in a Church assembly with the phrase 'Peace be with you'" (p. 90).
"It is in this sense that the phrase: 'And to your spirit' is addressed to the priest by the congregation, according to the regulations found in the Church from the beginning" (pp. 91-92). |xiii
The ritual of baptism on which the author commented was also ancient:
"From what we have said, you have sufficiently understood the ceremonies which are duly performed, prior to the sacrament, and according to an early tradition, upon those who are baptised" (p. 35).
I shall not enter here into details and examine the points of resemblance and divergence that characterise the Liturgy explained by Theodore and the Greek liturgies described above. A whole volume would be required for such a comparison, and I will leave this task to professional liturgiologists, but it would be useful to state that the Liturgy commented upon by Theodore has nothing in common with the Liturgy ascribed to him, in the East Syrian Church, under the title of "Liturgy of Mar Theodore the Interpreter," nor has it any points of contact with the numerous anaphoras attributed, in the West Syrian Church, to various apostles, disciples and saints.
In the following lines I will give a short summary of the sequence of events and ceremonies of the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist as described by Theodore.
Baptism.
The catechumen comes to church attended by his godfather,12 and his name is written down in church books by the Registrar of baptisms. The godfather answers the questions put to the catechumen by the Registrar of Baptisms and becomes his surety for his past life, his preparedness and his competence to receive the sacrament of baptism. Then the exorcists come and "ask in a loud and prolonged voice that our Enemy should be punished and by a verdict from the Judge (God) be ordered to retire and stand far." During all this time the catechumen remains silent and stands barefooted on sackcloth; his outer garments are taken off from him while his head is bent and his |xiv arms are outstretched. Then he goes to the priest before whom he genuflects and recites the Creed and the Lord's Prayer and the words of abjuration which are: "I abjure Satan and all his angels, and all his works, and all his service, and all his deception, and all his worldly glamour; and I engage myself and believe, and am baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Then the priest "clad in a robe of clean and radiant linen" signs him on the forehead with the holy Chrism and says: "So-and-so is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Theodore calls this signing the first-fruits of the sacrament of baptism, which stamp the catechumen as a soldier of Christ, and as a lamb belonging to His fold. After the priest has finished his recital of the above formula, the catechumen's godfather, who is standing behind him, spreads an orarium of linen on the crown of his head, raises him and makes him stand erect.
The above ceremony has nothing to do with the sacrament of Confirmation which, as is seen below, is given after baptism proper.
Then the catechumen receives the holy baptism. He first takes off all his garments, and then is anointed by a deacon all over his body with the holy Chrism, while the priest pronounces over him the following words: "So-and-so is anointed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
After this, the catechumen is brought to a pond full of water, which the priest consecrates. Then the latter stands up and puts his hand on the head of the catechumen and says: "So-and-so is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." At the mention of each name of the Holy Trinity, he causes him to immerse himself in water and bend his head downwards. There are three immersions as there are three persons in the Trinity.
After his baptism, the catechumen "wears a garment that is wholly radiant." Then the priest approaches and signs him on his forehead, apparently with the holy Chrism, and says: "So-and-so is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." |xv
It would not be out of place here to compare the summary of the above sequence of events and ceremonies connected with the sacrament of baptism, as described by Theodore, with the corresponding ceremonies outlined in the VIIth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions:13
You shall beforehand anoint the person who is to be baptised with the holy oil, and afterwards baptise him with water, and in conclusion shall seal him with ointment; that the anointing with oil may be the participation of the Holy Spirit, and the water the symbol of the death of Christ, and the ointment the seal of the Covenant. Before baptism, let him that is to be baptised fast.
And when it remains that the catechumen is to be baptised, let him learn what concerns the renunciation of the Devil and the joining himself with Christ. Let, therefore, the candidate for baptism declare thus in his renunciation: "I abjure Satan, and his works, and his pomps, and his worships, and his angels, and his inventions, and all things that are under him. And I associate myself with Christ, and believe, and am baptised, into One Unbegotten Being, the only true God Almighty, etc."
After this, he comes to the water and the priest baptises him. And after he has baptised him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he anoints him with ointment and recite the following prayer which begins: "O Lord God." After this, let the catechumen stand up and recite the Lord's prayer.
Without entering into minute details, we may assert that there are points of resemblance between the ceremonies and prayers described by Theodore and those found in the Apostolic Constitutions. There are, however, so many discrepancies also between the two texts that we are compelled to state that, if our author was drawing upon the book of the Apostolic Constitutions, that book must have been in many points different from that with which we are familiar in our days. By common consent the Apostolic Constitutions are believed to have been composed |xvi in Antioch in the latter half of the fourth century.14 The text of the ritual of baptism commented upon by Theodore seems to be shorter and more archaic than that exhibited in the Apostolic Constitutions.
Eucharist.
After their baptism the catechumens were admitted to the Church and allowed to participate in the Eucharist. The author first speaks of deacons, whose function it is to bring the oblation to the altar and spread linens on it, as symbols of the linen clothes of the burial of our Lord. At the end of this preliminary act they stand on both sides of the altar and agitate the air with fans. All these things take place while everybody is silent. Then comes a vocal prayer "announced in the loud voice of the deacon." After this all become silent again, and the priest begins a service in which he offers "thanksgivings to our Lord for the great things which He has provided for the salvation and deliverance of men"; and "he offers also thanksgivings for himself for having been appointed servant of such an awe-inspiring Sacrament." At the close of this prayer the congregation says Amen." Then the priest says "Peace be to you," to which those present respond: "And to your spirit."
After this benediction the priest says: "Lift up your minds," and the people answer "To You, O Lord"; and the priest says: "Let us thank the Lord," and the people answer: "It is fit and right." Then the priest recites the prayer which contains the words: "The greatness of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and asserts that praises and glorifications are offered at all time to the Trinity. At the end of this the priest recites the preliminary prayer to the Canticle of the Seraphim, and then all the congregation sings in a loud voice the Sanctus. Then the people resort to silence, and the priest proceeds with the service and recites the prayer which begins with the words: "Holy is the Father, holy also is the Son, and holy |xvii also is the Holy Spirit." Then the deacon shouts: "Let us all stand up in great fear," at the end of which the priest begins the Epiclesis in which he prays that the Holy Spirit may come down and change the bread and wine which are on the altar into the body and blood of Christ. He prays also that the grace of the Holy Spirit may come down on all those present and on all those "of whom, by regulation, mention is to be made always in the Church." He recites these prayers quietly, and after that he takes the holy bread with his hand and looks towards heaven, offers a prayer of thanksgiving and breaks the bread. While breaking it he prays for the people and says: "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you," to which the people respond, "And with your spirit." He then makes the sign of the Cross with the bread over the blood, and with the blood over the bread, and breaks the bread and joins it with the blood.
Then the church crier shouts and mentions by name those for whom every one ought to pray, and before any other thing, he says: "We ought to pray for those who presented this holy oblation."
Then the priest offers a prayer, at the end of which he says: "Peace be to you!" and the people answer: "And to your spirit," while duly bowing their heads.
A little while after, the church crier, who is always the deacon, shouts: "Let us be attentive," and the priest says loudly, "The holy thing to the holies," and the people answer: "One Holy Father, one Holy Son and one Holy Spirit," and add "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen." After this all hasten to receive the Communion from the Communion table. The priest receives the Communion from the altar, and after him the congregation, from a distance.
"To receive the sacrament, a person stretches out his right hand, and under it he places the left hand." The communicant eats then the consecrated bread placed by the priest in his right hand. In giving the consecrated bread the priest says: "The body of Christ," and in giving the consecrated wine he says: "The cup of Christ," and the communicant answers "Amen." After some prayers of thanksgivings, recited by all the congregation, |xviii the Communion service and the liturgical prayers connected with it come to an end.
Of all the ancient Liturgies which I have consulted, the one which exhibits the nearest text to that given by Theodore seems to be the Liturgy found in the VIIIth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions, and, for the reader's convenience, I will give here a summary of it, similar to that given above in the case of Theodore, and will exclude from it the part which deals with the catechumens:15
Let the deacons bring the gifts to the bishop at the altar, and let the priests stand on his right hand and on his left, as disciples stand before their Master. And let two deacons, each side of the altar, hold a fan made up of thin membranes or of the feathers of the peacock, or of fine cloth, and let them silently drive away the small animals that fly about, that they may not come near to the cups. Let the high priest, together with the priests, pray, and let him put on his radiant garment and stand at the altar and make the sign of the Cross upon his forehead with his hand, and say: "The grace of Almighty God, and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all"; and let all with one voice say: "And with your spirit." And the high priest says: "Lift up your mind," and the people say: "We lift it to the Lord"; and the high priest says: "Let us give thanks to the Lord," and the people say: "It is fit and right."
After this, the high priest recites a long prayer which ends with the Sanctus recited by all the congregation. Afterwards, the high priest recites a prayer which begins: "For You are truly holy," in which are found the words of the Institution. At the end of it the people say "Amen"; and the bishop says: "The peace of God be with you all"; and the people answer: "And with your spirit."
After this the deacon recites a long prayer at the end of which the congregation says "Amen." Then the deacon says: "Let us be attentive," after which the bishop says: "Holy things for holy persons," at the end of which the people answer, "There is |xix One that is holy, there is one Lord, one Jesus Christ blessed for ever, to the glory of God the Father. Amen. Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will among men. Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord, being the Lord God who appeared to us. Hosanna in the highest."
After this, "Let the bishop partake, then the presbyters and deacons and sub-deacons and the readers and the singers and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses and the virgins and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without tumult. And let the bishop give the oblation saying: 'The body of Christ'; and let him that receiveth say, 'Amen.' And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say: the blood of Christ, the cup of Life'; and let him that drinketh say, 'Amen.' And let the 33rd Psalm be said, while all the rest are partaking, and when all, both men and women, have partaken, let the deacons carry what remains into the vestry.
"And then let the deacon recite the prayer which begins: 'Now we have received the precious body and the precious blood of Christ, let us give thanks to Him who has thought us worthy to partake of these His holy mysteries.' "
After this the bishop gives thanks in a long prayer which begins: "O Lord God Almighty," at the end of which the deacon says: "Depart in peace."
As I stated above, I do not intend to make a thorough comparison with the points of resemblance and divergence found in the Liturgy commented upon by Theodore and the text of the Apostolic Constitutions. It appears to me, however, that, in the Eucharist as in baptism, the text commented upon by Theodore represents a more ancient layer in the development of the Liturgy.
The next liturgical text with which it would be useful to compare the present work of Theodore is that of the early Clementine literature, better known under the name of Testamentum Domini:16
Then the bishop, in offering thanksgivings, says the |xx awe-inspiring words: "Our Lord be with you," and the people answer: "And with your spirit," and the bishop says: "Lift up your hearts," and the people answer: "They are with the Lord"; and the bishop says: "Let us thank the Lord," and the people answer: "It is fit and right"; and the bishop shouts: "The holy things with the holy people," and the people answer: "In heaven and earth without ceasing."
Then the bishop offers thanksgivings for the oblation and recites a prayer which begins: "We thank You, O God," followed by another prayer recited also by the people, which begins: "In remembering Thy death and resurrection." Then the bishop recites the prayer which begins: "We offer You these thanksgivings," at the end of which the people say: "Amen."
After this, the deacon exhorts to prayer and the bishop recites a short invocation to which the people respond "Amen," while reciting it with the bishop.
At the end of all this comes the prayer of dismissal, which is: "May the name of the Lord be blessed for ever."
The congregation proceeds then to receive the holy communion in the following order: bishops, priests, deacons, widows, readers, sub-deacons, those endowed with gifts, those who have been newly baptised, and last of all, the children. The order of the communion for the laity is as follows: old men, ascetics, and the rest; and for the women: first the deaconesses, and then the rest.
Before receiving the communion, the communicant says "Amen," and after the communion, he says: "Holy, holy, holy, the ineffable Trinity. Grant me to receive this Eucharistic bread to salvation and not to damnation," etc. In partaking of the cup, let the communicant say twice: "Amen." After this the service comes to an end.
It is easily seen that the text of the Testamentum Domini has fewer points of contact with the text of the Apostolic Constitutions than the Liturgy commented upon by Theodore.
There is no need here to dilate on the additions to all the aforesaid liturgical texts made by A. Baumstark,17 A. Rucker,18 |xxi and Rahmani,19 nor to the papyrus of Dair-Balizah, edited by Schermann,20 nor to the much advertised Euchologium of Serapion,21 as none of them could possibly have had any influence on the Church of North Syria in the time of Theodore.
As in the preceding part I shall not attempt to give a synopsis of Theodore's views concerning the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist and other Christian doctrines of the Golden Age of Christianity which are discussed in this part of his work. Let Theodore speak for himself in his own words, which can easily be understood by any intelligent reader familiar with the phraseology of the Fathers of the fourth century. I will, however, quote here the following beautiful passage concerning the sacrament of penitence:—
"It is right for us to draw near to the priests with great confidence and to reveal our sins to them, and they, with all diligence, pain and love, and according to the rules laid down above, will give healing to sinners. And they will not disclose the things that are not to be disclosed, but they will keep to themselves the things that have happened, as fits true and loving fathers, bound to safeguard the shame of their children, while striving to heal their bodies" (p. 123).
About the reception of the holy communion I will quote the following passage: "It is right for us, therefore, neither wholly to abstain from communion nor to go to it unworthily, but we must strive with all our power after the things that are right, and after having thus striven we must hasten to receive communion, well aware that if we devote our life to unworthiness, and sin fearlessly, and do anything we take fancy to, and are careless of our duty, we shall eat and drink this food and this beverage which words cannot describe, to our damnation; but if we are careful of our salvation, and hasten towards good works and meditate upon them continually in our mind, the sins that come to us involuntarily from (human) weakness will not injure us; on the contrary, we will acquire great help from our communion. Indeed, the body and the blood of our Lord, and the grace |xxii of the Holy Spirit that is promised to us therefrom, will strengthen us in doing good works, and invigorate our minds, while driving away from us all ungodly thoughts and surely quenching (the fire) of sins, as long as we have committed them involuntarily, and they have come to us against our will, from the weakness of our nature, and we have fallen into them against our desire, and because of them we have sorrowed intensely and prayed God in great repentance for our trespasses. The communion of the holy Sacrament will, without doubt, grant us the remission of trespasses of this kind, since our Lord plainly said: 'This is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins, and this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins,' and: 'I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.'
If therefore we sin carelessly, it is hard for us to draw near to the holy Sacrament, but if we do good works with diligence and turn away from evil works and truly repent of the sins that come to us, we will undoubtedly obtain the gift of the remission of sins in our reception of the holy Sacrament, according to the words of Christ our Lord, because while we were sinners we have been chosen to a penitence, a deliverance and a salvation that embrace all, solely by the grace of the One who has called us" (p. 117).
For the time following the reception of the Sacrament, the following passage is also worth quoting: "As to you, after you have received the body, you offer adoration as a confession of the power placed in your hands, while remembering the words uttered by our Lord to His disciples after He rose from the dead: 'All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.' You press it with great and true love to your eyes and kiss it, and you offer (to it) your prayers as if to Christ our Lord, who is at present so near to you, and in whom you believed before that you had confidence, which you will receive now that you have drawn near to Him and held Him. You pray, while confessing your weakness, the great number of your sins, and your great unworthiness for such a gift. You glorify also in a fitting manner the One who granted these things to a person such as you, and rendered you worthy to receive help from Him to the extent |xxiii that you became worthy to receive the communion, free from all evil things and doing all the things that please Him" (p. 113).
A general note that rings through all Theodore's doctrine about the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist is that what happens in them is a figure of the reality that will take place in the Kingdom of Heaven, which God established in the next world. All the benefits which we derive from baptism and the Eucharist are symbols of the real gifts of God which will be bestowed upon us in our future life "in Jerusalem which is above, free, and mother of us all" (Gal. iv. 26). The author quotes also, in this connection, the sentence in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "You are come into Mount Zion and into the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, and to the church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven" (Heb. xii. 22-23).
In Theodore's opinion we shall go to the Kingdom of Heaven because, in Christ's words: "We shall be the children of God, being the children of the Resurrection" (Luke xx. 36).
It may be useful also to remark that what the author means by discipleship (Syr. talmidhutha) 22 throughout his work, may possibly refer to the act of anointing or signing which the catechumens received before their baptism. This ceremony, which was performed in the early Church, seems to imply that a believer was "stamped" as a lamb belonging to the fold of Christ.
In the first part of the book 23 I gave six quotations from Theodore's work found in the Acts of the fifth Council. The following quotation from the Acts of this Council is found in the present volume:—
Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio (Vol. IX, p. 217).
Ejusdem Theodori ex eodem libro:
[Latin, Syriac omitted] |xxiv
In reading the first part of Theodore's work ad Baptizandos, which was published in the fifth volume of the Woodbrooke Studies, I came across a few inaccuracies to which I wish to draw attention.
P. 19, 11.25 and 28. The word translated by "incident" literally means "distinction." |xxv
P. 21, 1. 4. For "the first man" read "our forerunner" and change the Note to "Cf. Heb. vi. 20." P. 21, 1. 11. Attach note 3 to "faith." P. 84,1.16. Read "his" not with a capital "H." P. 87, 1. 8. Read (made) for (done).
P. 90 1. 22. Instead of "differentiated" it would be better to read "affected." Although "differentiated" corresponds more literally with the text, "affected" will be better understood by an English reader.
P. 92, 1. 1. Delete "of."
P. 98, 1. 16. For "prominently" read "pre-eminently."
P. 101, 1. 29. Add "the" before "Holy Spirit."
P. 114, 1. 1. For "I will believe and be baptised" read "I believe and am baptised."
It is a pleasing duty to offer here my sincerest thanks to Mr. Edward Cadbury for his generosity and unfailing interest in the Woodbrooke Studies, which are making no small contribution towards the solution of many problems dealing with the history and doctrine of early Church; and to the Aberdeen University Press for the satisfactory way in which they have performed their difficult task.
Selly Oak Colleges Library, Birmingham,
16th December, 1932.
[Footnotes renumbered and moved to the end]
1. 1 See Woodbrooke Studies, Vol. V, p. 7.
2. 2 Assemani, Bib. Orient. iii, 33.
3. 3 Pat. Orient. V, 290.
4. 1 Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Vol. I (Oxford 1896).
5. 2 Or possibly with one of the Liturgies spoken of below.
6. 3 There is no liturgy of the Eucharist in the Syriac Didascalia as edited by Mrs. Gibson in Horae Semiticae No. I.
7. 4 Baumstark and Schermann in Oriens Christianus, iii, 214 sqq.
8. 5 Messe und Herrenmahl, eine Studie zur Geschichte der Liturgie (Bonn, 1926).
9. 6 Lietzmann's conclusion as to the priority of the Nestorian Liturgy is reached also after careful consideration by the late Archbishop Joseph David in his Arabic work entitled Kusara, p. 55.
10. 1 Messe und Herrenmahl, pp. 127-131.
11. 2 I am including in this section the recension of the Clementine literature, edited and translated by Rahmani under the title of Testamentum Domini (Mainz, 1899). See below.
12. 1 There is no question in Theodore of the children's baptism; all the persons admitted to baptism were adults who had received a thorough education and instruction in the theological points explained by him in his present work, ad Baptizandos.
13. 1 Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. XVII, Part II, pp. 185-204.
14. 1 Brightman, ibid., p. xxix of the Introduction. Lietzmann (op. cit., p. 261) writes also as follows: "Auf ihr (i.e., the Liturgy of Hippolytus) baut sich die antiochenische Liturgie des iv Jh. auf, von der uns eine massgebende Textform im viii (und ii) Buch der Constitutiones Apostolorum vorliegt."
15. 1 Brightman, ibid., pp. 14-27, and Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. XVII, pp. 224-237.
16. 1 My references will be here to a MS. of my Collection, Mingana Syr. 12, ff. 11a-17b, and not to the printed text edited by Rahmani in 1899 of which I spoke above.
17. 1 In his well-known Kleine Texte No. 35 (1909).
18. 2 Liturgie-geschicht. Quell. Heft. 4 (1923).
19. 1 Vetusta documenta liturgica (1908), pp. 25-82.
20. 2 Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. 36 (1910).
21. 3 Edited by Wobbermin in Texte und Untersuchungen 17, Heft. 3 (1898).
22. 1 I have translated this word sometimes by "initiation," and some other times by "discipleship," and very rarely by "catechumenate."
23. 2 Woodbrooke Studies, Vol. V, pp. 8-11.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: theodore_of_mopsuestia_lordsprayer_02_text.htm
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, Baptism and the Eucharist (1933) pp.1-123.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, Baptism and the Eucharist (1933) pp.1-123.
Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3.
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
[Translated by Alphonse Mingana]
With your assistance, O Lord Jesus Christ, I will begin to write the explanation of the sacraments by the blessed Mar Theodore. Help me, our Lord, and bring my work to completion. Amen.
Chapter I.
Because by the grace of God we spoke to you yesterday of the subject of faith, which our blessed Fathers wrote for our instruction according to the words of the Divine Books, in order to initiate us, in accordance with the doctrine of our Lord, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit— it is fitting that we should speak to-day of the necessary things concerning the prayer which was taught by our Lord, and which they made to follow the words of the Creed, so that it should be learnt and kept in memory by those who come near to the faith of baptism. Our Lord also, after having said: "Go you, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," added: And teach them to observe all things I have commanded you." He showed in this that, alongside the doctrine of religion and the right knowledge, we should endeavour to harmonise our lives with the Divine commandments. They added to the words of the Creed the prayer which our Lord taught in short terms to His disciples, because it contains the teaching for good works, in a sufficient manner. Every prayer contains teaching of good works to any one who cares to think attentively of duty, because we wish our works to be that which we ask in our prayer that they should be. He who cares, therefore, for perfection and is anxious to do the things that are pleasing to God, will pay |2 more attention to prayer than any other thing, and he who does not care for any virtue and is not anxious to do the things that are pleasing to God, it is clear that he will show also no interest in prayer.
As we are pleased at all times to meet, and to deal and converse with, a person whom we love most, and as we do not care to meet or to speak to people whom we do not love, so those who possess God in their mind and are very anxious to do the things that please Him are wont to make use of frequent prayers, because they believe that they work and converse with Him when they pray. He, therefore, who despises Divine things and cares for other things is not anxious to pray. This is the reason why the blessed Paul orders us to pray always so that by the frequency of prayer we should implant in us the love of God and the zeal for the things that please Him.
This is the reason why our Lord also, who was man by sight and by nature, and who put in practice this mode of life and good works, showed great zeal for prayer; and because He was busy in day-time with teaching the things that were necessary, He devoted the hours of His night to the work of prayer. He used to go to lonely places in order to teach that it is necessary for the one who prays to be free from every care, so that he might extend the sight of his soul towards God and contemplate Him, and not be drawn to any other thing. He chose His times and places so that He might attract us and save us from all the disquietude by which the soul is disturbed and agitated, and sometimes involuntarily distracted from the subject it has in mind.
Because He used to do these things in this way, as the blessed Luke said, His disciples came and asked Him how it was fitting to pray, since John had also taught his disciples; and He taught perfection conveniently in the short words of prayer, which He uttered, saying: "After this manner, therefore, pray you:
"Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name, Your kingdom come, Your will be done as in heaven so in earth. |3 Give us to-day our necessary bread, and forgive us our debts and our sins as we have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for Yours is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen."
He made use of these short words as if to say that prayer does not consist so much in words as in good works, love and zeal for duty. Indeed, any one who is inclined to good works, all his life must needs be in prayer, which is seen in his choice of these good works. Prayer is by necessity connected with good works, because a thing that is not good to be looked for is not good to be prayed for. More wicked than death by stoning is death, which would come to us if we asked God to grant us things which contradict His commandments. He who offers such prayers incites God to wrath rather than to reconciliation and mercy. A true prayer consists in good works, in love of God, and diligence in the things that please Him. He who is intent on these things and whose mind contemplates them, prays without hindrance always, and at all times, whenever he does the things that please (God). To such a one invocations of prayers are always needful, because it is fitting for him who strives after good things to ask God to help him in these same things after which he is striving, in order that all his life might be in accordance with God's will. And it is known that such a one will have his prayers answered, because it is impossible that he who is diligent in the Divine commandments and acts according to them and does not break them, should not assuredly receive help from Him who enacted them; it is likewise clear beforehand that he who leads a life that is not in harmony with them, will not receive any help from prayer, since he is caring for things which do not please God and asking for such things as he himself chose to do all his life.
This is the reason why our Lord also taught us, as the blessed Luke said, not to faint in praying, and by means of a parable instructed us about it. He said: "There was in a city a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man. And a widow |4 who was being injured by a man who was stronger than she was, came to him incessantly and asked him for the cessation of the injustice that was done to her. He postponed her (case) for a long time, but at the end he was overcome by the persistence of the woman, who was urging on him to take up her case and deliver her from the tyrant, who was doing injustice to her and who was stronger than she was." And He added this: "Hear what the unjust judge said: Because this widow troubles me I will avenge her lest by her continual coming she weary me. And shall not God avenge His own elect which cry day and night to Him, though He bear long with them "?
Because those who strive after perfection have unceasing molestation from the urges of nature, from the promptings of the demons, and from daily happenings which often cause many to stumble and deviate from the path of duty, they have a constant struggle in this world; and in order that they might not think that God had forsaken them, from the fact that they have not a moment of rest from their daily struggle, He did well to allude to an unjust judge, so that by a comparison with him, He might confirm the fact that it is not possible that God should forsake those who chose to do good things. Indeed, if that tyrant who had not the smallest care for justice, and did not fear God and regard man, was overcome by the troublesome persistence of the woman and did his duty and avenged her, without hope of reward, against the man who was acting unjustly towards her, now do you think that God, who is so merciful and compassionate, who did everything for our salvation and deliverance, and who does not bear to forsake even those who sin, will forsake those who strive after good things and are diligent in things that please Him? Indeed, it is not because He forsakes them that He permits them to be beset by tribulations and daily temptations, which they are forced to endure against their will, either from the promptings of natural passions or from the weakness which is inherent in them and because of which they are often drawn against their will towards things that are not laudable, and have to endure a great fight against the demons, as they are constantly |5 compelled to struggle against the passions which arise from natural happenings.
The benefits that are promised to them because of these tribulations are no ordinary ones, and He fulfils their desires and makes them worthy of His great Providence. He permits them to endure tribulations and afflictions in this world in order that, because of them, they may receive eternal and ineffable gifts.
This is the reason why here also He uttered the above words to the disciples who had asked Him how to pray, as if He had said to them: If you care for prayer know that it is not performed by words but by the choice of a virtuous life and by the love of God and diligence in one's duty. If you are zealous in these things you will be praying all your life, and from your good will towards them and your choice of them you will acquire a great desire for prayer, and will undoubtedly also know what to ask (in it). If you chose (the path of) duty, you will not be induced to ask for things that lie outside it, as you will not be willing to ask for things in which you have no interest. Your interest being in virtues after which you are striving, it is evident that you will offer to God prayers that are consonant with them. If you live thus and ask also of Him in this wise with all fervour, you know that you will receive.
Hear now in short words which are the things in which you have to show diligence, the works and the mode of life which are required of you, the things in which you have to persevere, and those for which you have to offer prayers and in which your demands will undoubtedly be answered:
The evangelist said that "as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased, one of His disciples said to Him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And He said to them, when you pray, say, Our Father which are in heaven hallowed be Your name." The sentence "as He was praying in a certain place" is similar to that which the same evangelist uses in another passage: "It came to pass in those days that He went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God." The sentence "in a certain place" means, |6 therefore, that He was offering prayer in a place which was quiet and free from the noise of men. When the disciples saw Him that He was praying with eagerness, they understood that this was not an ordinary thing but that it was a matter of more importance than any other, and they, therefore, asked Him that they should learn how to pray as John had also taught his disciples. He then pronounced to them the above words of prayer, as if meaning to say: if you are eager to pray, you should clearly know the things which you have to say to God and be careful about the things that are to be asked of Him.
What are you then to say when you pray, and what are the things in which you have to show care?:
Our Father who is in heaven.
Before everything else you should learn what you were and what is the nature and the measure of the gift that you received from God. The things that have happened to you are greater than those that happened to the children of men that were before you. Such a thing will happen through Me to those who believe in Me and choose My discipleship, as they will be much higher than those who were working under the law of Moses, because that first law, which was given from Mount Sinai, gave birth to servitude, and both itself and its children worked in servitude. Indeed, all those who were under the law of the commandments were slaves. They received orders how they were to conduct themselves, and through the punishment of death that none of them could escape they were bound 1 to the transgression of the law. As to you, you have received through Me the grace of the Holy Spirit whereby you have obtained adoption of sons and confidence to call God, Father. You have not received the Spirit in order to be again in servitude and fear but to be worthy of the Spirit of adoption of sons through which you call God, Father, with confidence. From this you have obtained conversation in Jerusalem which is above and have been worthy of that life of freedom which will be the lot of those who, in the |7 resurrection, will become immortal and immutable, and will live in heaven in such a nature.
If, therefore, there is this difference between you and those who were under the law—in the sense that the "letter, which is the law, kills," and thus brought punishment of death from which there was no escape on those who transgressed it, and in the sense that it is "the Spirit that gives life" and will make you immortal and immutable through the resurrection—it is fitting that you should know before anything else the nature of the works, worthy of this freedom, which you should possess. Those who live in the Spirit of God are the children of God, while those who are under the law have only received a mere name of children: "I have said, You are gods, and all of you children of the Most High, but you shall die like men."
Those who have received the Holy Spirit by whom they necessarily expect immortality, while still in this world, it is fitting that they should live in the Spirit, resign themselves to the Spirit and possess a mind worthy of the freedom of men led by the Holy Spirit, and that they should also flee from all the works of sin and acquire a conduct that is in harmony with the citizenship of the heavenly abode.
This is the reason why I do not teach you to say our Lord and our God, although it is evident that you ought to know that He is God, Lord and Maker of everything and of you also, and that it is He who will transfer you to the delight of these benefits. I order you to call Him our Father, so that when you have been made aware of your freedom and of the honour in which you have participated and the greatness which you have acquired— things by which you are called the sons of the Lord of all and your own Lord—you will act accordingly till the end. I do not wish you to say my Father but our Father, because He is a Father common to all in the same way as His grace, from which we received adoption of sons, is common to all. In this way you should not only offer congruous things to God, but you should also possess and keep fellowship with one another, because you are brothers and under the hand of one Father. |8
I added who is in heaven, so that the figure of the life in heaven, to which it has been granted to you to be transferred, might be drawn before your eyes. When you have received the adoption of sons, you will dwell in heaven, and this abode is fit for the sons of God.
What ought those who think in this way to do?:
Hallowed be Your name.
Before everything else you should do the things that redound to the glory of God your Father. The very one who said in another passage: "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven," said also here: "Hallowed be Your name," as if He were saying: you should strive to do the things by which the name of God will be glorified by all men, while contemplating in amazement His mercy and His grace which have been poured upon you, and thinking that He did not make you His children to no purpose, but that in His mercy He granted you the Spirit, so that you might increase in virtue and do the work of those who were found worthy to call God their Father. As when we do ungodly works we give rise to blasphemy (by others), because all the outsiders who see us doing these ungodly works will say about us that we are unworthy to be children of God—so also when we do good works we corroborate the fact that we are children of God, worthy of the freedom of our Father, and show that we have been well educated and that we are living a life worthy of our Father. In order to impede such a blasphemy from being uttered, and in order that there might be praise from the mouth of all men to God who brought you up to such a greatness, strive to do the things that effect this:
Your kingdom come.
He did well to add this (sentence) to the preceding one. It is right for those who have been called to the Kingdom of Heaven in the adoption of sons, and who expect to dwell in heaven with Christ when, as the blessed Paul said: "we shall be caught up |9 in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord"—to think of things which are worthy of that Kingdom, to do the things that are congruous to the heavenly citizenship, to consider the earthly things small and believe them to be below their dignity to speak and think of them. No one who is so placed as to live in the court of a king, and is considered worthy to see him always and converse with him, will go and wander in the bazaars and inns and such like, but will have intercourse only with those who always frequent the places where he is. In this same way, we who are called to the Kingdom of Heaven, are not allowed to relinquish our fellowship with it or with the things that suit the citizenship therein, and busy ourselves with the commerce of this world in which there is much evil trading and unholy work.
How could this be effected, and how should we do the things that are commensurate with the freedom of our Father, and how should we pursue heavenly citizenship, and how should we do the things which engender great praise to the name of God?:
Your will be done as in heaven so in earth.
(This will happen) if in this world we strive as much as possible to imitate the life which we shall live in heaven, because heaven contains nothing that is contrary to God, as sin will be abolished and the power of the demons will cease, and, in short, all things that fight against us will be destroyed. When all earthly things have ceased to exist, we shall rise from the dead and dwell in heaven in an immortal and immutable nature. We will do the will of God better than in anything else by wishing and acting as God wishes, and by thinking of things belonging to heaven, where there will be no power and no passion which will incite us against the will of God.
In this world we ought to persevere as much as possible in the will of God and not to will or do things that are against |10 Him. As we believe that the will of God reigns in heaven, so it should also hold sway in earth; and in the same way as it shall be in heaven, it is right for us not to do now the smallest act which by our will or our thought would contradict that will. This, however, is not possible as long as we are in our mortal and changeable nature, but we must turn our will away from the passions that are contrary (to the will of God) and not listen to them in any way, and do that which the blessed Paul commanded in saying: "Be not conformed to this world, but be you transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God." He does not command that passions should not beset us, but that we should not be conformed to things that will surely vanish with this world, and that the will of our soul should not be conformed to the ways of acting of this world.
Let us strive against all happenings whether painful or joyful, sublime or abject, in one word in any capacity high or low, which are capable more than others to lead us astray towards harmful thoughts and to divert our mind from good will, and let us be careful not to let our love fall on them, but let us strengthen our thoughts with daily improvements and cast away from us the injurious insinuations that come to us from the passions of this world, and bend our will day by day towards virtues, in our search for the things which are pleasing to God. We should only consider as unqualified good that which is pleasing to God, and endeavour in everything to spurn the pleasures of this world. We should also bear the tribulations that befall us, place the will of God before everything, and consider ourselves happy when we act thus, even if all the afflictions of this world should surround us. If we do not act in this way we shall be more wretched than all men, even if we are prosperous in all earthly things.
In the above short words, our Lord taught us, therefore, perfection of works, and ordered those who follow Him to strive after good works, think of the heavenly life, despise all that is found in this world and endeavour to imitate as much as possible the things of the next world; and He wished them to ask these |11 things of God till the end. And because we ought to possess a healthy mind and a true love for all these things, and because we know that we are not able to do anything without the help of God, He rightly ordered us to do these things by way of prayer, so that we might approach them with perfect love and persevere ardently and zealously in asking them of God as good and useful things, which will not come to us even if we chose them and wished to have them myriads of times, if God does not help us in them. They will surely come to us, however, if first we choose them and ask them of God.
The blessed Luke added many things to the prayer said by Christ our Lord, in order to confirm the fact that things asked by those who pray will surely be granted. And because He wished to invite us to imitate the world to come, in which when we dwell, we shall always be high above the earthly things and shall never be in need of anything, and in order that He might not be believed that He was ordering a thing that was impossible for men who are mortal by nature and are in need of many things in this world, in that He was asking them to imitate an immortal life—He added:
Give us to-day our necessary bread.
It is as if He had said: I wish you to look at things belonging to the next world, and while you are in this world to arrange your life as much as possible as if you had been for a long time in the next world, not that you should not eat or drink or make use of the necessities of life, but in the sense that your choice (of the next world) is good, that you love it and constantly think of it. As to the things belonging to this world, I allow you to make use of such of them as are necessary; and you should not ask nor strive to have more than this use. That which the blessed Paul implies: "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content," our Lord called here "bread," and by it He alludes to a thing which is indispensable. Indeed, bread is considered to be more necessary for the maintenance and sustenance of this earthly life than anything else. He means by "to-day" now, |12 as we are in "to-day" and not in "to-morrow." We are in "to-day" as long as we are in it, although we might see to-morrow.
Holy Writ calls to-day a thing that exists now and is near, as the blessed Paul puts it: "To-day if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation, but exhort yourselves daily while you call it to-day." As if one had said: as long as we are in this world let us always suppose that we hear this word which every day impresses our mind with an identical sound, and let us awaken our soul and raise it for the amelioration of our conduct, the rejection of vices and exhortation to virtues; and let us progress day by day as long as we are in this world in which there is time for amelioration and repentance, because when we have left it the time for repentance and amelioration will have passed away from us, and the time of judgment will have arrived. Our Lord said here: "Give us to-day our necessary bread," in the sense of the necessary food of which we are in need as long as we are in this world, and He did not prohibit nor did He forbid the food, drink and raiment which are necessary to the sustenance of the body. It is not blameworthy to ask of God that which is necessary to us, and that of which we are allowed to make use when we have it, and that which is not considered blameworthy to receive from others. Indeed, how can one consider blameworthy the use of a thing which we are permitted to ask of God, as necessary for keeping and sustaining (human) nature?
He calls "bread," therefore, that which is necessary for the sustenance of (human) nature. He used the expression "which is necessary to us in the sense of "according to our nature," that is to say that which is useful and necessary to nature and its sustenance, and which has been ordained by the Creator as a thing that we must necessarily have for food. It is not advisable for those who wish to strive after perfection to possess and hoard things which are beyond the domain of the necessities of life. He rightly alluded, therefore, in prayer to the necessities of life |13 by the words "which is necessary," that is to say, a thing that is useful and necessary to our nature. As to "to-day," it means that since those necessities of life are established by the Creator for the sustenance of (human) nature, it is lawful to ask them and make use of them, but that no one is allowed to ask of God and zealously endeavour to possess more than these necessary things. Indeed, all things that are not necessary for our sustenance and for our food in this world, if amassed by us, will go to others, and will be of no use to the one who had managed them or to the one who had striven to collect and possess them. They even go to others after his death, not by his will. And because our Lord completely disregarded the care for superfluous things, and because He did not forbid the use of the things which are necessary for our sustenance but, on the contrary, ordered us to ask them of God, He added:
And forgive us our debts.
In the first sentences He laid down the principles of perfection and of blameless conduct, and by the addition "give us this day our necessary bread" He limited our cares to that which is necessary; and because however much we strive after perfection it is impossible for us to be always without sins—as we are compelled to fall involuntarily into many, owing to the weakness of our nature —He found a quick remedy for them in the request for forgiveness. It is as if He had said: If you are eager to do good and strive after it, and if you are unwilling to pray for superfluous things but only (wish to possess) those which are necessary for sustenance, you should have confidence that you will receive forgiveness of the sins which you may have involuntarily committed. It is evident that the one who had striven after good things and had been eager to avoid ungodly things has only fallen involuntarily. Indeed, how could a man who hates bad things and desires good things have stumbled voluntarily? It is clear that such a one will undoubtedly receive forgiveness of those sins that were involuntarily committed by him. |14
And He added:
As we have forgiven our debtors.
He shows that we must have confidence that we shall receive forgiveness of our (sins) if we do the same, according to our power, to those who trespass against us. In case we have chosen good and are pleased with it, but by accident we trespass in many things against God and man, He found a convenient remedy for both sins in the fact that if we forgive those who trespass against us we have confidence that we will undoubtedly receive, in the same way, forgiveness of our trespasses from God. As when we ourselves trespass we rightly prostrate ourselves, beseech God and ask forgiveness of Him, so also we have to forgive those who trespass against us and apologise to us; and we should also receive affectionately those who have sinned against us or injured us in any way. It is evident that if we do not consider that those who have been sinned against or injured have to forgive those who have sinned against them—if they repent and ask forgiveness of them for the wrong they have done —the same thing would happen to them from those who have been sinned against, when they wish to pray to God. Our Lord clearly ordered us to ask forgiveness as we also forgave those who had trespassed against us.
And because we are in this world assailed by many afflictions dealing with sickness of the body, evil deeds of men and many other things which irritate us and annoy us to the extent that sometimes our soul is so perturbed by thoughts that it is tempted to throw away from it the love of virtues, He rightly added:
And lead us not into temptation,
so that we may be saved from temptations in the measure of our power, but if these should assail us let us do our utmost to bear with fortitude the afflictions which we had not expected. Before everything we must pray to God that no temptation should come near us, but if we should be led into it let us bear it with courage and pray that it should come speedily to an end. It is |15 well known that in this world many tribulations disturb our mind in different ways; even a long and severe illness of the body has thrown into great confusion those who were affected by it, and the inordinate impulses of the body have involuntarily made us stumble and stray away from the path of duty, and beautiful faces suddenly seen have kindled the passion found in our nature. There are other things which assail us on unexpected occasions and involuntarily and strongly divert our choice and our mind from good things to ungodly things. This is especially the case with the opinions of unholy and contumelious men who are eager to do evil, because those (opinions) are very apt to divert us in one way or another from a thing with which we were pleased. They can even do that to a person who has a great zeal for perfection. It would be all the more painful if those who acted against us in this way belonged to the household of the faith. Against them our Lord said: "Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." He said this about the obstinate people amongst us, and He threatened them with severe punishment if by their contumely and wickedness they endeavour to divert from the path of duty those who are humble and pure. He calls "to offend" the act of injuring by wickedness and obstinacy those who for the sake of perfection strive to lead a humble and pure life. Because of all this, after He had said, "And lead us not into temptation," He added:
But deliver us from evil,
because the wicked Satan injures us much in all the above things, as he endeavours in different ways to do things through which he thinks that he is able to divert us from our love and choice of duty.
Our Lord embodied perfection of works in the above words of prayer and taught us clearly how we are to be, in what we are to be diligent, from what we have to flee, and what to ask of God. And our blessed Fathers who thought that, together with the |16 right teaching and the true faith, we ought also to strive after a good life and good works, ordered this prayer for those who draw near to the gift of baptism so that side by side with an accurate doctrine concerning the creed of the faith they might through prayer so order our life as to possess that perfection which is required of those who receive the gift of baptism, and through which they are counted in the number of the citizens of the heavenly life, while still on this earth.
Endeavour now to keep clearly in your mind the things which you have learnt in short words from the Lord's prayer, and meditate upon them with diligence in order that, while still in this world and far from the next, you may imitate and follow the teaching of our Lord, and thus be worthy of the heavenly benefits in which we are all enabled to participate by the grace of the Only Begotten Son of God, to whom, in conjunction with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
Chapter II.
Synopsis.
He who is desirous of drawing near to the gift of the holy baptism comes to the Church of God where he is received by a duly appointed person 2—as there is a habit to register those who draw near to baptism—who will question him about his mode of life. This rite 3 is performed for those who are baptised by the person called godfather. The duly appointed person writes your name in the Church register together with that of the one who is acting as your sponsor or guide in the town. The services of the persons called exorcists have also been found indispensable, as it is necessary that when a case is being heard in the judgment hall the litigant should remain silent. You stand with outstretched arms in the posture of one who prays, and you look downwards. This is the reason why you take off your outer garment and stand barefooted, and |17 you stand also on sackcloth. You are ordered in those days to meditate on the words of the faith.
I think that in past days I spoke sufficiently to your love about the profession of faith which our blessed Fathers wrote according to the teaching of our Lord, who through it wished us to be taught and baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (I spoke) in those days to you, who draw near to the gift of baptism, in order that you might learn what to believe, and in the name of whom you are baptised so that you might see that you are receiving instruction according to the teaching of our Lord, and that you are being baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I added to the above a discourse on prayer in order that you might rightly know the teaching of good works consonant with the way in which those who receive this great gift of baptism have to live. As, however, the time of the sacrament has drawn near, and you are by the grace of God about to participate in the holy baptism, it is right and necessary that we should explain before you the power of the sacrament and of the ceremonies which are accomplished in it, and the reason for which each of them is accomplished, in order that when you have learnt what is the reason for all of them you may receive the things that take place with great love.
Every sacrament consists in the representation of unseen and unspeakable things through signs and emblems. Such things require explanation and interpretation, for the sake of the person who draws near to the sacrament, so that he might know its power. If it only consisted of the (visible) elements themselves, words would have been useless, as sight itself would have been able to show us one by one all the happenings that take place, but since a sacrament contains the signs of things that take place or have already taken place, words are needed to explain the power of signs and mysteries. The Jews performed their service for the heavenly things as in signs and |18 shadows, because the law only contained the shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, as the blessed Paul said. A shadow implies the proximity of a body, as it cannot exist without a body, but it does not represent the body which it reflects in the same way as it happens in an image. When we look at an image we recognise the person who is represented in it—if we knew that person beforehand—on account of the accurately drawn picture, but we are never able to recognise a man represented only by his shadow, as this shadow has no likeness whatever to the real body from which it emanates. All things of the law were similar to this. They were only a shadow of the heavenly things, as the Apostle said. You must now learn the nature of this shadow:
According to what he had learnt in a Divine vision the blessed Moses made two tabernacles, one of which they named holy, and the other holy of holies. The first was the likeness of the life and sojourn on the earth on which we now dwell, and the second, which they called holy of holies, was the likeness of the regions which are above the visible heaven, to which our Lord Christ, who was assumed for our salvation, ascended, in which He now is, and to which He granted us to go in order to be there and dwell with Him, as the blessed Paul said: "Whither the forerunner is for us entered, Christ, who became a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec." He said of Him that He became after the order of high priests because He was the first to enter there, and through Him the favour of entering was promised to us. The work of a high priest is indeed that he should draw near to God first, and then after him and through him the rest should draw near; but because all these things have not yet taken place but will take place at the end, the priests of the law did not perform a single one of them through their service according to the law, in the place called holy of holies, which indeed was never entered by any one, as the high priest entered it once a year alone, and offered a sacrifice before entering it, and had no right to enter it at all times. He entered it once a year so that it might be made |19 manifest that all those acts of the law only embraced the mortal life on this earth, and had no relation of any kind with the heavenly things; in the same way as we ourselves cannot enter heaven as long as we remain mortal in our nature. Men would only have entered heavenly places after a man from us had been assumed, and had died according to the natural law of men, and risen in glory from the dead, and become immortal and incorruptible by nature, and had ascended into heaven, and been constituted a high priest to the rest of mankind and an earnest of the ascension into heaven.
Thus the law contained the shadow of the good things to come, as those who lived under it had only a figure of the future things. In this way they only performed their service as a sign and a shadow of the heavenly things, because that service gave, by means of the tabernacle and the things that took place in it, a kind of revelation, in figure, of the life which is going to be in heaven, and which our Lord Christ showed to us by His ascension into it, while He granted all of us to participate in an event which was so much hidden from those who lived in that time that the Jews, in their expectation of the resurrection, had only a base conception of it. They did not think, as we do, that we shall be changed into an immortal life, but they thought of it as a place in which we shall continue to eat, drink and marry. This we consider a great shame if we are to believe the words of our Lord to the effect that: "You do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God, for in the resurrection from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels," and "they are the children of God because they are the children of the resurrection." In this He both reprimanded their error concerning the resurrection and taught that we ought to believe that something like a Divine life will come to those who will rise, as He clearly said that they will be like angels.
The things that the ancients held as figures and shadows came now into reality when our Lord Jesus Christ, who was assumed from us and for us died according to the human law, and through His resurrection became immortal, incorruptible |20 and for ever immutable, and as such ascended into heaven, as by His union with our nature He became to us an earnest of our own participation in the event. In saying: "If Christ rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead," (the Apostle) clearly showed that it was necessary for all to believe that there is a resurrection, and in believing in it we had also to believe that we will equally clearly participate in it. As we have a firm belief that things that have already happened will happen to us, so [the things that happened at the resurrection of our Lord] 4 we believe that they will happen to us. We perform, therefore, this ineffable sacrament which contains the incomprehensible signs of the Economy of Christ our Lord, as we believe that the things implied in it will happen to us.
It is indeed evident to us, according to the words of the Apostle, that when we perform either baptism or the Eucharist we perform them in remembrance of the death and resurrection of Christ, in order that the hope of the latter may be strengthened in us. So far as the resurrection is concerned he said: "So many of us as were baptised into Christ Jesus, were buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also shall walk in newness of life." He clearly taught here that we are baptised so that we might imitate in ourselves the death and the resurrection of our Lord, and that we might receive from our remembrance of the happenings that took place the confirmation of our hope in future things. As for the communion of the holy Sacrament he said: "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death till He come." Our Lord also said: "This is my body which is broken for you, and this is my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins." From all this it is clear that |21 both the service and the Communion are in remembrance of the death and the resurrection of Christ, from which arose our hope that we all expect communion with Him. And we sacramentally perform the events that took place in connection with Christ our Lord, in order that—as we have learnt by experience —our communion with Him may strengthen our hope. It would be useful, therefore, to discuss before you the reason for all the mysteries and signs.
Our Lord God made man from dust in His image and honoured him with many other things. He especially honoured him by calling him His image, from which man alone became worthy to be called God and Son of God; and if he had been wise he would have remained with the One who was to him the source of all good things, which he truly possessed, but he accepted and completed the image of the Devil, who like a rebel had risen against God and wished to usurp for himself the glory that was due to Him, and had striven to detach man from God by all sorts of stratagems and appropriate God's honour, so that he might insult Him by rivalry. He (the Rebel) assumed, therefore, the attributes and the glory of a helper, and because man yielded to his words and rejected the injunctions which God had imposed upon him and followed the Rebel as his true helper, God inflicted upon him the punishment of reverting to the dust from which he had been taken.
And from the above sin death entered, and this death weakened (human) nature and generated in it a great inclination towards sin. Both of these grew side by side, while the inexorable death strengthened and multiplied sin, as the condition of mortality by weakening (human nature) caused the perpetration of many sins. Even the commandments which God gave in order to check them tended to multiply them, and those who infringed the commandments strengthened the punishment by the frequency of the sins. From these grew the ill will of the Rebel, who jubilated and rejoiced at the great injury that he was inflicting on us, and at the state of our affairs which was becoming daily more corrupt and iniquitous. |22
When this state of our affairs became desperate, our Lord God willed in His mercy to rectify it. With this end in view He assumed a man from us, who was a faithful keeper of the Divine commandments, and was found to be free from all sin with the exception of the punishment of death. The Tyrant, however, who could do nothing else, brought an unjust death upon Him at the hand of the Jews, his servants, but He willingly accepted it and sat in judgment with him before God, the just judge, who pronounced Him not liable to the punishment of death which had been wickedly and unjustly brought upon Him. And He became for ever immune from death, and immortal and incorruptible by nature. And as such He ascended into heaven and became for ever beyond the reach of the harm and injury of Satan, who was thus unable to do any harm to a man who was immortal, incorruptible and immutable, and who dwelt in heaven and possessed a close union with the Divine nature. From the fact that the man who was assumed from us had such a confidence (with God), He became a messenger on behalf of all the (human) race so that the rest of mankind might participate with Him in His great change, as the blessed Paul said: "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died, yes rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us." He shows here that the benefits accruing to us are immutable and unchangeable, since Christ who died for us, and who rose from the dead and received close union with Divine nature, draws us, by His intercession for us, to the participation in resurrection and in the good things that emanate from it.
We draw near to the sacrament because we perform in it the symbols of the freedom from calamities from which we were unexpectedly delivered, and of our participation in these new and great benefits which had their beginning in Christ our Lord. Indeed we expect to be partakers of these benefits which are higher than our nature, while even the possibility of their coming to us we had never expected. |23
We have spoken in this way so that our words might be better understood; and it is time now to show you the reason for every act (performed in the sacrament).
He who wishes to draw near to the gift of the holy baptism comes to the Church of God, which Christ our Lord showed to be a symbol of the heavenly things to the faithful in this world, when He said: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He showed in this that He granted to the Church the power that any one who becomes related to it should also be related to the heavenly things, and any one who becomes a stranger to it should also be clearly a stranger to the heavenly things.
Owing to the fact that to those who are at the head of the Church is allotted the task of governing it, it is to them that He referred in His saying to the blessed Peter that they have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and things that are bound by them on earth shall be bound in heaven, and things that are loosed by them on earth shall be loosed in heaven; not in the sense that they are masters of men in it, but in the sense that the Church received power from God that those who are related to it and under the care of those who are at its head, acquire by necessity a relationship with heaven, inasmuch as those who are outside this have no association of any kind with heavenly things.
Christ our Lord established a kingdom in heaven, and established it there as a city in which He has His kingdom, which the blessed Paul calls "Jerusalem which is above, free, and mother of us all," since it is in it that we are expecting to dwell and abide. That city is full of innumerable companies of angels and men who are all immortal and immutable. Indeed the blessed Paul said: "You are come to Mount |24 Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, and to the Church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven." He calls the firstborn those who are immortal and immutable, like those who are worthy of the adoption of sons of whom our Lord said that "they are the children of God because they are the children of the resurrection"; and they are enrolled in heaven as its inhabitants.
These things will be seen so in reality in the world to come, when, according to the words of the Apostle, "we are caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, so that we may be ever with Him." He will take us up and ascend into heaven where His Kingdom is seen and where all of us shall be with Him, free and exempt from all troubles, in happiness and pleasure, and enjoying to the full the benefits of that kingdom. Those who draw near to Him in this world He wished them to be, through religion and faith, as in the symbol of the heavenly things, and He so constituted the Church as to be a symbol of the heavenly things; and He wished that those who believe in Him should live in it. This is the reason why the blessed Paul also said: "that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Church "of the living God" means that His name is for ever and ever, and this demonstrates that the believers will enjoy life eternally, while the expression "pillar and ground of the truth" denotes that life firm, solid, unshakeable and unchangeable in which (the believer) will be seen and from which he will also receive his power.
He, therefore, who is desirous of drawing near to baptism comes to the Church of God through which he expects to reach that life of the heavenly abode. He ought to think that he is coming to be the citizen of a new and great city, and he should, therefore, show great care in everything that is required of him before his enrolment in it. He comes to the Church of God |25 where he is received by a duly appointed person 5—as there is a habit to register those who draw near to baptism—who will question him about his mode of life in order to find out whether it possesses all the requisites of the citizenship of that great city. After he has abjured all the evil found in this world and cast it completely out of his mind, he has to show that he is worthy of the citizenship of the city and of his enrolment in it. This is the reason why, as if he were a stranger to the city and to its citizenship, a specially appointed person,6 who is from the city in which he is going to be enrolled and who is well versed in its mode of life, conducts him to the registrar and testifies for him to the effect that he is worthy of the city and of its citizenship and that, as he is not versed in the life of the city or in the knowledge of how to behave in it, he himself would be willing to act as a guide to his inexperience.
This rite is performed for those who are baptised by the person called godfather, who, however, does not make himself responsible for them in connection with future sins, as each one of us answers for his own sins before God. He only bears witness to what the catechumen has done and to the fact that he has prepared himself in the past to be worthy of the city and of its citizenship. He is justly called a sponsor because by his words (the catechumen) is deemed worthy to receive baptism. When in this world there is an order of the Government for a census of countries and of people who are in them, it is right for those who are registered in particular countries to obtain a title which would assure for them the cultivation of the fields which are registered in their name, and to pay readily the land taxes to the king. The same thing is required of the one who is enrolled in the heavenly city and in its citizenship, as "our conversation is in heaven." Indeed he ought to reject all earthly things, as is suitable to the one who is inscribed in heaven, and to do only the things that fit the life and conversation in heaven. He will also, if he is wise, pay perpetual taxes to the king and live a life which is consonant with baptism. |26
As the Romans—when they held Judea under their domination—ordered that every one should be enrolled in his own city, and as Joseph with the blessed Mary went to Bethlehem to be enrolled in it, because he was from the house and the tribe of David, so also we, who believe in Christ, have to do. Indeed He conquered, by right of war, all the enemies, delivered the human race from the power of the demons, freed us from the servitude of the captivity, and brought us under His dominion, as it is said: "He has ascended on high and has led captivity captive." He showed the new world to come and the wonderful dispensation of that which is called the heavenly Jerusalem, in which Christ established His imperishable Kingdom. It is, therefore, incumbent on us all, who are under the power of His Kingdom, to pray and desire that through faith we might draw near to baptism and be worthy of being enrolled in heaven.
It is for this reason that as regards you also who draw near to the gift of baptism, a duly appointed person 7 inscribes your name in the Church book, together with that of your godfather, who answers for you and becomes your guide in the city and the leader of your citizenship therein. This is done in order that you may know that you are, long before the time and while still on the earth, enrolled in heaven, and that your godfather who is in it is possessed of great diligence to teach you, who are a stranger and a newcomer to that great city, all the things that pertain to it and to its citizenship, so that you should be conversant with its life without any trouble and anxiety.
You should learn now the reason for the remaining events, as your enrolment is not effected to no purpose and accidentally only, but after a great judgment had taken place on your behalf. It was necessary for you, who have drawn near to Divine Providence, to have been first delivered from the Tyrant who had attacked you so that, after having been enabled to flee from all the harm of the enemies and avoid another servitude, you might be in a position to enjoy to the full the happiness of this enrolment. When by order of the Government a census is |27 taken in this world, and one comes to establish his legal title to a land fertile in corn and rich in good things, in which there is much happiness to those who are registered for it—if a person who was previously his enemy learns this, and envying him for this happiness which he was himself previously enjoying, because (the land) for a long time belonged to him, goes and tells the one who is about to be registered that the land belonged to him by right of succession and that he ought not to be dispossessed of his right of ownership and be given the ownership of another land—it is right for the one who is about to be registered, if he is endowed with great zeal, to go to a magistrate and make use of the title which he possesses, and show the supposed owner of the land, for which he wishes to be registered, that he is desirous of bringing the matter before a judge.
In this same way God placed the kingdom of heaven before men, and willed that all of them should be in it in an immortal and immutable state, as is suitable to the dwellers in heaven, and granted to the Church to be the symbol of heavenly things in this world, and we pray and implore Him to draw us near through baptism to that heavenly city, and to make us participate in its life; but it is necessary that a judgment should be given for us against the Tyrant, who is fighting the case against us, that is to say Satan, who is always envious of our deliverance and salvation. He shows here also the same ill will towards us, and tries and endeavours to bring us to the judgment hall as if we had no right to be outside his ownership. He pleads that from ancient times and from the creation of the head of our race we belong to him by right; he narrates the story of Adam, of how he listened to his words and by his will rejected his Maker and preferred to serve him; of how this kindled the wrath of God, who drove him out of Paradise, pronounced the death sentence upon him and bound him to this world in saying: "In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread," and: "Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, for dust you are and to dust shall you return." From these words which condemned him to the servitude of this world, and from the fact |28 that by his will he chose my lordship he clearly appears to belong to me, as I am "the prince of the power of the air, and work in the children of disobedience." How, then, is it possible that this man, who from the beginning and from the time of his forefathers belongs to me—as a just judgment was pronounced against him in this mortal world, in which as long as he is I hold sway over him—should be taken away from this world and from its life, and consequently from my lordship also, which he himself chose willingly, and should become immortal, a thing which is higher than his nature, and be seen in the life and citizenship of the abode of heaven, a thing which does not pertain to men or to beings who have this (human) nature, from which those who are endowed with a higher nature are different?
As, in our supposition, such things are now pleaded and said by Satan, who was seen from the very beginning to fight inimically against us, and at present envies us all the more because we expect to receive this ineffable enrolment, which is high above all words and all human mind, as: "eye has not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered the heart of man the things which God has prepared for them that love him" —we must run with all diligence to the judge and show and establish the title which we possess: that we did not belong to Satan from the beginning and from the time of our forefathers, but to God who created us while we were not and made us in His own image, and that it was through the iniquity and wickedness of the Tyrant and through our own negligence that we were driven towards evil, from which we lost also the honour and greatness of our image, and because of our sinfulness we further received the punishment of death. And the long time that intervened strengthened the hold of Satan on us, and we on our part, owing to the fact that we lived for a great length of time in this cruel and dire servitude, the wrong and fearful acts of sin became sweet and pleasing to us, and with them we strengthened the power of Satan over us.
While things were proceeding in this way, He who is truly |29 our Creator and our Lord, He who created us while we were not, and formed our body of dust with His hands and breathed into it a soul which did not previously exist, was pleased to make manifest a providence consonant with the works which He himself had made and which were now perishing through the wickedness of the Tyrant, in order that He might not permit him to harm us till the end. He also abolished our sins and our transgression against Him, and wished by His grace to straighten our affairs. For this He took one of us, and in Him made the beginning of all our good things, and permitted Him to receive the impact of all the trials of the wickedness of Satan, but showed Him also to be high above his wickedness and his harm, and although He had allowed Him to be even in His Death the victim of his stratagems, through which He had been drawn to combat, He now receives, on our behalf and against Satan, the intercession of the One who was assumed.
He (Satan) brought forward all his subtle arguments (against Him) and did not cease from inflicting injuries, from beginning to end, and finally, in spite of the fact that he found not a single just cause against Him, brought an unjust death upon Him. He further added (in his brief) how he had cruelly harmed all our race from the beginning. God, however, who was listening to all the story, after having heard the things that were said by both sides, condemned the Tyrant for the ill will of which he had made use against Christ and against all our race, and pronounced judgment against him, while He raised Christ our Lord from the dead, and made Him immortal and immutable, and took Him up to heaven. And He promised to all the (human) race, while still on the earth, the joy of (His) gifts so that no room might be left to Satan from which to inflict injuries on us. We are thus in a virtuous nature and in a high dwelling, which is higher than all the trials arising out of the wickedness of Satan, and absent and remote from all sin. Have we not learnt also all this from the words of our Lord who said: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world |30 be cast out, and I when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men to Me?"
We must believe now that all these things have happened and taken place, and that in nothing shall we appear henceforth to belong to the Devil. We have rightly reverted to our Lord to whom we belonged before the wickedness of Satan, and we are, as we were at the beginning, in the image of God. We had lost the honour of this image through our carelessness, but by the grace of God we have retaken this honour, and because of this we have become immortal and we will dwell in heaven. Indeed it is in this way that the image of God ought to rejoice and acquire the honour that is due to the One who by promise was to be called, and was to be, in His image. By His grace we rightly left for ever the mortal world, moved to the heavenly abode and citizenship, recognised our Lord, and are now hastening to go to our firstfruits (i.e. Christ) which were picked on our behalf and through which the Maker and the Lord of all gave us immortal life and a heavenly abode and conversation. We rightly draw near now to the Church of God because of our deliverance from tribulations and our delight in good things, and because we expect to be enrolled in heaven through the gift of the holy baptism.
It is you who furnish the reason for this question and for this examination as you clearly show that through the gift of the holy baptism you are separating yourselves from the servitude of the Tyrant, which all our fathers from the time of Adam downwards received, and in which they lived. This, however, goads Satan to fight fiercely against us, so much so that he did not even desist from fighting against our Lord because he believed Him to be a mere man on account of His resemblance (to men), and |31 thought that by his stratagems and temptations he might detach Him from the love of God.
Because you are unable by yourselves to plead against Satan and to fight against him, the services of the persons called exorcists have been found indispensable, as they act as your surety for Divine help. They ask in a loud and prolonged voice that our enemy should be punished and by a verdict from the judge be ordered to retire and stand far, so that no room and no entry of any kind might be left to him from which to inflict harm on us, and so that we might be delivered for ever from his servitude, and allowed to live in perfect freedom, and enjoy the happiness of our present enrolment. You are doubtless aware of the fact that when a case is being judged before a judge and when a litigant shouts that he is innocent, and complains of a dire and cruel servitude in which he had lived, and contends that a powerful man had forcibly and unjustly brought him under his rule, it is necessary that when the case is being judged this same litigant should remain silent, so that he might by his demeanour and behaviour induce the judge to have mercy upon him. Another man, in the person of the advocate, will demonstrate to the judge the truth of the complaint of those who contend that they are ill-treated, and will invoke also the laws of the kingdom in order that through them he may redress the wrong that was done.
In this same way when the words called the words of exorcism are pronounced you stand perfectly quiet, as if you had no voice and as if you were still in fear and dread of the Tyrant, not being in a position even to look at him on account of the great injustice which he did to you and to your fathers, in the fact that he led you into captivity, brought you into a dire and cruel servitude, and inflicted upon you wounds that leave indelible scars, through the punishment of death which he placed in your midst; and in the fact that he has been for a long time the master of the servitude which you, with your own hands, brought upon yourselves. You stand, therefore, with outstretched arms in the posture of one who prays, and look downwards and remain in that state in order to move the judge to mercy. And you take off your outer garment and stand barefooted in order to |32 show in yourself the state of the cruel servitude in which you served the Devil for a long time, according to the rules of captivity, and in which you did all his work for him according to his requirements. Your aim in this posture is also to move the judge to mercy, and it is this picture of captivity that is implied in the words of God who spoke thus through the prophet Isaiah: "Like as my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot three years in order that he might become a sign for the Egyptians and Ethiopians, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians and Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot."
You stand also on garments of sackcloth so that from the fact that your feet are pricked and stung by the roughness of the cloth you may remember your old sins and show penitence and repentance of the sins of your fathers, because of which we have been driven to all this wretchedness of iniquities, and so that you may call for mercy on the part of the judge and rightly say: "You has put off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness."
As to the words of exorcism they have the power to induce you, after having made up your mind to acquire such a great gain, not to remain idle and without work. You are, therefore, ordered in those intermediary days to meditate on the words of the profession of faith in order that you may learn it, and they are put in your mouth in order that through a continuous meditation you may strive to be in a position to recite them by heart. It would indeed be strange that the Jews should have the law written in a book hanging from their hands so that they might always remember the commandments, and we did not impress indelibly in our memory the words of a faith which is so much higher. Owing to the fact that immediately after having received the Divine order Adam met the Demon and was easily overcome by him because of his lack of meditation and contemplation of that order, it is imperative that in all this time you should continually meditate on the words of the Creed so that it may be strengthened in you and deeply fixed in your mind, and so that |33 you may love your religion without which you cannot receive the Divine gift, or if you receive it, you cannot keep it and hold fast to it.
When the time for (the reception of) the sacrament draws near and the judgment and fight with the Demon—for the sake of which the words of exorcism have been used—are at an end; and when by God's decision the Tyrant has submitted and yielded to the shouts of the exorcist and been condemned, so that he is in nothing near to you and you are completely free from any disturbance from him; and when you have possessed the happiness of this enrolment without any hindrance —you are brought by duly appointed persons to the priest, as it is before him that you have to make your engagements and promises to God. These deal with the faith and the Creed, which by a solemn asseveration you declare that you will keep steadfastly, and that you will not, like Adam, the father of our race, reject the cause of all good things, but that you will remain till the end in the doctrine of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, while thinking of the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one Divine nature which is eternal and cause of everything, and to the discipleship of which you have been admitted by faith. It is in their names that you receive the happiness of this enrolment which consists in the participation in heavenly benefits.
When a person wishes to enter the house of a man of power in this world, with the intention of doing some work in it, he does not go direct to the master of the house and make his engagement and his contract with him—as it is unbecoming to the master of the house to condescend to such a conversation —but goes to the majordomo and agrees with him about his work, and through him agrees with the master of the house, to whom the house and all its contents belong. In this same way you act, you who draw near to the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, as the blessed Paul says, because God is as much greater than we are as He is higher in His nature than |34 we are, and is for ever invisible, and dwells in a light which is ineffable, according to the words of the blessed Paul. We approach, therefore, the majordomo of this house, that is to say, of the Church, and this majordomo is the priest, who has been found worthy to preside over the Church; and after we have recited our profession of faith before him, we make with God, through him, our contract and our engagements concerning the faith, and we solemnly declare that we will be His servants, that we will work for Him and remain with Him till the end, and that we will keep His love always and without a change. After we have, by our profession of faith, made our contracts and engagements with God our Lord, through the intermediary of the priest, we become worthy to enter His house and enjoy its sight, its knowledge and its habitation, and to be also enrolled in the city and its citizenship. We then become the owners of a great confidence.
As all this happens to us through the Sacrament, to which we draw near after our profession of faith, it is necessary to say what it is and how it is performed. It would indeed be strange to explain the reasons for the ceremonies that precede the Sacrament and neglect the teaching of the Sacrament itself. As, however, we have exceeded our usual time limits, and as the things that have been, said are difficult to remember, we shall postpone what we have to say to another day, and we shall put here an end to our speech while glorifying God the Father, and His Only Begotten Son, and His Holy Spirit, now, always and for ever and ever. Amen.
Here ends the second chapter.
Chapter III.
Synopsis of the Third Chapter.
You stand barefooted on sackcloth while your outer garment is taken off from you and your hands are stretched towards God in the posture of one who prays. First you genuflect while the rest of your |35 body is erect, and then you say: "I abjure Satan and all his angels, and all his works, and all his service, and all his deception, and all his worldly glamour; and I engage myself and believe, and am baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." While you are genuflecting, and the rest of your body is erect, and your look is directed towards heaven, and your hands are outstretched in the posture of one who prays, the priest, clad in linen robes that are clean and shining, signs you on your forehead with the holy Chrism and says: "So-and-so is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And your godfather who is standing behind you spreads an orarium 8 of linen on the crown of your head, raises you and makes you stand up erect.
From what we have previously said, you have sufficiently understood the ceremonies which are duly performed, prior to the Sacrament, and according to an early tradition, upon those who are baptised. When you go to be enrolled in the hope of acquiring the abode and citizenship of heaven, you have, in the ceremony of exorcism, a kind of law-suit with the Demon, and by a Divine verdict you receive your freedom from his servitude. And thus you recite the words of the profession of faith and of prayer, and through them you make an engagement and a promise to God, before the priests, that you will remain in the love of the Divine nature—concerning which, if you think the right things, it will be to you the source of great benefits; and it consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit—and that you will live in this world to the best of your ability in a way that is consonant with the life and citizenship of heaven. It is right now that you should receive the teaching of the ceremonies that take place in the Sacrament itself, because if you learn the reason for each one of them, you will acquire a knowledge that is by no means small. After you have been taken away from the servitude of the Tyrant |36 by means of the words of exorcism, and have made solemn engagements to God along with the recitation of the Creed, you draw near to the Sacrament itself; you must learn how this is done.
You stand barefooted on sackcloth while your outer garment is taken off from you, and your hands are stretched towards God in the posture of one who prays. In all this you are in the likeness of the posture that fits the words of exorcism, as in it you have shown your old captivity and the servitude which through a dire punishment you have rendered to the Tyrant; but it is right that after you have cast away that posture and those memories you should draw near to the Sacrament which implies participation in the future benefits. You recall in your memory your old tribulations in order that you may all the better know the nature of the things which you cast away and that of the things to which you will be transferred.
First you genuflect while the rest of your body is erect, and in the posture of one who prays you stretch your arms towards God. As we have all of us fallen into sin and been driven to the dust by the sentence of death, it is right for us to "bow our knees in the name of Jesus Christ," as the blessed Paul said, and to "confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God His Father." In this confession we show the things that accrued to us from the Divine nature through the Economy of Christ our Lord, whom (God) raised up to heaven and showed as Lord of all and head of our salvation. Because all these things have to be performed by us all, who "are fallen to the earth" according to the words of the blessed Paul, it is with justice that you, who through the Sacrament become partakers of the ineffable benefits,3to which you have been called by your faith in Christ, bow your knees, and make manifest your ancient fall, and worship God, the cause of those benefits.
The rest of all your body is erect and looks towards heaven. In this posture you offer prayer to God, and implore Him to grant you deliverance from the ancient fall and participation in |37 the heavenly benefits. While you are in this posture, the persons who are appointed for the service draw near to you and say to you something more than that which the angel who appeared to the blessed Cornelius said to him: your prayers have been heard and your supplications answered. God has looked upon your tribulations which you were previously undergoing, and had mercy upon you because you were for a long time captives of the Tyrant, and served a cruel servitude to him. He saw the number and the nature of the calamities which you have endured, and this moved Him to deliver you from that servitude and from the great number of your ancient tribulations, and to bring you to freedom and grant you to participate in the ineffable heavenly benefits, which immediately after you have received, you become undoubtedly free from all calamities. It is now time for you to learn the things through which you will surely receive deliverance from your ancient tribulations, and enjoy the good things that have been shown to you.
What are then the engagements and promises which you make at that time, and through which you receive deliverance from the ancient tribulations, and participation in the future benefits?:
"I abjure Satan and all his angels, and all his service, and all his deception, and all his worldly glamour; and I engage myself, and believe, and am baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The deacons who at that time draw near to you prepare you to recite these words. It is in place here to explain to you the power of these words, in order that you may know the force of the engagements, promises and words of asseveration through which you receive the happiness of this great gift. Because the Devil, to whom you had listened, was for you the cause of numerous and great calamities—as he has begun (his work) from the time of the fathers of your race—you promise to abjure him, since facts themselves and your own experience had made you feel his injuries. This is the reason why you say "I abjure Satan." Formerly, even if you wished it, you did not dare to make use of these words, because you were afraid of his servitude, but as you |38 have, by a Divine decree, received deliverance from him, you proclaim and abjure him with confidence and by your own words, and this is the reason why you say "I abjure Satan." In this you imply both your present separation from him and the former association that you had with him. Indeed, no one says that he abjures a thing with which he had formerly no association. The use of this expression is especially incumbent upon you as you had relation with him from the time of your forefathers, together with that cruel and ancient pact, which resulted in the calamitous servitude to him, under which you lived.
You rightly say "I abjure Satan," but you can hardly realise that after having formerly felt the injury which he inflicted upon you in his relation with you, you could be in a position to be delivered from him. In uttering these words you really imply that you have no association of any kind left with him any more. It is indeed difficult for you to realise the extent of the calamities into which he was daily planning to cast us. Did you realise the extent to which Adam, our common father, who had listened to him, has been injured, and into how many calamities he has fallen? or the extent to which his descendants have given themselves up to Satan? or the gravity of the calamities which were borne by men, who later chose to become his servants? Now, however, that the great and wonderful grace, which was manifest through Christ, freed us from the yoke of the Tyrant and delivered us from his servitude, and granted us this wonderful participation in benefits, I have recognised my benefactor. I know now my Lord, and He is truly my Lord, who created me while I was not, who does not relent in His daily beneficence to me, who did not forsake me even when I sinned against Him but bestowed favour on me, who revealed to us an awe-inspiring gift, who did not only vouchsafe to us deliverance from tribulations, but placed also before us the hope of ineffable benefits. I abjure, therefore, Satan, I flee from communion with him, and engage myself that henceforth I shall not run towards him nor shall I have any intercourse with him, but I shall flee completely from him as from an enemy and an evildoer, who became to us the |39 cause of innumerable calamities, who does not know how to do good, and who strives with all his power to fight us and overcome us. The expression "I abjure" means that I will no more choose and accept any communion with him.
If Satan was striving alone and single-handed to fight against us and injure us, the above expression, which contains the profession of abjuring him and completely renouncing communion with him, would have been sufficient; as, however, although invisible, he knows how to fight against us by means of visible beings, the men whom he once subjected and made tools of his iniquity, and whom he employs to cause others to stumble—you add:
"and his angels."
The expression "his angels" refers to all men who received evil of some kind from him, which they practise to harm other people. At the beginning, when he had no one to cause to fall into sin and consequently to suit him in the service of injuring others, the serpent became a tool in his hands, of which he made use to deceive man and cause him to fall. Since, however, he caught in his net the children of men and brought them under subjection a long time ago, he employs those among them who are suitable to the task of injuring others. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "I fear lest as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." He shows here that men of this world are anxious to divert them from duty, and play the same role to the Devil in the deception of mankind as that played by the serpent. This is the reason why, after saying: "I abjure Satan" you add:
"and his angels."
You call angels of Satan all those who serve his will for the purpose of deceiving people and causing them to fall. We must believe to be servants of Satan all those who occupy themselves with the outside wisdom and bring the error of paganism into the world. Clearly are angels of Satan all the poets who maintained idolatry by their vain stories, and strengthened the error |40 of heathenism by their wisdom. Angels of Satan are those men who under the name of philosophy established devastating doctrines among pagans, and corrupted them to such an extent that they do not acquiesce in the words of the true religion. Angels of Satan are also the heads of heresies, those who after the coming of Christ our Lord devised in an ungodly way, and introduced into the world, things contrary to the true faith. Angels of Satan are Mani, Marcion, and Valentinus, who detached the visible things from the creative act of God, and pretended that these visible things were created by another cause outside God. An angel of Satan is Paul of Samosata, who asserted that Christ our Lord was a simple man and denied (the existence) before the worlds of the person of the Divinity of the Only Begotten. Angels of Satan are Arius and Eunomius, who dared to affirm that the nature of the Divinity of the Only Begotten was created and not existing from the beginning, but that it came into existence from nothing according to the law of created beings. In this they imitate the pagans, as they assert that although the nature of the Son is created, they nevertheless believe Him to be God by nature. They also imitate the ignorance of the Jews who deny that He is a Son from the Father and that He is eternally from His Divinity, as He is truly a true Son, and pretend that He is a son in a way similar to those who among the Jews are called sons of God, who have acquired this sonship by grace and not by virtue of their Divinity.
An angel of Satan is also Apollinarius, who falsified the doctrine of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and who, under the pretence of an orthodoxy which would leave our salvation incomplete, categorically asserted that our mind was not assumed and did not participate like the body in the assumption of grace. Angels of Satan are those who in all heresies are the heads and the teachers of error, whether they be honoured with the name of episcopacy or of priesthood, because they are upholders and protectors of the words of error, and as such all of them serve the will of Satan, and clad in the robe of ecclesiastical service, strive to lean towards error. Angels |41 of Satan are also those who, after the abolition of the law, think of drawing those who believed in Christ to the observances of the Jews. Angels of Satan are also those who give to mankind admonitions which are iniquitous, mischievous and contrary to the Divine commandments, and who endeavour to lead it to the service of evil.
You abjure all the above (men) in a way that leaves you no association of any kind with them, because you have drawn near to Christ and have been enrolled in the Church of God, and expect to be the body and the members of Christ through the birth of the holy baptism. Your association should be with Christ our Lord, as a member united to His head and far from those who endeavour to detach you from the faith and the creed of the Church.
After having said: "I abjure Satan and all his angels" you add:
"and all his service."
This means that you should strive to turn away from and reject both the men who serve the will of the Evil One and the things done by them in the name of teaching, as they are palpable iniquity. Service of Satan is everything dealing with paganism, not only the sacrifices and the worship of idols and all the ceremonies involved in their service, according to the ancient custom, but also the things that have their beginning in it. Service of Satan is clearly that a person should follow astrology and watch the positions and motions of the sun, the moon and the stars for the purpose of travelling, going forth, or undertaking a given work, while believing that he is benefited or harmed by their motion and their course; and that one should believe the men who, after watching the motions of the stars, prognosticate by them. This is clearly service of Satan, and the one who puts his confidence in God alone and trusts His Providence, strives to turn away from this and similar things, and expects everything from Him: the bestowal of good things and the abolition of bad things; and does not think that anything like these can happen from another quarter, but knows that anything that is outside the love of God |42 and confidence in Him is under the influence of the tyranny and power of the Evil One.
[These] are service of Satan: the purifications, the washings, the knots, the hanging of yeast, the observances of the body, the fluttering or the voice of birds and any similar thing.9 It is service of Satan that one should indulge in the observances of Judaism. Service of Satan is also that service which is found among the heretics under the name of religion, because although it has some resemblance to an ecclesiastical service, yet it is devoid of the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit, and is performed in impiety. It is clearly service of Satan if true are the words of our Lord who said: "Not everyone that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven." It is evident that you will have no utility in calling upon the name of our Lord while in your mind you are with the ungodly, outside the fear of God. None of those things that are done by them in imitation of the ecclesiastical teaching brings any utility to those who perform them, because the things done (by them) are forbidden by God, and all of them are thus devoid of the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As when in a theatrical performance and in a play you see kings and you do not consider them kings because of the imitation of their dresses, but all of them as a ludicrous representation and a burlesque worthy to be laughed at—they only show before the eyes things taken from the ordinary life of the world—so also the things performed by the heretics under the name of doctrine, whether it be their baptism or their Eucharist, deserve laughter; and we ought to turn away from them as from the service of Satan, because all of them tend to strengthen impiety.
You also say:
"and all his deception."
They named in clear words as deception of Satan all the things that were done by pagans under the name of doctrine, because they displayed all of them ostentatiously and performed them with the intention of fascinating the spectators and deceiving the others. All these things have by the grace of God disappeared |43 to-day; but we must not think any the less of the service performed by heretics, because having noticed that the error of paganism had disappeared in the name of Christ, Satan strove to deceive the children of men by other means, and discovered the heresies, and found out that those who presided over them were, by their imitation of ecclesiastical ceremonies both in the invocation of the (Divine) names and in their fanciful communion service, in a position to deceive simple people and so lead them to the perdition of impiety. After this you say:
"And all his worldly glamour."
They called his glamour, the theatre, the circus, the racecourse, the contests of the athletes, the profane songs, the water-organs and the dances, which the Devil introduced into this world under the pretext of amusement, and through which he leads the souls of men to perdition. It is not difficult to know the great injury caused by these things to the souls of men, and we ought to remove from all of them the son of the Sacrament of the New Testament, who is being enrolled in the citizenship of heaven, who is the heir of the future benefits, and who is expecting to become henceforth, through the regeneration of baptism, a member of Christ our Lord, the head of us all who is in heaven. We who are playing the part of members to Him ought to lead a life that is congruous to Him.
It is for this reason that at the time (preceding your baptism) you make these promises and engagements in the posture which we have described above:
I abjure Satan, and all his angels, and all his service, and all his deception, and all his worldly glamour; and I engage myself before the Divine, the blessed and the eternal nature of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
After having said: "I abjure Satan, and his angels, and his service, and his deception, and all his worldly glamour" you add:
"And I engage myself, and believe and am baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." |44
As when you say "I abjure (Satan)" you mean to reject him for always, and not to revert to him nor be pleased to associate yourself with him any more, so also when you say "I engage myself before God" you show that you will remain steadfastly with Him, that you will henceforth be unshakeably with Him, that you will never separate yourself from Him, and that you will think it higher than anything else to be and to live with Him and to conduct yourself in a way that is in harmony with His commandments.
The addition "And I believe" is necessary because the person who draws near to God ought to believe that He is, as the blessed Paul said. As Divine nature is invisible, faith is called to the help of the person who draws near to it, and who promises to be constantly in its household. The good things that (God) prepared for us, through the Economy of Christ our Lord, are likewise invisible and unspeakable, and since it is in their hope that we draw near to Him and receive the sacrament of baptism, faith is required so that we may possess a strong belief without doubt concerning these good things which are prepared for us and which are now invisible.
You add also the sentence "and I am baptised" to that of "and I believe" so that you may draw near to the gift of the holy baptism, in the hope of future benefits, and be thus enabled to be reborn and to die with Christ and rise with Him from there, and so that after having received another birth, instead of your first one, you may be able to participate in heaven. As long as you are mortal by nature you are not able to enter the abode of heaven, but after you have cast away such a nature in baptism and have risen also with Christ through baptism, and received the symbol of the new birth which we are expecting, you will be seen as a citizen of heaven and an heir of the Kingdom of Heaven.
To all the above (sentences) you add:
"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." |45
This is the Divine nature, this is the eternal Godhead, this is the cause of everything, and this is that which first created us and now is renewing us. This is, indeed, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is to it that we are drawing near now, and it is to it that we are rightly making our promises, because it has been to us the cause of numerous and great benefits, as at the beginning even so now. It is to it that we make these ineffable promises, and it is in it that we engage ourselves to believe henceforth. It is in its names that we are baptised, and through it that we expect to receive the future good things which are now promised to us as in a symbol, and it is to it that we look for the happiness which is to come, when we shall rise in reality from the dead, and become immortal and immutable in our nature, and heirs and partakers of the abode and citizenship of heaven.
These engagements and promises you make in the posture which we have described above, while your knee is bowed to the ground both as a sign of adoration which is due from you to God, and as a manifestation of your ancient fall to the ground; the rest of your body is erect and looks upwards towards heaven, and your hands are outstretched in the guise of one who prays so that you may be seen to worship the God who is in heaven, from whom you expect to rise from your ancient fall. This is the reason why you have, through the promises and engagements which we have already described, directed your course towards Him and have promised to Him that you will make yourself worthy of the expected gift. After you have looked towards Him with outstretched hands, asked grace from Him, risen from your fall and rejoiced in (future) benefits, you will necessarily receive the firstfruits of the sacrament which we believe to be the earnest of the good and ineffable things found in heaven. When you have, therefore, made your promises and engagements, the priest draws near to you, wearing, not his ordinary garments or the covering with which he was covered before, but clad in a robe of clean and radiant linen, the joyful appearance of which denotes the joy of the world to which you will move in the future, and the shining colour of which designates your own radiance in the life to come, while its cleanness indicates the ease and happiness of the next world. |46
He depicts these things to you by means of the garments in which he is clad, and by the hidden symbol of the same garments he inspires you with fear, and with fear he infuses love into you, so that you may through the newness of his garments look into the power which it represents. And he signs you on your forehead with the holy Chrism and says:
"So-and-so is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
He offers you these firstfruits of the sacrament, and he does it in no other way than in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Where you expect to find the cause of all the benefits, there the priest also begins the sacrament. In fact, it is from there that the priest draws you near to the calling towards which you must look, and in consequence of which you ought to live above all things according to the will (of God). The sign with which you are signed means that you have been stamped as a lamb of Christ and as a soldier of the heavenly King. Indeed, immediately we possess a lamb we stamp it with a stamp which shows to which master it belongs, so that it may graze the same grass as that which the rest of the lambs of the owner graze, and be in the same fold as that in which they are. A soldier who has enlisted for military service, and been found worthy of this service of the State because of his stature and the structure of his body, is first stamped on his hand with a stamp which shows to which king he will henceforth offer his service; in this same way you also, who have been chosen for the Kingdom of Heaven, and after examination been appointed a soldier to the heavenly King, are first stamped on your forehead, that part of your head which is higher than the rest of your body, which is placed above all your body and above your face, and with which we usually draw near to one another and look at one another when we speak. You are stamped at that place so that you may be seen to possess great confidence.
"Because now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face, and with an open face we shall behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and shall be changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord," as the |47 blessed Paul said, we are rightly stamped in a place that is higher than our face, so that from far we may frighten the demons, who will not then be able to come near us and injure us, and so that we may be known to possess so much confidence with God that we look at Him with an open face, and display before Him the stamp by which we are seen to be members of the household and soldiers of Christ our Lord.
When the priest performs these things for you and signs you with a sign on your forehead, he separates you from the rest as a consequence of the aforesaid words, and decides that you are the soldier of the true King and a citizen of heaven. The sign (with which you have been signed) demonstrates that you have communion with, and participation in, all these things.
Immediately after your godfather, who is standing behind you, spreads an orarium of linen on the crown of your head, raises you and makes you stand erect. By your rising from your genuflexion you show that you have cast away your ancient fall, that you have no more communion with earth and earthly things, that your adoration and prayer to God have been accepted, that you have received the stamp which is the sign of your election to the ineffable military service, that you have been called to heaven, and that you ought henceforth to direct your course to its life and citizenship while spurning all earthly things.
The linen which he spreads on the crown of your head denotes the freedom to which you have been called. You were before standing bareheaded, as this is the habit of the exiles and the slaves, but after you have been signed he throws on your head linen, which is the emblem of the freedom to which you have been called. Men such as these (=freemen) are in the habit of spreading linen on their heads, and it serves them as an adornment both in the house and in the market-place.
After you have been singled out and stamped as a soldier of Christ our Lord you receive the remaining part of the sacrament and are invested with the complete armour of the Spirit, and with the sacrament you receive participation in the heavenly benefits. |48
We ought to explain little by little how these things are effected, but let what has been said suffice for to-day, and let us end our discourse as usual by offering praise to God the Father, and to His Only Begotten Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
Here ends the third Chapter.
Chapter IV.
Synopsis of this Chapter.
You draw near to the holy baptism, and first take off all your garments, after which you are duly and thoroughly anointed with holy Chrism. The priest begins and says: "So-and-so is anointed in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Then you descend into the water that has been consecrated by the benediction of the priest, who, clad in the aforesaid apparel, stands up and approaches his hand, which he places on your head and says: "So-and-so is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He places his hand on your head and says, "in the name of the Father," and with these words he causes you to immerse yourself in the water. If you were allowed to speak there you would have said ""Amen!", but you simply plunge into the water and incline your head downwards; and the priest says "and of the Son" and causes you with his hand to immerse yourself again while inclining also your head downwards; and the priest says "and of the Holy Spirit" and presses you down and causes you again to immerse in a similar way. After you have left that place, you put on a very radiant garment, and the priest draws near and signs you on your forehead and says: "So-and-so is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
We left off yesterday our catechetical discourse with the words which deal with the fact that you have been signed with |49 the oil of baptism, enlisted in the service of heaven, and counted among the chosen and the elect. The Kingdom of Heaven has been made manifest through the Economy of Christ our Lord, who after His Passion and resurrection ascended into heaven where He established His Kingdom. Now it is right for us—all of us who have been called to that service of heaven—to have communion with heaven, where all of us will move and where our King is, as He Himself said: "I will that they be with Me where I am." We expect to reign with Him if, as the blessed Paul said, through suffering we show our love to Him; and we shall be with Him in heaven and partakers of that great glory. It is for this task that you have been signed, and it is through this signing that you are known to have been chosen for the service of heaven. This is the reason why immediately you rise up you spread on your head linen, which is a mark of freedom, and this signifies that you have been chosen for the heavenly service and been freed from communion with earthly things, while obtaining the freedom which is in heaven. If a slave is not allowed in this world to do military service to a king, how much more ought the person who has been detailed for the service of heaven to be remote from servitude? AH of us, therefore, who have received communion with heavenly things are freemen of that "free Jerusalem which is above and which is the mother of us all," as the blessed Paul said.
Yesterday we spoke sufficiently of the signing and of the meaning of the ceremonies that take place in it, and it is right for us to speak to-day of the things that follow it.
You should now proceed towards baptism in which the symbols of this second birth are performed, because you will in reality receive the true second birth only after you have risen from the dead and obtained the favour to be in the state of which you were deprived by death. It is indeed plain that he who is born afresh returns to the state in which he was before, while it is equally clear that the one who dies relinquishes his present state. You will, therefore, have the second birth, at the resurrection, when you will be given to be in the state in which you were |50 after you were born of a woman, and of which you were deprived by death. All these things will happen to you in reality at the time appointed for your birth at the resurrection; as to now you have for them the word of Christ our Lord, and in the expectation of them taking place you rightly receive their symbols and their signs through this awe-inspiring Sacrament, so that you may not question your participation in future things.
You draw, therefore, near to the holy baptism which contains the symbol of the birth which we expect. This is the reason why our Lord called it second birth when He said to Nicodemus: "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." In this He showed that those who will enter the Kingdom of God must have a second birth. Nicodemus, however, thought that they will be born according to a carnal birth from a woman, and said: "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? " He said this because he believed that we shall be born in a way similar to our first birth. As to our Lord He did not disclose to him then that there are two ways in which we shall in reality receive this, one of which is at the resurrection, because He knew that the subject was too much for his hearing. He, therefore, only disclosed to him then the symbolical birth which is accomplished through baptism, to which all those who believe must draw near so that by means of its symbols they may move to the happiness of the reality itself, and answered: "Unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." He mentioned the method by saying "of water," and He revealed the cause by the mention of "the Spirit." This is the reason why He added: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." He did not make mention here of the water, because it plays the part of the symbol of Sacrament, while He did mention the Spirit, because this birth is accomplished by His action. Illuminatingly he implied by these words that he who is born of the flesh is flesh by nature, and is mortal, passible, corruptible, and changeable in everything. |51
When Nicodemus asked: "How can these things be? ", He answered Him: "The Spirit 10 blows where He wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell from where He comes, and to where He goes; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." He did not mention the water at all, but He lifted the veil of doubt from the point and showed it to be credible from the truth of the Spirit. The sentence "He blows where He wishes" demonstrates His power through which He does everything He wishes, which implies that He can do everything. Indeed, anyone who has it in his power to do everything He wishes, has also by necessity the power to accomplish anything He wishes with ease. He used, therefore, the sentence "so is everyone that is born of the Spirit" with a purpose. He implied by it that we ought to think that the Spirit possesses such a great power and such a great might that we are not to doubt and question anything that comes from Him although it be above, and higher than, our intelligence.
He called baptism a second birth because it contains the symbol of the second birth, and because through baptism we participate as in symbol in this second birth. Indeed, we receive from baptism participation in this second birth without any question and doubt. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "As many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into His death, and were buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of His Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Formerly, and before the coming of Christ, death held sway over us by a Divine decree which was all-binding, and possessed great sovereignty over us; but because Christ our Lord died and rose again, He changed that decree and abolished the sovereignty of death, which to those who believe in Christ resembles a long sleep, as the blessed Paul said: "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that sleep." He calls "them that sleep" those who die after |52 the resurrection of Christ, because they will rise and divest themselves of death through the resurrection. Because Christ our Lord abolished the power of death by His own resurrection (the Apostle) said: "As many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into His death." As if one were saying: We know that death has been abolished a long time ago by Christ our Lord, and we draw near to Him and are baptised with such a faith because we desire to participate in His death, in the hope of participating also in the resurrection from the dead, in the way in which He himself rose. This is the reason why, when at my baptism I plunge my head I receive the death of Christ our Lord, and desire to have His burial, and because of this I firmly believe in the resurrection of our Lord; and when I rise from the water I think that I have symbolically risen a long time ago.
Since, however, all this is done in symbols and in signs, in order to show that we do not make use of vain signs only, but of realities in which we believe and which we ardently desire, he said: "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death we shall be also (in the likeness) of His resurrection." In using the future tense he confirms the present event by the future reality, and from the greatness of the coming reality he demonstrates the credibility of the greatness of its symbols, and the symbol of the coming realities is baptism. The working of the Holy Spirit is that it is in the hope of the future things that you receive the grace of baptism, and that you draw near to the gift of baptism in order to die and to rise with Christ so that you may be born again to the new life, and thus, after having been led by these symbols to the participation in the realities, you will perform the symbol of that true second birth.
If you say that the greatness of the symbols and of the signs is in the visible water, it would be an unimportant affair, as this has already happened before, but because this second birth, which you receive now sacramentally as the symbol of an earnest, is accomplished by the action of the Holy Spirit, great is the Sacrament which is performed and awe-inspiring and worthy |53 of credence is the virtue of the symbols, which will also without doubt grant us to participate in the future benefits. We expect to delight in these benefits because as an earnest of them we have received the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which we have now obtained also the gift of performing this Sacrament. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "In whom we believed and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance to the praise of His glory." He calls here the Spirit of promise the grace which is promised to us by the Holy Spirit, as we receive it in the promise of the future benefits, and he calls it the earnest of our inheritance because it is from it that we become partakers of those future benefits.
He said, therefore, in another passage: "God has established us with you in Christ and anointed us and sealed us and given the earnest of His Spirit in our hearts." And again he said in another passage: "And not only they but ourselves also which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves waiting for the adoption of children to the redemption of our bodies." He uses the words "firstfruits of the Spirit which we have here" to imply that, when we shall dwell in the joy of the realities, we shall receive all the grace, and by the words "we wait for the adoption of children, to the redemption of our bodies" he shows that here we only receive the symbol of the adoption of children but that thereafter, having been born afresh, risen from the dead, become also immortal and incorruptible, and received complete abolition of pains from our bodies, we shall receive the real adoption. He clearly calls "redemption of our bodies" the assumption of incorruptibility and immortality, because it is through these things that a complete abolition of calamities from our bodies is effected. The power of the holy baptism consists in this: it implants in you the hope of the future benefits, enables you to participate in the things which we expect, and by means of the symbols and signs of the future good things, it informs you with the gift of the |54 Holy Spirit the firstfruits of whom you receive when you are baptised.
You draw, therefore, near to the holy baptism, and before everything you take off your garments. As when Adam was formerly naked and was in nothing ashamed of himself, but after having broken the commandment and become mortal, he found himself in need of an outer covering, so also you, who are ready to draw near to the gift of the holy baptism so that through it you may be born afresh and become symbolically immortal, rightly remove your covering, which is a sign of mortality and a reproving mark of that (Divine) decree by which you were brought low to the necessity of a covering.
After you have taken off your garments, you are rightly anointed all over your body with the holy Chrism: a mark and a sign that you will be receiving the covering of immortality, which through baptism you are about to put on. After you have taken off the covering which involves the sign of mortality, you receive through your anointing the sign of the covering ot immortality, which you expect to receive through baptism. And you are anointed all over your body as a sign that unlike the covering used as a garment, which does not always cover all the parts of the body, because although it may cover all the external limbs, it by no means covers the internal ones—all our nature will put on immortality at the time of the resurrection, and all that is seen in us, whether internal or external, will undoubtedly be changed into incorruptibility according to the working of the Holy Spirit which shall then be with us.
While you are receiving this anointing, the one who has been found worthy of the honour of priesthood begins and says: "So-and-so is anointed in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And then the persons appointed for this service anoint all your body. After these things have happened to you, at the time which we have indicated, you descend into the water, which has been consecrated by the benediction of the priest, as you are not baptised only with ordinary water, but with the water of the second birth, which cannot |55 become so except through the coming of the Holy Spirit (on it). For this it is necessary that the priest should have beforehand made use of clear words, according to the rite of the priestly service, and asked God that the grace of the Holy Spirit might come on the water and impart to it the power both of conceiving that awe-inspiring child and becoming a womb to the sacramental birth.
Our Lord also, when Nicodemus asked Him whether a man "can enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born," answered: "Unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." He shows in this that as in a carnal birth the womb of the mother receives the human seed, and the Divine hand fashions it according to an ancient decree, so also in baptism, the water of which becomes a womb to the one who is being born, and the grace of the Spirit fashions in it, into the second birth, the one who is being baptised, and changes him completely into a new man. And inasmuch as the seed that falls into the womb of the mother has neither life, nor soul nor feeling, but after it has been fashioned by the Divine hand, it results in a living man, endowed with soul and feeling, and in a human nature capable of all human acts, so also here the one who is baptised falls into the water as into a womb, like a seed which bears no resemblance of any kind to the mark of an immortal nature, but after he has been baptised and has received the Divine and spiritual grace, he will undoubtedly undergo a complete change: he will be fashioned from a mortal into an immortal, from a corruptible into an incorruptible, and from a mutable into an immutable, nature; and he will be changed completely into a new man according to the power of the One who fashions him.
And inasmuch as the one who is born of a woman has potentially in him the faculty of speaking, hearing, walking and working with his hands, but is very weak to perform all these acts in reality till the time in which God has decreed for him to perform them, so also is the case here in connection with the one who is born of baptism. This one has indeed in him and possesses |56 potentially all the faculties of an immortal and incorruptible nature, but is not now in a position to make use of them and put them into a complete and perfect act of incorruptibility, immortality, impassibility and immutability. He who receives through baptism the potential faculty of performing all these acts, will receive the power of performing them in reality at the time when he is no more a natural but a spiritual man, and when the working of the (Holy) Spirit renders the body incorruptible and the soul immutable, while sustaining and keeping both of them by His power, as the blessed Paul said: "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." He shows here that incorruption, glory and power will come then to man through the working of the Holy Spirit, which affects both his soul and body, the former with immortality and the latter with immutability; and that the body which will rise from the dead and which (man) will put on will be a spiritual and not a natural body.
It is owing to the fact that the nature of the water does not possess all these attributes, which are implanted in it at our immersion by the working of the Holy Spirit, that the priest makes use beforehand of his priestly service and of clear words and benedictions, written for the purpose, and prays that the grace of the Holy Spirit come upon the water and prepare it with His holy and awe-inspiring presence for the task of performing all these things, so that it may become a reverential womb for the second birth, and so that those who descend into it may be fashioned afresh by the grace of the Holy Spirit and born again into a new and virtuous human nature.
When the water has been prepared for this and has received such a power by the coming of the Holy Spirit, you plunge into it hoping to receive from it benefits such as those (described above), and an awe-inspiring salvation. It is right for you, therefore, to think that you are going into the water as into a furnace, where you will be renewed and refashioned in order that you may |57 move to a higher nature, after having cast away your old mortality and fully assumed an immortal and incorruptible nature. These things dealing with birth happen to you in the water because you were fashioned at the beginning from earth and water, and having fallen later into sin you assumed a thorough corruption through the sentence of death.
The potters are also in the habit, when the vessels which they fashion are damaged, to refashion them again with water so that they may be remade and reconstructed and given the wanted form. This is the reason why God ordered also the prophet Jeremiah to repair to a potter; and he went and saw him working on a vessel, which, because it was marred, he cast in water, remade, and brought to its former state; and then God said to him: "O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? says the Lord." Because we also were made of earth and clay—as it is said: "For you are also made of clay like me," and "forgive them that dwell in a house of clay because we also are made of the same clay"—when we fell and sin corrupted us, we received a complete dissolution from the (Divine) sentence of death, but afterwards our Maker and our Lord refashioned us and remade us by His ineffable power, because He abolished death by resurrection and granted to all of us the hope of resurrection from the dead, and a world higher than the present, where we shall not only dwell but also become immortal and incorruptible.
Of these things which are believed to take place in such a wonderful way that no one is able to describe, we perform the symbols and the signs in baptism and in water. We were rightly taught to perform the symbol of the resurrection so that we might think that we were by nature made of clay, that we fell and sin corrupted us, that because of this we received the sentence of death, but that we were renewed and remodelled by Divine grace, which brought us to an immortal nature; a thing that no man had believed or imagined. We perform the symbols and signs (of these things) in water, and are renewed and reconstructed according to the working of the Spirit on it. We who draw |58 near to baptism receive, therefore, these benefits from the Sacrament in symbol, while in the next world we shall all of us receive renewal of our nature in reality. As an earthen vessel, which is being remade and refashioned in water, will remain in its soft nature and be clay as long as it has not come in contact with fire, but when it has been thrown on fire and baked on it, it will undoubtedly be remade and refashioned—so also we, who are in a mortal nature, rightly receive our renewal through baptism and are refashioned through this same baptism and receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, which hardens us more than any fire can do.
As we do not expect a second renewal, so we do not expect a second baptism. Because we expect but one resurrection, from which we shall become immortal and shall never be liable to death, we shall not be in need of a second renewal. This is the case also with Christ our Lord, as the blessed Paul said: "Christ rose from the dead and dies no more, and death has no more dominion over Him." The things that happen to you through the gift of the holy baptism are after this pattern.
It is now time to know who is the one who is the cause of all benefits to you, who casts you into the fire and renews you, who transfers you to a higher nature, who from being mortal makes you immortal, and from corruption brings you to incorruption.
The priest stands up and approaches his hand, which he places on your head, and says: "So-and-so is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," while wearing the aforesaid apparel which he wore when you were on your knees and he signed you on your forehead, and when he consecrated the water. It is in this apparel that he performs the gift of baptism, because it is right for him to perform all the Sacrament while wearing it, as it denotes the renovation found in the next world, to which you will be transferred through this same Sacrament. He says: "So-and-so is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" in order to show by these words who is the cause of this grace. As he says: "So-and-so is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, |59 and of the Holy Spirit," so he says: "So-and-so is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." All this is in harmony with the teaching of our Lord who said: "Go you and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He shows by these words that all the cause of the good things is in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, an eternal nature and cause of everything, by which we were created at the beginning, and expect now to be renewed. It is not possible that one should be the cause of our first creation and another the cause of this second, which is higher than the first.
It is indeed known that the One who at the beginning willed and made us mortal, is the One who is now pleased to make us immortal, and the One who at the beginning made us corruptible is the One who now makes us incorruptible. He willed at the beginning and made us passible and changeable, and at the end He will make us impassible and unchangeable. He is the Lord, and has power to accomplish both. He rightly and justly leads us from low to high things, so that by this transference from small to great things we may perceptibly feel that our Maker and the cause of all our good things, who at the beginning made us as He wished and willed, and who at the end brought us to perfection, did do so in order to teach us to consider Him as the cause also of our first state, and thus to think that since we were in need to be transferred to perfection, we could not have existed at the beginning if He had not brought us into existence.
The priest places his hand on your head and says: "So-and-so is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and does not say "I baptise (So-and-so)," but "So-and-so is baptised"—in the same way as he had previously said "So-and-so is signed" and not "I sign So-and-so"—in order to show that as a man like the rest of men he is not able to bestow such benefits, which only Divine grace can bestow. This is the reason why he rightly does not say "I baptise" and "I sign" but "So-and-so is signed and baptised." In this he immediately refers to the One by whom a person is signed and |60 baptised, namely "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and shows that these are the cause of the things that happen to him, and demonstrates that he himself is a subordinate and a servant of the things that take place, and a revealer of the cause which gives effect to them.
When, therefore, (the priest) utters the words: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he reveals to you the cause of the things that take place. Inasmuch as the one who said: "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk," alluded to Christ as the cause of what would take place, and to the fact that it would be He who would give (to the lame man) the power of rising up and walking, so also the (priest) who says: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" refers to them as the cause of the benefits conferred upon us in baptism, and implies that it is by them that our renewal is accomplished, by them the second birth is granted to us, by them we are fashioned into immortal, incorruptible, impassible and immutable men, and by them we cast away the old servitude and receive the freedom which involves complete abolition of tribulations, and delight in the eternal and ineffable benefits.
He says "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as if he were saying "in the call upon the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The prophet Isaiah said thus: "Beside You we know no other Lord. We are called by Your name." It is as if he were saying: He said, Beside You we know no other Lord, O cause of everything, because it is by You that all evil is abolished, it is from You that we expect to receive the delight in all good things, and it is upon You that we were ordered to call for all our necessities. You are the cause of everything, and You alone are able to grant everything and do everything as You wish. Here also (the priest) says: "in the name" of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as if he were saying: we are baptised by |61 the call upon the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is upon this nature that we call for the gifts of the benefits which we are expecting, as it is the cause of everything, and it alone is able to do everything as it wishes.
The priest does not say "in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit," because every one of them has a separate name that does not fit that of the other. Indeed, the name of the Father is one thing, if I may so express myself, and the name of the Son is another thing, and the name of the Holy Spirit is another thing still, but because (the priest) does not pronounce the name by which each one of them is called, that is to say, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but refers by the word "name" to the invocation which is the cause of our benefits, namely the eternal nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and because this invocation of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one, he says, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
We do not name Father as one cause, and the Son as another cause, and the Holy Spirit as another cause still, but because these three form the one cause from which we expect the delight in the benefits which are looked for in baptism, we rightly make use of one invocation only with which we name the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Think of these names as if you were performing a prayer with them, and when the priest says "in the name of the Father" suppose that he is saying "Grant, O Father, these eternal and ineffable benefits for which this person is now being baptised"; and likewise when he says "of the Son" suppose that he is saying "Grant, O Son, the gift of the benefits of baptism"; and similarly when he says "of the Holy Spirit," suppose that he is saying "Grant in baptism, O Holy Spirit, the benefits for which this person has come to be baptised." In the same way as one who says: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk" means this: O Lord Jesus Christ, grant this person to rise up and to walk, so also when (the priest) says "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he does not imply anything else |62 but: O Father, Son and Holy Spirit, grant this person who is being baptised the grace of the second birth. The sentence "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk 'is similar to that: "Aeneas, Jesus Christ makes you whole." As he revealed here to Aeneas, who was healed, and to those who were present, the One who was the cause of healing, so also in the sentence "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" he revealed the cause of healing.
In this same way the sentence: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" reveals the giver of the benefits of baptism, which are: second birth, renewal, immortality, incorruptibility, impassibility, immutability, deliverance from death and servitude and all evils, happiness of freedom, and participation in the ineffable good things which we are expecting. The person who is baptised is baptised for these things. The call upon the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is, therefore, used for the purpose of knowing from whom the benefits of baptism are expected.
The priest places his hand on your head and says "of the Father," and with these words he causes you to immerse yourself in water, while you obediently follow the sign of the hand of the priest and immediately, at his words and at the sign of his hand, immerse yourself in water. By the downward inclination of your head you show as by a hint your agreement and your belief that it is from the Father that you will receive the benefits of baptism, according to the words of the priest. If you were allowed to speak at that time, you would have said: "Amen," a word which we believe to mean that we subscribe to the things said by the priest, as the blessed Paul said: "He that occupies the room of the unlearned says 'Amen' at your giving of thanks." He shows here that this word is said by the congregation at the giving of thanks by the priests to signify by it that they subscribe to the things that are said. You are, however, not allowed to speak at the time of baptism, as it is right for you to receive the renewal through the Sacrament, when you are baptised, in silence and fear, while by inclining your head downwards you |63 signify that you subscribe to the things said by the priest. You, therefore, immerse and bow your head while the priest says "and of the Son," and causes you with his hand to immerse again in the same way. And you show that you subscribe to the words of the priest, and as a sign also that you are expecting to receive the benefits of baptism from the Son, you bow your head. Then the priest says "and of the Holy Spirit" and likewise presses you down into the water, while you immerse yourself and look downwards as a sign that here also you make the same confession to the effect that you are expecting the benefits of baptism from the Holy Spirit. After this you go out of the water.
When the priest says "of the Father" you immerse, bow your head, but do not go out of the water; and when he says "and of the Son," you immerse and bow your head likewise, but do not go out of the water; and after he has said "and of the Holy Spirit," he has finished the complete call upon the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so after immersing again and bowing your head, you go out of the water of baptism, which, so far as you are concerned, comes to an end, because, as you remember, there is no name left for you on which to call, as the cause of the expected benefits.
You perform three identical immersions, one in the name of the Father, another in the name of the Son, and another in the name of the Holy Spirit; your immersions are done in an identical way in order that you may know that each one of those names is equally perfect and able to confer the benefits of baptism. You immerse yourself in water three times, according to the words of the priests, but you go out of the water once in order that you may know that baptism is one, and one also the grace which is accomplished in it by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who are never separated from one another as they are one nature. This is the reason why, although each one of them is able to confer the gift—as the baptism by which you are baptised in the name of each one of them shows—yet we believe that we only receive a complete baptism when the call upon the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is finished. Because the Father, the Son and the |64 Holy Spirit have one essence and one Godhead, it is necessary to assume that they have also one will and one action whereby everything is usually done by them to the creatures. It follows that we also expect the second birth, the second creation, and, in short, all the benefits of baptism, in no other way than by calling upon the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and this call we consider to be the cause of all good things to us.
This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body and one Spirit, one God and Father of all, and through all, and in you all." He does not mean to say that one is Lord but not God and Spirit, and that another is God but not Lord and Spirit, and that the third is Spirit but not Lord and God, because it is necessary for anyone who is Lord to be also both God and Spirit, and for anyone who is God to be both Lord and Spirit, and for anyone who is truly Spirit—I mean the Holy Spirit—to be both God and Lord, but he teaches us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one incorporeal and uncircumscribed Lordship, one Godhead and one essence, which grants us through baptism the adoption of children. In it we believe and are baptised and through it we become one body, according to the working on us of the Holy Spirit, in baptism, which makes us children of God and one body of Christ our Lord, whom we consider our head, as He is from our nature, and was the first to rise from the dead, and as it is through Him that we received participation in benefits. By naming the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit we name the cause of all benefits. He would not have said that the faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was one had He known that they had a different nature, nor would He have said that the baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was one had He known that they had a different will, power and action. It is indeed evident that faith is one because the Godhead in which we believe is one, and that baptism is one because the persons who are named in it have one will, one power and one action, by which we receive the second birth. And we |65 become one body of Christ, because we consider Christ our Lord in the flesh as our head, since He was assumed from us and was the first to rise from the dead, and thus He confirmed for us our participation in the resurrection from which we expect our body to be similar to His body. Indeed "our conversation is in heaven from from where also we look for our Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like to His glorious body."
This will take place in reality in heaven, but we perform its symbols and its signs in baptism. We are also called the body of Christ our Lord, Christ our Lord being our head, as the blessed Paul said: "Christ is the head from which all the body is joined and knit together and increases with the increase of God." The same Christ our Lord was seen before His resurrection from the dead to receive baptism in the Jordan from John the Baptist, so that He might draw in it beforehand the figure of this baptism which we were to receive by His grace. He was "the firstborn from the dead," as the blessed Paul said, "so that in all things He might have the pre-eminence." Not only in the reality of the resurrection, therefore, did He wish to have the pre-eminence over you but also in its symbol, and this is the reason why He condescended to be baptised by John. He thus drew beforehand in Himself the figure of the grace of this baptism which you are about to receive, in order that He might have the pre-eminence over you in it also. The blessed John the Baptist said to Him: "I have need to be baptised by You, and You come to me?" so that he might show that there was a great difference between himself and Him; but He replied: "Allow it to be so now, for thus it appears right for us to fulfil all righteousness." He meant by this that righteousness is fulfilled by grace in baptism, and that it is through you that it has to find an entry into those who are under the law, so that this same law might be considered praiseworthy from the fact that it was through it that righteousness found an entry.
Our Lord was, therefore, baptised by John, but not in the |66 baptism of John, which was that of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Our Lord, who was completely free from sin, was in no need of it, but He was baptised in our own baptism the symbol of which He depicted in this way. This is the reason why He received also the Holy Spirit who, as the evangelist said, "descended like a dove and lighted on Him." Indeed, John had no power to confer the Spirit: "It is He that will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." In this he clearly revealed that it did not belong to him to confer the Spirit. His task was only to baptise with water in a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, while it only belonged to our Lord to confer the Spirit, whom He conferred now upon us in baptism as the firstfruits of the future benefits, which He will confer upon us in their entirety at the time of the resurrection, when our nature will receive a complete transformation into virtue. It is right for you, therefore, to know that you are baptised in the same baptism as that in which Christ our Lord in the flesh was baptised, and this is the reason why you are baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
(The baptism of our Lord) was in fact symbolically drawn to the pattern of ours. In it the Father cried and said: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." In this He showed the grace of the adoption of children for which baptism takes place, and the sentence "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" is as if one were saying: this is truly adoption of children; this is the beloved who pleased me; this is the Son who received such an adoption of children as this, which is much higher than that ruling among the Jews, as the latter underwent change: "I have said, You are gods, and all of you children of the Most High, but you shall die like men," while the former will remain unchangeable. Indeed anyone who receives this adoption of children will remain immortal, because he moves, through the symbols (of baptism), to that adoption of children which will take place at the resurrection, from which he will be transformed into an immortal and incorruptible nature. There was also the Son in the One who was baptised, and by His proximity to Him |67 and by His union with the one who was assumed, He was confirming the adoption of children. And there was also the Holy Spirit who descended like a dove and lighted on Him. In this He was also baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
When, therefore, the priest says "in the name of the Father remember the sentence "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," and think of the adoption of children which is conferred upon you by the Father; and when he says "and of the Son" think of the One who was near to the One who was baptised, and understand that He became to you the cause of the adoption of children; and when he says "and of the Holy Spirit" think of the One who descended like a dove and lighted upon Him, and expect from Him the confirmation of the adoption of children. The blessed Paul said: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the children of God." The true adoption of children is, therefore, that which is conferred by the Holy Spirit; and that to which the Spirit is not near, and that in which He does not work and lead (men) to the gift of the things that are believed, is not the true one.
You receive, therefore, the grace of the adoption of children in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and you go out of the water. You have now received baptism which is the second birth; you have fulfilled by your baptism in water the rite of the burial, and you have received the sign of the resurrection by your rising out of the water; you have been born and have become a new man; you are no more part of Adam who was mutable and burdened and made wretched by sin, but of Christ who was completely freed from sin through resurrection,11 while even before it He never drew near to it. It was congruous that (this sinless state) should have had its beginning in Him before (His resurrection), and that at His resurrection He should fully receive an immutable nature. In this way He confirmed to us the resurrection from the dead and our participation in incorruptibility. |68
When you go out (of the water) you wear a garment that is wholly radiant. This denotes the next world which is shining and radiant, and the life into which you had a long time beforehand moved through symbols. When you have received the resurrection in reality and put on immortality and incorruptibility, such a garment will be wholly unnecessary, but since now you do not possess these things in reality and have only received them sacramentally and symbolically, you are in need of garments. Of these you wear those which denote the happiness, which you have now received symbolically but which you will one day possess in reality.
After you have received the grace of baptism and worn a white garment that shines, the priest draws near to you and signs you on your forehead and says: "So-and-so is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." When Jesus came out of the water He received the grace of the Holy Spirit who descended like a dove and lighted on Him, and this is the reason why He is said to have been anointed: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because of which the Lord has anointed me," and: "Jesus of Nazareth whom God has anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power": texts which show that the Holy Spirit is never separated from Him, like the anointment with oil which has a durable effect on the men who are anointed, and is not separated from them. It is right, therefore, that you also should receive the signing on your forehead.
When (the priest) signs you he says: "So-and-so is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," so that it may be an indication and a sign to you that it is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit descended on you also, and you were anointed and received grace; and He will be and remain with you, as it is through Him that you possess now the firstfruits. Indeed, at present you only receive symbolically the happiness of the future benefits, but at the time of the resurrection you will receive all the grace, from which you will become immortal, incorruptible, impassible and immutable; even your body will then |69 remain for ever and will not perish, while your soul will be exempt from all inclination, however slight, towards evil.
As such is the second birth that comes to us through baptism, to which you are about to draw near, and from which we expect to move into that real and awe-inspiring second birth of the resurrection. It confirms in us that which comes to us in symbols and signs through faith, and strengthens us in relation to it. It is not to be wondered at that we receive two births, and that we shall move from the present birth to the future one, as even in our carnal birth we receive a two-fold birth, one of which from the male and the other, which comes later, from the female. We are first born of the male in the form of human semen, which has not a single vestige of human form. It is indeed clear to every one that the semen has no human form of any kind, and that it receives the form of the human nature according to the laws formulated by God for our nature after it has been conceived, fashioned, formed and born of a woman. It is in this same way that we are also born, first in the form of semen through baptism, before we are born of the resurrection, and have taken shape in the immortal nature into which we expect to be changed, but when by faith and hope in the future things we have been formed and fashioned into the life of Christ and remained till the time of the resurrection, then we shall receive according to the decree of God, a second birth from dust, and assume an immortal and incorruptible nature, and "our vile body will be changed by Christ our Lord that it may be fashioned into His glorious body," as the blessed Paul said.
After you have received in this way a sacramental birth through baptism, you draw near to an immortal food, consonant with your birth, with which you will be nourished. You will have now to learn, at an opportune time, the nature of this food and the way in which it is presented to you. For the present, however, because you have received through (our) teaching the birth of baptism, and have drawn near, through this second birth, to communion with that ineffable light, and because we have, by what we have said, wrapped you tightly in swaddling clothes, |70 so that you may grasp and remember firmly and unshakeably the birth that takes place, we shall soothe you by silence, and by the permission of God we shall bring you at an opportune time near to the Divine food and our discourse thereon. And now let us put the usual end to our speech by glorifying God the Father, and His Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
Here ends the fourth chapter.
Chapter V.
Synopsis of this Chapter.
We must first of all realise that we perform a sacrifice of which we eat, and that it is the office of the priest of the New Testament to offer this sacrifice, as it is through it that the New Covenant appears to be maintained. We must think that the priest who now draws near to the altar performs the image of the (heavenly) sacrifice, and we must also think that the deacons represent the image of the service of the invisible hosts. They have an apparel which is consonant with their office, since their outer garment is taller than they are. They place a stole on their left shoulders, and it floats on either side equally.
We must think of Christ being at one time led and brought to His Passion, and at another time being stretched on the altar to be sacrificed for us. This is the reason why those deacons who spread linens on the altar represent the figure of the linen clothes of the burial (of our Lord), while those who stand on both sides (of the altar) agitate all the air found upon the holy body with fans. These things take place while everybody is silent, then comes prayer —not a silent prayer—announced beforehand in the loud voice of the deacon. When everyone is silent the priest begins with the appointed service.
And the priest finishes his prayer, after which he offers thanksgivings for himself; and all the congregation says: "Amen." And |71 the priest prays: "Peace he to you" and for this the congregation answers: "And to your spirit" And the priest begins to give peace, and the Church crier shouts and orders all to give peace one to another. While this is taking place the priest washes his hands first, and then all those who, whatever their number, are counted in the assembly of priesthood. Then the names of the living and the dead are read from Church books. After this the priest draws near to the service while the Church crier shouts: "Look at the oblation." 12
It is the habit of men to wrap the newborn babes in swaddling clothes so that a freshly constituted and still soft body may not receive any injury, but that it should remain firm in its composition. They first stretch and place them restfully in swaddling clothes, and then bring to them a natural food that is fitting and suitable to them. In this same way we have also tightly wrapped in our teaching, as in swaddling clothes, those who were newly born of baptism so that the memory of the grace promised to them might be firmly established in them; and we soothed them by the cessation of our speech, because the measure of things that were said was adequate. To-day, however, I am contemplating to draw you, by the grace of God, to the nourishment of a bread, the nature of which you must know and the greatness of which you must learn with accuracy.
When we shall have received the true birth through the resurrection, you will receive another food that cannot be described with words, and you will then be clearly fed by the grace of the Spirit whereby you will remain immortal in your bodies and immutable in your souls. It is a food such as this that is suitable to that birth; and the grace of the Spirit will grant those who shall be born of the resurrection to remain firm, so that their bodies shall not suffer dissolution and their souls shall |72 not be affected by any change that may incline them to evil. And because we are born now symbolically through baptism, in the hope of that other birth which we are expecting, we receive at present, in form of an earnest, the firstfruits of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which will then be given to us, as we expect to receive it fully in the next world through the resurrection. It is only after its reception that we hope to become immortal and immutable, and it is right for us now to eat symbolically, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, a food suitable to the present life.
For this reason the blessed Paul said: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do remember the Lords death till He come." He shows that when our Lord shall come from heaven, and make manifest the future life, and effect the resurrection of all of us—from which we shall become immortal in our bodies and immutable in our souls—the use of sacraments and symbols shall by necessity cease. Since we shall be in the reality itself, we shall be in no need of visible signs to remind us of the things that shall take place. Inasmuch as in this world we exist by two acts: birth and food—in birth we receive our existence and in feeding ourselves we are enabled to maintain our existence, as those who are born will surely die if they are short of food—so also is the case with the next world, in which having been born of resurrection we shall receive our existence, and having become immortal, we shall continue to remain in that state.
The blessed Paul therefore said: "For we know that if this our earthly house were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." In this world we contrive to feed ourselves by the labour of our hands, and so we maintain our existence; but when, at the resurrection, we have become immortal and received the heavenly abode, we shall have no more need of this food of the labour of our hands, because immortality, which we shall then assume, will maintain us in our existence by the power of grace, as with food. This is the reason why the blessed Paul calls our |73 abode of that time "an house not made with hands, and a building of God in heaven."
These things will, as I have said, happen to us in the future, at the resurrection; and because we are now born in baptism through symbols and signs, it is right for us also to take our food according to the same symbols, so that we may be enabled to maintain the existence which we receive from baptism. Indeed, every animal is born of another animal and feeds on the body of the animal that brings it forth, and God has so arranged it at the beginning, with the creatures, that every animal that brings forth possesses food suitable to those that are born of it. In this same way it is necessary for us, who have symbolically received the grace of God, to receive our food from where we had our birth, and the death of Christ our Lord, when abolished by His resurrection, showed to us the birth that will come to us in the next world through the resurrection.
This is the reason why the blessed Paul said also: "As many of us as were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into His death, because we were buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of His Father, even so we also should walk in the newness of life. For if we have been planted with Him in the likeness of His death, we shall also live in His life." He shows here that resurrection was made manifest in the death of Christ our Lord, and that we are buried with Him in baptism, and after we have been here partakers of His death in faith, we shall also participate in the resurrection. As we receive birth of baptism in the death of Christ our Lord, so also we receive food symbolically in death. The blessed Paul bears witness to this when he says: "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do remember the Lord's death till He come." He shows that in our communion and participation in the Sacrament we remember our Lord from whom we receive resurrection and happiness of immortality. Indeed, it is right for us who have received a sacramental birth in the death of Christ |74 our Lord, to receive the sacramental food of immortality in this same death, and to feed ourselves in the future from where we had also received our birth, as it is the habit of all the animals which are brought forth to be in a position to feed themselves from those which bring them forth.
Our Lord also testifies to this, because in the institution of the Sacrament He said: Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins," and: "Take, drink, this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins." He said this because in His death He gave us the next world in which there will be abolition of all sins. As to us it is right for us to perform symbolically the remembrance of His death by our participation in the Sacrament, from which we derive the possession of the future benefits and the abolition of sins. The food of the holy Sacrament possesses such a power, and fits the birth of those who eat it. Indeed, as in this world we take the spiritual food in signs and symbols, it is necessary that the nature of these signs and symbols should fit our present condition in which we take the symbolical food.
As we received the second birth in water, which is useful and necessary to life in this world—so much so that we are not even able to make bread without water—so also we take our food in bread and in wine mixed with water, as they eminently fit this life and sustain us to live in it. As we are sufficiently enabled to maintain ourselves in this life, and to remain in it by necessity through the suitable symbols of that spiritual food which shall be ours, let us think in our mind that it is from this food that we are expecting to become immortal and remain for ever. These are the things in the hope of which we partake of this holy food of the Sacrament.
Indeed, He (our Lord) gave us the bread and the cup because it is with food and drink that we maintain ourselves in this world, and He called the bread "body" and the cup "blood," because, as it was His Passion that affected His body which it tormented and from which it caused blood to flow, He wished |75 to reveal, by means of these two objects through which His Passion was accomplished, and also in the symbol of food and drink, the immortal life, in which we expect to participate when we perform this Sacrament from which we believe to derive a strong hope for the future benefits. It is with justice, therefore, that when He gave the bread He did not say: "This is the symbol of my body," but: "This is my body"; likewise when He gave the cup He did not say: "This is the symbol of my blood" but: "This is my blood," because He wished us to look upon these (elements) after their reception of grace and the coming of the Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as if they were the body and the blood of our Lord. Indeed, even the body of our Lord does not possess immortality and the power of bestowing immortality in its own nature, as this was given to it by the Holy Spirit; and at its resurrection from the dead it received close union with Divine nature and became immortal and instrumental for conferring immortality on others.
This is the reason why, when our Lord said: "He that eats my body and drinks my blood has eternal life," and saw that the Jews were murmuring and doubting the things that were said, and thinking that it was impossible to receive immortality from mortal flesh, He added immediately for the purpose of removing this doubt: "If you see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before." It is as if He were saying: the thing that is being said about my body does not appear now true to you, but when you see Me rising up from the dead and ascending into heaven, it will be made manifest (to you) that you were not to think that what had been said was harsh and unseemly, as the facts themselves will convince you that I have moved to an immortal nature, because if I were not in such a nature I would not have ascended into heaven. And in order to show from where these things came to Him He added quickly: "It is the Spirit that lives, the flesh profites nothing," as if He were saying: these things will come to it from the |76 nature of the vivifying Spirit, and it is through Him that it will be given to it to become immortal and to confer also immortality on others. These things it did not possess, and was not, therefore, in a position to confer upon others as coming from its nature, because the nature of the flesh is not able by itself to grant a gift and a help of this kind. If, therefore, the nature of the vivifying Spirit made the body of our Lord into what its nature did not possess before, we ought, we also, who have received the grace of the Holy spirit through the symbols of the Sacrament, not to regard the elements merely as bread and cup, but as the body and the blood of Christ, into which they were so transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit, by whom they become to the partakers of them that which we believe to happen to the faithful through the body and blood of our Lord. This is the reason why He said: "I am the bread which came down from heaven," and "I am the bread of life"; and to show them what was that which He called bread, He said: "And the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world."
Because we sustain ourselves in this life with bread and food, He called Himself the bread of life that came down from heaven, as if He were saying: I am truly the bread of life and give immortality to those who believe in Me through this visible (body) for the sake of which I came down and to which I granted immortality, which through it will extend to those who believe in Me. While He might have said: "It is I who give life," He did not say it, but said "I am the bread of life," because as we would be receiving the promise given us here of the immortality, which we expect in sacramental symbols, through bread and cup, we had to honour also the symbol which became worthy of this appellation. He called Himself bread as an allusion to the things that were to be given, as He wished to convince us, from things belonging to this world, that we shall receive also without doubt the benefits that are high above words. The fact that in order to sustain ourselves in this life we eat bread, and the fact that bread cannot fulfil this function by its nature, but has been enabled to do so by order of God |77 who imparted this power to it, should by necessity convince us not to doubt that we shall receive immortality by eating the sacramental bread. Indeed, although bread does not possess such a nature, yet when it receives the Holy Spirit and His grace it is enabled to impart to those who eat it the happiness of immortality. If it is capable of sustaining us in this life by a decree of God, although not possessing this power by nature, how much more will it not be capable, after it has received the descent of the Holy Spirit, of helping us to assume immortality. It does not do this by its own nature but by the Spirit who is dwelling in it, as the body of our Lord, of which this one is the symbol, received immortality by the power of the Spirit, and imparted this immortality to others, while in no way possessing it by nature.
(Our Lord) chose, therefore, very fittingly bread as food, and the cup—which consists of wine mixed with water—as drink. The Old Testament had already taken blood to mean wine: "He gave him to drink the blood of the grapes," while in another passage it says: "He shall wash his garments in wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes." That what He gave was wine He made perfectly clear by saying: I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom." He alludes by the Kingdom of God to the resurrection, because it is for those who shall rise from the dead in the next world that He has established the Kingdom of God. And since He was about to commune with them in food and drink after His resurrection, and before His ascension into heaven, as the blessed Luke said, He meant by the above words that His Passion was near and that He would not be taking any food with them before this Passion, but that after His resurrection from the dead He would be eating and drinking with them in order to confirm this resurrection.
This is the reason why He said: "I will not drink |78 henceforth of this fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of God." As if He were saying: I shall not take food or drink with you before my Passion, because it is very near, but when I have risen from the dead I shall both eat and drink, and in this I shall do a novel thing. It is indeed a novel thing for one who rose from the dead and became immortal in his nature to eat and drink, but I shall do violence to the natural laws so that you may possess a strong faith about Me that I rose from the dead. It is I—whom you previously knew to have eaten and drunk with you—who rose. Because you will have much doubt about my resurrection, it is necessary that I should do violence to the natural laws in order to confirm it to you, and that I should perform a novel thing that has never happened before, namely to eat and drink after having assumed immortal nature. A firm knowledge of my resurrection is all the more required of you because you will be the teachers of this resurrection to others.
That what is given to you in the cup by Christ our Lord as a symbol of His blood is wine, one is able also to see from the fact that it is mixed with water. This is either due to the fact that it is generally drunk in this way, or to the fact that having already taken bread it was fitting as a counterpart of it to take a cup of water—as bread cannot be made without a mixture of water—or also to the fact that having made use of this symbol in the birth of baptism we do likewise make use of it for the delight of the Sacrament of our nourishment. As it was necessary to remember the death of our Lord in our participation in the holy Sacrament, as the blessed Paul said, in the same way as we remember it in the things that take place in baptism, what was necessary for us to find in the elements of the gift of the holy baptism, from which we believe that we symbolically receive the second birth, had also to be found in the elements of the symbols of the Sacrament.
This is the power of the Sacrament, and these are the symbols and the signs of the Sacrament in its twofold side of |79 eating and drinking. It is useful now to speak to you, for the sake of your sound teaching, of the way in which they are effected.
We must first of all realise that we perform a sacrifice of which we eat. Although we remember the death of our Lord in food and drink, and although we believe these to be the remembrance of His Passion—because He said: "This is my body which is broken for you, and this is my blood which is shed for you"—we nevertheless perform, in their service, a sacrifice; and it is the office of the priest of the New Testament to offer this sacrifice, as it is through it that the New Covenant appears to be maintained. It is indeed evident that it is a sacrifice, but not a new one and one that (the priest) performs as his, but it is a remembrance of that other real sacrifice (of Christ). Because the priest performs things found in heaven through symbols and signs, it is necessary that his sacrifice also should be as their image, and that he should represent a likeness of the service of heaven. It would be impossible for us to be priests and do priestly service outside the ancient law if we did not possess the likeness of heavenly things.
The blessed Paul said about Christ our Lord that "if He were on the earth He should not be a high priest, seeing that there were priests of the law who offer gifts according to the law and who serve to the example and shadow of heavenly things." He means by this that all the priests according to the law performed their priestly service on earth, where all the law was made to suit mortal men, and the sacrifices consisted of irrational beasts led to be slaughtered to death, which meant that they were fit for this mortal sojourn on earth. It is indeed clear that all the injunctions and ritual of the law were only partially suitable. Circumcision, Sabbath, holy days, observances of days, and distinctions in food: all these suited a mortal nature, and none of them has any place in an immortal nature, and to people who performed such things even sacrifices of irrational beasts are not suitable, as these are slaughtered and |80 die in the act of sacrifice. As to Christ our Lord, if He were about to perform His priestly service on earth, it was necessary that He also should perform this service according to the Divine law, which was something that harmonised with the (Mosaic) law; and if He did not perform a priestly service according to the law, He would not have been a high priest, as He would then be performing a priestly service not according to the law of God. Now, however, He performs the priestly service in heaven and not on earth, because He died, rose, ascended into heaven in order to raise us all up and cause us to ascend into heaven, and made a covenant with those who believe in Him that He will grant them participation in the resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven.
He performs a real high priesthood and offers to God no other sacrifice than Himself, as He had delivered also Himself to death for all. He was the first to rise from the dead, and He ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of God in order to destroy all our adversaries, as the blessed Paul said: "He offered one sacrifice for our sins for ever, sat on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected for ever them that are sanctified." He calls His enemies those who fight against us, and their destruction is clearly seen in our perfection, as the work of a high priest consists in his drawing near to God first and then in drawing also the others to Him through himself. The blessed Paul rightly calls Him high priest because He was so in reality, as through His resurrection He was the first to ascend into heaven; and He sat on the right hand of God, and granted us through Himself to be near to God and partakers of good things. "The high priest of all of us is," as the blessed Paul said, "Christ our Lord, who did not, like the high priests of the law, serve to the example and shadow of heavenly things, but He is the minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which God pitched and not man," so that through them He might make manifest |81 the heavenly things. He refers by the word "sanctuary" to heavenly things which do not contain anything that is contrary or reprehensible, and by the sentence "the true tabernacle which God pitched and not man" to the heavenly abode, because the tabernacle of the law was pitched by man, but heaven is made not by men but by God, and it is of it that the Apostle said that Christ is the minister, as He ascended into heaven and there performs service for all of us, so that He might draw us to Him by all means, according to His promise. It is for this reason that he said in another passage that "He is at the right hand of God and making intercession for us." He calls "intercession" not a supplication made for us in words, as this intercession is made in deeds, because through His ascension into heaven He makes intercession for us to God and is anxious that all of us should ascend into heaven to Him.
If, as the blessed Paul said, Christ our Lord should not be a priest if He performed His priestly service on earth, it follows that He does not perform His service according to the ritual of the law, but since priesthood and the service of the law were made manifest by God on earth, it was not necessary that it should be rejected by God and another one be substituted on the same earth. He is then rightly a priest because He performs priestly service in heaven, where there is not a single association with earthly things, and in this way no blame attaches to the priests of the law. Since these are said in another place to do their work among mortal and earthly men, while He performs His priestly service in immortal and heavenly things, which are much higher and loftier, is it not clear that neither can we be priests appointed to do priestly service for earthly things? It is indeed well known that the priesthood of the law suited earthly and mortal men, while Christ is the high priest of heavenly things, and will cause all of us to ascend into heaven at the right time.
As to us who are called to a new covenant, as the blessed Paul said, we received salvation and deliverance in hope, and |82 although we have not seen them we expect "by our patience to be absent from the body and be with our Lord." We walk by faith and not by sight because we are not yet in the reality, as we are not yet in the heavenly benefits. We wait here in faith until we ascend into heaven and set out on our journey to our Lord, where we shall not see through a glass and in a riddle but shall look face to face. These things, however, we expect to receive in reality through the resurrection at the time decreed by God, and now it is only by faith that we draw near to the firstfruits of these good things: to Christ our Lord and the high priest of things that belong to us. We are ordered to perform in this world the symbols and signs of the future things so that, through the service of the Sacrament, we may be like men who enjoy symbolically the happiness of the heavenly benefits, and thus acquire a sense of possession and a strong hope of the things for which we look.
As the real new birth is the one which we expect through the resurrection, and we nevertheless perform this new birth symbolically and sacramentally through baptism, so also the real food of immortality is that which we hope to receive truly in heaven by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but now we symbolically eat the immortal food which is given to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit, whether in symbols or through symbols. It follows that a role of a high priest must needs be filled, and it is found in those who are appointed for the service of these symbols. Those who have been chosen as the priests of the New Testament are believed to perform sacramentally, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, and for the confirmation and admonition of the children of the Sacrament, these things which we believe that Christ our Lord performed and will perform in reality.
This is the reason why they do not immolate at all times new sacrifices like the priests of the law. These were ordered to offer to God numerous and different sacrifices of oxen, goats and sheep, and offered new sacrifices at all times. When first |83 sacrificial beasts had been slaughtered, had died and suffered complete dissolution, others were always immolated in the place of those which had been slaughtered a long time previously. As to the priests of the New Testament they immolate the same sacrifice always and everywhere, because one is the sacrifice which has been immolated for us, that of Christ our Lord who suffered death for us and who, by His offering this sacrifice, obtained perfection for us, as the blessed Paul said: "By one offering He perfected for ever them that are sanctified." All of us, everywhere, at all times, and always, observe the commemoration of that sacrifice, "for as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we do show the Lord's death till He come." As often, therefore, as the service of this awe-inspiring sacrifice is performed, which is clearly the likeness of heavenly things and of which, after it has been perfected, we become worthy to partake through food and drink, as a true participation in our future benefits—we must picture in our mind that we are dimly in heaven, and, through faith, draw in our imagination the image of heavenly things, while thinking that Christ who is in heaven and who died for us, rose and ascended into heaven and is now being immolated. In contemplating with our eyes, through faith, the facts that are now being re-enacted: that He is again dying, rising and ascending into heaven, we shall be led to the vision of the things that had taken place beforehand on our behalf.
Because Christ our Lord offered Himself in sacrifice for us and thus became our high priest in reality, we must think that the priest who draws near to the altar is representing His image, not that he offers himself in sacrifice, any more than he is truly a high priest, but because he performs the figure of the service of the ineffable sacrifice (of Christ), and through this figure he dimly represents the image of the unspeakable heavenly things and of the supernatural and incorporeal hosts. Indeed, all the invisible hosts did service to that Economy which transcends our words and which Christ our Lord accomplished for us. "They are all ministering spirits sent forth to minister |84 for them who shall be heirs of salvation" as the blessed Paul said. Matthew, the evangelist, showed also this when he said: "and the angels came, and ministered to Him." This is also attested by our Lord who said: "Hereafter you shall see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of Man." Incidents in the Gospel show also events that happened through them, whether it be through those who at the birth of our Lord sang: "Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth and good hope to men," or through those who at His resurrection revealed to women what had occurred, or through those who at His ascension explained to the Apostles that which they did not know. It is necessary, therefore, that here also, when this awe-inspiring service is performed, we should think that the deacons represent an image of the service of these invisible spirits, and that they have been appointed to minister to this awe-inspiring service by the grace of the Holy Spirit which they received.
This is the reason why all of us are called the ministers of Christ, as the blessed Paul said: "Inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles I magnify my ministry." This name, however, is especially applied to those who perform this ministry, and are called by all "deacons," as they are alone appointed to perform this ministry, and represent a likeness of the service of the spiritual messengers and ministers. They have also an apparel which is consonant with their office, since their outer garment is taller than they are, as wearing such an apparel in such a way is suitable to those who serve. They place on their left shoulders a stole, which floats equally on either side, forwards and backwards. This is a sign that they are not performing a ministry of servitude but of freedom, as they are ministering to things that lead to freedom all those who are worthy of the great house of God, that is to say the Church. They do not place the stole on their neck in a way that it floats on either side but not in front, because there is no one serving |85 in a house who wears such an apparel; it is only those who are masters of themselves and remote from servitude of any kind who wear it in this way, but the deacons place it on their shoulders because they are appointed for service. The stole is their only sign of that freedom to which all of us, who believed in Christ, have been called; and we hasten to go to, and be in, "the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," as the blessed Paul says; and they are clearly appointed for the service of all things performed in it.
Because the things performed for us by Christ our Lord are awe-inspiring, and because we expect their complete fulfilment in the next world, we receive them now only by faith, and we proceed gradually in this world in a way that we are in nothing absent from our faith in them. This being the case, we are necessarily confirmed in the faith of the things revealed to us through this ministry of the Sacrament, as we are led through it to the future reality,2 because it contains an image of the ineffable Economy of Christ our Lord, in which we receive the vision and the shadow of the happenings that took place. This is the reason why through the priest we picture Christ our Lord in our mind, as through him we see the One who saved us and delivered us by the sacrifice of Himself; and through the deacons who serve the things that take place, we picture in our mind the invisible hosts who served with that ineffable service. It is the deacons who bring out this oblation—or the symbols of this oblation—which they arrange and place on the awe-inspiring altar, (an oblation) which in its vision, as represented in the imagination, is an awe-inspiring event to the onlookers.
We must also think of Christ being at one time led and brought to His Passion, and at another time stretched on the altar to be sacrificed for us. And when the offering which is about to be placed (on the altar) is brought out in the sacred vessels of the paten and the chalice, we must think that Christ our Lord is being led and brought to His Passion, not, however, by the Jews—as it is incongruous and impermissible that an |86 iniquitous image be found in the symbols of our deliverance and our salvation—but by the invisible hosts of ministry, who are sent to us and who were also present when the Passion of our Salvation was being accomplished, and were doing their service. Indeed, they performed their service to all the Economy of Christ our Lord without any exception, and were present with their service at the time of the Passion, endeavouring to perform it according to the will of God. When our Lord was in deep thought and fear at the approach of His Passion, the blessed Luke said that "an angel appeared to Him strengthening and encouraging Him," and like those persons who are wont to stir up the courage of the athletes with their voices, he anointed Him to bear tribulations, and by encouraging words persuaded Him to endure pains with patience, and showed Him that His Passion was small in comparison with the benefit that will accrue from it, as He would be invested with great glory after His Passion and His death, from which He would be the cause of numerous benefits not only to men but to all the creation.
We must think, therefore, that the deacons who now carry the Eucharistic bread and bring it out for the sacrifice represent the image of the invisible hosts of ministry, with this difference, that, through their ministry and in these remembrances, they do not send Christ our Lord to His salvation-giving Passion. When they bring out (the Eucharistic bread) they place it on the holy altar, for the complete representation of the Passion, so that we may think of Him on the altar, as if He were placed in the sepulchre, after having received His Passion. This is the reason why those deacons who spread linens on the altar represent the figure of the linen clothes of the burial (of our Lord). Sometime after these have been spread, they stand up on both sides, and agitate all the air above the holy body with fans, thus keeping it from any defiling object. They make manifest by this ritual the greatness of the body which is lying there, as it is the habit, when the dead body of the high personages of this world is carried on a bier, that some men should fan the air above it. It is, therefore, with justice that |87 the same thing is done here with the body which lies on the altar, and which is holy, awe-inspiring and remote from all corruption; a body which will very shortly rise to an immortal nature.
It is on all sides of this body that persons, who are especially appointed to serve, stand up and fan. They offer to it an honour that is suitable, and by this ritual they make manifest to those present the greatness of the sacred body that is lying there. It is indeed clear to us from the Divine Book that angels sat upon the stone near the sepulchre and announced His resurrection to the women, and remained there all the time of His death, in honour of the One who was laid there, till they witnessed the resurrection, which was proclaimed by them to be good to all mankind, and to imply a renewal of all the creation, as the blessed Paul said: "Any man who is in Christ is a new creature. Old things are passed away and all things are become new.
Was it not right, therefore, that here also (the deacons) should represent as in an image the ministry of the angels? It is in remembrance of those who constantly came to the Passion and death of our Lord, that they also stand in a circle and agitate the air with fans, and offer honour and adoration to the sacred and awe-inspiring body which is lying there. In this they make manifest to all those present the greatness of the object that is lying there, and induce all the onlookers to think of it as awe-inspiring and truly sacred, and to realise that it is for this reason that they keep it from all defiling things, and do not even allow the dirty tricklings of birds to fall upon it and come near it. This they do now according to their habit in order to show that because the body which is lying there is high, awe-inspiring, holy, and truly Lord through its union with the Divine nature, it is with great fear that it must be handled, seen and kept.
These things take place while every one is silent, because when the service has not yet begun, every one must look at the bringing out and spreading of such a great and wonderful |88 object with a quiet and reverential fear and a silent and noiseless prayer. When our Lord also had died the Apostles moved away and were in the house in great silence and immense fear; so great indeed was the silence that overtook every one that even the invisible hosts kept quiet while looking for the expected resurrection, until time came and Christ our Lord rose, and a great joy and an ineffable happiness spread over those invisible hosts. And the women who came to honour the body received from the angels the new message of the resurrection that had taken place, and when the disciples also learnt through them what had occurred they run together with great zeal to the sepulchre. We are drawn now by similar happenings to the remembrance of the Passion of our Lord, and when we see the oblation on the communion-table—something which denotes that it is being placed in a kind of a sepulchre after its death— great silence falls on those present. Because that which takes place is awe-inspiring, they must look at it with a quiet and reverential fear, since it is necessary that Christ our Lord should rise in the awe-inspiring service which is performed with the sacerdotal ceremonies, and announce our participation in ineffable benefits to every one. We remember, therefore, the death of our Lord in the oblation because it makes manifest the resurrection and the ineffable benefits.
Then comes prayer—not a silent prayer—announced beforehand in the loud voice of the deacon, who, as we ought to know, explains the sign and the aim of all the things that take place. The ceremonies that are to be performed by all those present are made known by the proclamation of the deacon, who orders and reminds every one of the statutory acts that are to be performed and accomplished by those who are assembled in the Church of God.
After he has finished his congruous service and admonished all with his voice and exhorted them to recite the prayers that are suitable to ecclesiastical gatherings, and while all are silent, the priest begins with the appointed service, and before |89 everything else he offers prayer to God, because before all other things that are indispensable to religion he has necessarily to begin with prayer. This is especially the case with this awe-inspiring service in which we are in need of God's help, as He alone is able to perform things such as those (implied in it). And the priest brings his prayer to a close after having offered thanksgivings to our Lord for the great things which He has provided for the salvation and the deliverance of men, and for His having given us the knowledge of these wonderful mysteries which are a remembrance of that ineffable gift which He bestowed upon us through His Passion, in that He promised to raise us all from the dead and take us up to heaven. After this he offers also thanksgivings for himself for having been appointed servant of such an awe-inspiring Sacrament. With this he prays also for the grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may be now made by Him worthy of the greatness of this service, as he had been rendered by Him worthy of priesthood; and so that he may perform this service free, by the grace of God, from all evil conscience, and not fearing any punishment, as he, being infinitely below the dignity of such a service, is drawing near to things that are much higher than himself.
After the priest has finished his prayer with this and similar things, all the congregation says: "Amen," a word that signifies agreement with, and confirmation of, the prayer of the priest, as it is said: "He that occupies the room of the unlearned says Amen at your giving of thanks, while he does not understand what you say." The congregation must make use of this word to signify their agreement with the prayers and thanksgivings of the priest.
After the congregation has said this word the priest prays: "Peace be to you." It is appropriate to begin with this phrase every service that takes place in a Church gathering, and especially this awe-inspiring service which is about to be performed. The blessed Paul also placed at the beginning of all his Epistles: "Grace and peace be to you." (The priest) |90 prays for us concerning the benefits granted for the happiness of all of us through the Economy of Christ our Lord, who by His coming abolished all wars, and completely destroyed all hatred and all fight against us, and by His resurrection delivered us from death, corruption, sin, passion, vexations of the demons and all harassing things, and made us completely immortal and immutable, and will take us up to heaven where He will give us His full confidence and prepare for us great friendship and fellowship with the invisible hosts, the trusted messengers of God. The reason why the blessed Paul writes at the beginning of all his Epistles the word "grace" before the word "peace" is found in the fact that it was not we who began or did anything by ourselves to merit the reception of such a gift, but it was God Himself who bestowed it on us by His grace.
There is an ordinance, found (in the Church) from the beginning, to the effect that all those who have been deemed worthy to do the work of priesthood, should begin all the functions performed in a Church assembly with the above phrase, which is more than anything else suitable to this awe-inspiring service. The priest prays for peace to all because it is he who makes manifest these great benefits, of which this Divine service, which is the remembrance of the death of our Lord, is a figure and a symbol, and because it is through him that the greatness of these and similar benefits has been promised to us.
And those present answer him: "And to your spirit." They requite him with an identical prayer so that it may be made manifest to the priest and also to all of them that it is not only they that are in need of the benediction and the prayer of the priest, but that he also is in need of the prayer of all of them. This is the reason why, by an ordinance found in the Church from the beginning, the priests are also mentioned in all the ecclesiastical prayers side by side with the rest of the congregation. Indeed all of us are one body of Christ our Lord and all of us are members one of another, and the priest |91 only fills the role of a member that is higher than the other members of the body, such as the eye or the tongue. Lo, like the eye he sees the works of every one, and with the diligence pertaining to a priest he also leads and directs every one according to the rule of priesthood, to that which is necessary; and like the tongue he offers the prayers of every one; and as every one requires that the members that are attached to his body should perform their particular function, and as for this it is necessary that they should be healthy and sound in their structure so that they may be in a position to perform this function when asked to do so, in this same way the priest, who is also attached to the body of the Church, is required to be healthy in his office, so that after making manifest the health of good works and priesthood, which are required of him, he may be seen to be worthy of the honour that he possesses, and capable of filling helpfully and suitably the needs of every member of the community.
This is the reason why he blesses those present with the voice of greeting, and for this receives also blessing from them, when they answer him: "And to your spirit." In saying and to your spirit" they do not refer to his soul, but to the grace of the Holy Spirit by which those who are under him believe that he drew near to priesthood, as the blessed Paul said: "I serve Him with the Spirit in the Gospel of His Son." It is as if he were saying: so that, through the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit which is promised to me, I may fulfil the service of the Gospel, and all of you may join with my spirit; meaning by this that "I received from God to be in a position to perform these and similar things and did not find peace for my spirit"; meaning also that "I was not able to do the thing that any one who serves with the Holy Spirit has to do for the utility of others, because the one who had to be my fellow-worker was absent."
It is in this sense that the phrase: "And to your spirit" is addressed to the priest by the congregation, according to |92 the regulations found in the Church from the beginning, the reason for it being that when the conduct of the priest is good, it is a gain to the body of the Church, and when the conduct of the priest is unholy, it is a loss to all. All of them pray that through peace the grace of the Holy Spirit may be promised to him, so that he may strive to perform his service to the public suitably and rightly. In this way the priest obtains more abundant peace from the overflow of the grace of the Holy Spirit, and from it he receives help for the works required of him, because, as in other affairs so in service, the priest will appear to be doing the right thing when the blessing goes from him to the congregation and from it to him.
The priest, then, begins by giving peace, and the Church crier, who is the deacon, cries and orders all to give peace one to another so that they may do that which the priest is doing, and so that in giving peace one to another and in embracing one another they may make a profession of their mutual concord and of their love to one another. Every one of us gives peace as far as possible to the one next to him, but by implication all of us give peace one to another, because that which is taking place implies that all of us ought to be one body of Christ our Lord, to possess towards one another the harmony which is found between the members of one body, mutually to love one another, to help and assist one another, to count our private affairs as affairs of us all, and to suffer with the sufferings of one another and rejoice with the joys of one another.
Owing to the fact that we received one new birth of baptism, through which we are joined as if into one natural close union, and owing to the fact that all of us partake of one food in which we receive the same flesh and blood and become more strongly united in the single body of baptism, as the blessed Paul said: "For we are all partakers of one bread, because the bread is one and we also being many bodies are one bread"—it is right that the rite of giving peace should be performed before we draw near to the Sacrament and to the service, as it is in |93 it that we make our profession of mutual concord and love to one another. It is indeed unsuitable to those who fill the role of members of one ecclesiastical body to consider as an enemy a child of the faith, who through the same birth drew near to the same body, whom we believe to be like us a member of Christ our Lord, and who partakes of the same food from the holy communion-table. This is the reason why our Lord said: "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to judgment."
That which takes place is not only a profession of love but a reminder that we must remove and cast away from us every enmity, if it appears to us that we have aught against a child of our faith. Our Lord, who decreed that under no circumstances an undue anger should occur, gave also a remedy to those who sin in any way: "Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go and first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." He orders the one who has sinned to make haste and be reconciled to the one who has been sinned against, and not to offer the gift before he has placated the one who has been angered, and be reconciled to him with all his might. Indeed, all of us offer the gift with the priest, and although the latter stands up alone to offer it he nevertheless offers it, like the tongue, for all the body. Thus the gift that is being offered belongs to all of us in the same way as the grace which it contains belongs to all, and is placed before all of us so that we may partake of it equally. In this sense the blessed Paul said about a high priest that "he ought, as for himself so also for the people, to offer for sins" in order, to show that the priest offers the gift for all, and is ordered to offer both for himself and for the rest of the people.
It is incumbent, therefore, on the one who has sinned to placate with all his might the one against whom he has sinned, and to be reconciled to him. If the one who has been sinned against be near, he should put in practice the order of Christ literally, and if he be not near let him decide in his mind to |94 do this to him at the right time, and then draw near to the communion of the offering. On the other hand, the one who has been sinned against must accept the reconciliation of the one who had sinned against him, because the one who has been sinned against must show the same promptness as the one who has sinned. Indeed, he must remove from his mind all the things in which he has been sinned against, while remembering the sentence: "If you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses. We must think of this greeting as an acceptance and a remembrance of all this, if we are, like the blessed Paul, to salute one another with a holy kiss, and not, like Judas, to kiss with our mouth while striving to show hatred and evil things against the children of our faith.
While this thing is taking place the priest washes (his hands) first, and then all those, whatever their number, who are counted in the assembly of priesthood. This is not done for the cleanliness of hands—if it were so all would be bound to do it, some on account of their service and some others because of the Sacrament which they are about to receive—but because the officiating priests offer the sacrifice for all, and in this they remind all of us to draw near to the Sacrament which is offered, with clean consciences. Having thus, after the giving of the peace, proclaimed that we have removed and cast away from us all hatred and enmity against the children of our faith, and having washed away the remembrance of trespasses, we may believe that we have freed ourselves, to the best of our ability, from all uncleanness. Then all rise, according to the sign given to them by the deacon, and look at what is taking place. The names of the living and the dead who have passed away in the faith of Christ are then read from Church books,13 and it is clear that in the few of them who are mentioned, all the living and the departed are implicitly mentioned. This is done for the teaching of what took place in the Economy of Christ our Lord, of which the present service, which is (Divine) |95 help for all, living and dead alike, is the commemoration. Indeed the living look to the future hope, while the dead are not really dead but cast in a sleep in which they remain in the hope, for which our Lord received His death, which we are commemorating in this Sacrament.
When the above reading is brought to an end, the priest draws near to the service, while the Church crier, that is to say the deacon, whose voice is a clear indication of what the congregation has to do while following the priestly signs which are given to them—first shouts: "Look at the oblation." In this he exhorts every one to look at the sacrifice, as if a public service was about to be performed, and a public sacrifice was about to be immolated, and a public sacrifice was about to be offered for all, not only for those who are present but also for those who are absent, as long as they were in communion with us in faith and were counted in the Church of God and had finished their life in it. It is clear that we call also this service "offering the sacrifice" and "immolating the sacrifice," 14 because an awe-inspiring sacrifice is being immolated, and if He is offered to God, "He did this once, when He offered up Himself" as the blessed Paul says, and another time now when (the priest) must needs have something to sacrifice. This is the reason why we call "sacrifice" or "immolating the sacrifice the likeness of the sacrifice (of Christ), and this is the reason why the deacon also rightly says before the offering of the sacrifice: "Look at the sacrifice."
When every one has been prepared to look at the object that is being placed (on the altar), and when all those things of which we have spoken are accomplished—things which had necessarily to be performed before the service, and which were indispensable to your instruction and your remembrance— the priest begins with the sacrifice itself. You must now learn the way in which this is done; but since a measure had to be fixed for the things already said, I will keep what I have |96 to say on this subject and say it on another day, if God permit; and for all of them let us glorify God the Father, and His Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
Here ends the fifth Chapter.
Chapter VI.
Synopsis of this Chapter.
The priest begins the Anaphora, and before anything else he blesses the people with these words: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all." For this the people answer him: "And with your spirit." And the priest says to the congregation: "Lift up your minds ": and the congregation answers: "To You, O Lord." And the priest says: "Let us thank the Lord." And the people answer: "It is fit and right." The priest begins the Anaphora, and offers a public sacrifice and says: "In singing loudly and glorifying, Holy, Holy, Holy, the mighty Lord. Heaven and earth are full of His praises." While all have resorted to silence, and while we look downwards, the Church crier shouts: "Let us all stand up in great fear and tremor." Indeed, by the power of the things that are taking place it is necessary that Christ our Lord should rise from the dead and spread His grace over all of us. And the priest prays that the grace of the Holy Spirit may descend also on those present. And the priest offers a supplication for all those of whom, by regulation, mention is made in the Church, and then begins to mention the departed.
The priest recites quietly these prayers, and immediately after takes the holy bread and looks towards heaven. He breaks the bread while praying over the congregation: "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." And the congregation replies with the usual words, and he with the bread makes the sign of the Cross over the blood and with the blood over the bread. For this reason it is customary to throw the vivifying bread little by little |97 into the chalice. Before any other thing we must pray our Lord for those who presented this holy offering. And the priest blesses the people with "peace be to you" and the latter answer with the usual words, which are recited while their heads are duly bowed. And the Church crier shouts: "Let us be attentive." And the priest cries: "The holy thing to the holies." And all answer and say: "One holy Father, one holy Son, one holy Spirit," and add: "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit."
And he receives the communion, and all of us hasten to do the same. The priest who offers the sacrifice draws near and partakes of it first, and then every one of us draws near, while looking downwards and stretching out both hands to receive the sacrament which is given. A person stretches out his right hand, and under it he places the left hand. When the priest gives it he says: "the body of Christ." The same thing is done with the reception of the cup. This is the reason why you say after him: "Amen." You receive communion and you send the participation of the sacrament inside. After you have received the communion, you offer thanksgiving and praise to God, and you remain (in the Church) so that you may also offer this thanksgiving and praise to God with all others, according to the regulations of the Church.
It is time now to give you, if God permit, what was left off. We began to speak to you of the spiritual food of which you partake when you receive the holy communion, and we discoursed also to your love on some other indispensable things dealing with this subject. We further taught you the service which is performed in it, and reached the sentence: "Look at the sacrifice" which the deacon utters loudly according to the Church ritual, and after which the priest must begin the Anaphora. Since, however, the things that had to be said were many, we rightly put an end to our speech and kept the service of the |98 priest concerning them for another discourse, and I hope, by the grace of God, to bring them also to an end to-day.
After the deacon has said: "Look at the sacrifice," and while, according to his announcement, all look at what is taking place, the priest begins the Anaphora, and before anything else he blesses the people with these words: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all," because he thinks that before anything else the people ought to be blessed, prior to this service, with these words of the Apostle, on account of their great usefulness; and because of the honour due to them, he uttered them first and confided them to writing, since, according to the words of the Gospel, "God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son for it, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
He showed all this love to men, not because He received from us anything worthy of this good will, as it is by His grace and mercy that He made manifest to us a love for the sake of which the Only Begotten Son of God, God the Word, was pleased to assume a man for us, whom He raised from the dead, took up to heaven, united to Himself, and placed at the right hand of God. And He promised to us participation in all these, and gave us also the Holy Spirit, whose firstfruits we are receiving now as an earnest. We shall receive all (the fruits) when we shall have communion with Him in reality and when our vile body shall be fashioned like to His glorious body. This is the reason why the blessed Paul prayed in his Epistles for the faithful so that they may be seen worthy of the love of God, which He by His grace made manifest to all our race, and made us all worthy of the grace of the Holy Spirit by whose gift He promised to us communion with Him.
It is with justice, therefore, that the priest who is about to perform such a great service, from which we are led to the hope of these (benefits), should first bless the people with the above words. Some priests only say: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you," and include in, and restrict with these, |99 words all the sentence of the Apostle. For these words the people answer: "And with your spirit," according to an ordinance which states that whenever the priest blesses the people with "grace" or with "peace" all those present should, for the reasons which I have already explained, answer him with these words.
After this benediction the priest prepares the people by saying: "Lift up your minds," in order to show that although we are supposed to perform this awe-inspiring and ineffable service on earth, we, nevertheless, ought to look upwards towards heaven and to extend the sight of our soul to God, as we are performing the remembrance of the sacrifice and death of Christ our Lord, who for us suffered and rose, is united to Divine nature, is sitting at the right hand of God, and is in heaven, to which we must extend the sight of our soul and transfer our thoughts by means of the present remembrances. And the people answer: "To You, O Lord," and in this they confess with their voices that they are anxious to do so
After the priest has prepared and set in the right direction the souls and the minds of the congregation, he says: "Let us thank the Lord." This means that for all these things which were accomplished for us, and which we are about to perform in this service, we owe, before anything else, gratitude to God, who is the cause of all these benefits. To the above words the people answer: "It is fit and right." In this they confess that we certainly ought to do it for two reasons: because of the greatness of God, who granted us things such as these, and in order to show that it is right on the part of those who were granted such benefits not to be ungrateful to the One by whom they were promised to them.
After we have all of us performed this, and while we are silent, in a great reverential fear, the priest begins the Anaphora. He offers a sacrifice for the community, and a reverential fear, which embraces both himself and us all, is cast upon him on account of what has happened, namely that our Lord suffered for us all a death, the remembrance of which is about to be |100 performed in the present sacrifice. Let the priest be at that time the tongue of the ecclesiastical community, and let him make use of the right words in this great service. The right praises of God consist in professing that all praises and all glorifications are due to Him, inasmuch as adoration and service are due to Him from all of us; and of all other services the present one, which consists in the commemoration of the grace which came to us and which cannot be described by the creatures, takes precedence. And because we have been initiated and baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and because we ought to expect therefrom the full accomplishment of the things that are performed, he says: "the greatness of the Father." He adds also "and of the Son," because the same thing that is due to the Father is also due to the Son, who is really and truly a Son with an identical substance with His Father, and in nothing lower than He. He adds necessarily in the same sentence: "and of the Holy Spirit," and confesses that the Spirit is also of Divine substance. He asserts that praises and glorifications are offered at all times, and before all other (beings), to this eternal and Divine nature, by all the visible creatures and by the invisible hosts.
He makes then mention, before other (creatures), of the Seraphim, who offer that praise which the blessed Isaiah learned in a Divine vision and committed to writing, and which all of us in the congregation sing in a loud voice, as if we were also singing that which the invisible natures sing: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Sabaoth, the whole heaven and earth are full of His praises." Indeed, while the blessed Isaiah foresaw, by the working of the Spirit, the benefits that were to be granted to the human race, he heard in vision the Seraphim uttering these words. The prophet saw through revelation that a great service was being performed, which was high above human nature. The prophet noticed that the spiritual hosts appeared to look with great awe and reverence, since they were looking downwards and covering their faces completely with their wings. The doctrine of the Trinity was also revealed at that time when one Godhead |101 was proclaimed in three persons. This was revealed by their saying "holy" three times, and once only "Lord." In saying "holy" three times, they showed three persons: the person of the Father, the person of the Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit. We must believe that each one of them is eternal and truly holy, because the Godhead is really holy and immutable, while a creature may be said to be or to become holy by an act of grace from it. The words said at the end, "the Lord of Sabaoth" mean Lord and God of hosts, and omnipotent God. The expression "Lord of Sabaoth" shows all these, and is congruous to the nature of the Trinity, which is alone eternal and God.
It is necessary, therefore, that the priest also should, after having mentioned in this service the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, say: "Praise and adoration are offered by all the creatures to Divine nature." He makes also mention of the Seraphim, as they are found in the Divine Book singing the praise which all of us who are present sing loudly in the Divine song which we recite, along with the invisible hosts, in order to serve God. We ought to think of them and to offer a thanksgiving that is equal to theirs. Indeed, the Economy of our Lord granted us to become immortal and incorruptible, and to serve God with the invisible hosts "when we are caught up in the clouds to meet our Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord," according to the saying of the Apostle. Nor are the words of our Lord false, who says that the children of God "are like the angels of God, because they are the children of the resurrection."
When Isaiah heard the above words in a spiritual vision, he fell upon his face and said: "Woe is me. I am wretched, and sorrowful, and a man, and have unclean lips and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, and mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Sabaoth," as if he were sorrowing in his heart for all human nature, for what we are and what we receive. He said "I am a man," so that by the mention of human nature he might show that it is an attribute of this same human nature |102 to lean towards evil, as God said: "for the desire of a man's heart is set on evil from his youth." This is the reason why, while Isaiah was sorrowing for all the human race, he was astonished at the boundless mercy of God, who granted such a grace to a race full of sins such as these.
As to us, because we are ordered to perform the greatness of the gift that was shown a long time previously to the prophet, and was afterwards seen and realised sometime ago as a sacrifice on our behalf, we all stand in reverential fear while we bow our heads, as if unable even to look at the greatness of this service. And we make use of the words of the invisible hosts, in order to make manifest the greatness of the grace which has been so unexpectedly outpoured upon us. We do not cast away the awe from our mind, but on account of the greatness of the things that are taking place, we keep it throughout the service equally, and we bow our heads both before and after we recite loudly the Sanctus, and make manifest this fear in a congruous way. In all this the priest also associates himself loudly with the invisible hosts, and prays and glorifies the Godhead, and is like the others in fear of the things that are taking place, as it is right that in connection with them he should not be less than the rest; on the contrary, he is to be in awe and fear more than all, as he is performing for all this service which is so awe-inspiring.
After all those present have recited loudly: "Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Sabaoth," and have reverted little by little to silence, the priest proceeds with the holy service and says before anything else: "Holy is the Father, holy also is the Son, and holy also the Holy Spirit," in order to proclaim that they are the eternal and holy nature, and in order that he may be seen that he understands clearly the meaning of the praise of the Seraphim which the prophet heard and confided to writing. He afterwards makes mention also of the ineffable grace of (God) for which He made manifest the Economy which took place in Christ, and by which the One who was in the form of God was pleased to take upon Him the form of a servant, so that He might assume |103 a perfect and complete man for the salvation of all the human race; and He abolished the old and harsh observances which were formerly enjoined upon us through the deadweight of the law, and also the dominion of death which was dating from ancient times; and He granted us ineffable benefits which are higher than all human intelligence and for which He agreed to suffer, so that through His resurrection He might effect a complete abolition of death; and He promised us communion with Him in the happiness of the future benefits.
It is with great justice, therefore, that He gave us this Sacrament which is capable of leading us efficiently to those benefits, as through it we are born again in the symbo of baptism, and we commemorate the death of our Lord through this awe-inspiring service, and receive the immortal and spiritual food of the body and blood of our Lord, for the sake of which, when our Lord was about to draw near to His Passion, He instructed His disciples that all of us who believe in Christ had to receive them and perform them through these (elements), and in this way to commemorate by stages the death of Chnst our Lord, and obtain therefrom an ineffable nourishment. From these things we derive a hope that is strong enough to lead us to the participation in the future benefits.
The priest says these and similar things in this holy service, and in his remembrance of the things that had taken place previously, and prepares us all to see through the oblations the gift of Christ our Lord. It is necessary, therefore, that our Lord should now rise from the dead by the power of the things which are taking place and that He should spread His grace over us. This cannot happen otherwise than by the coming of the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which the latter had also raised Him previously, as the blessed Paul showed when he said in one passage: "He was declared to be the Son of God, by power and by the Spirit of holiness, from the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord," and in another passage: |104
"But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your dead bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you." Our Lord also said: It is the Spirit that lives; the flesh profits nothing."
It is with great justice, therefore, that the priest offers, according to the rules of priesthood, prayer and supplication to God that the Holy Spirit may descend, and that grace may come therefrom upon the bread and the wine that are laid (on the altar) so that they may be seen to be truly the body and the blood of our Lord, which are the remembrance of immortality. Indeed, the body of our Lord, which is from our own nature, was previously mortal by nature, but through the resurrection it moved to an immortal and immutable nature. When the priest, therefore, declares them to be the body and the blood of Christ, he clearly reveals that they have so become by the descent of the Holy Spirit, through whom they have also become immortal, inasmuch as the body of our Lord, after it was anointed and had received the Spirit, was clearly seen so to become. In this same way, after the Holy Spirit has come here also, we believe that the elements of bread and wine have received a kind of an anointing from the grace that comes upon them, and we hold them to be henceforth immortal, incorruptible, impassible, and immutable by nature, as the body of our Lord was after the resurrection.
And the priest prays that the grace of the Holy Spirit may come also on all those present, in order that as they have been perfected into one body in the likeness of the second birth, so also they may be knit here as if into one body by the communion of the flesh of our Lord, and in order also that they may embrace and follow one purpose with concord, peace, and diligence in good works. In this way, all of us pray God with a pure mind not to receive the communion of the Holy Spirit for punishment, as if we were divided in our thoughts and bent on |105 disunions, bickerings, jealousy and envy, and despising good works, but to be considered worthy to receive (that communion) because the eye of our soul looks towards God with concord, peace, diligence in good works, and purity of mind. We must draw near in this way to the communion of the Holy Sacrament, and through it we will be united to our head, Christ our Lord, whose body we believe ourselves to be, and from whom we have communion with Divine nature.
The priest performs Divine service in this way, and offers supplication on behalf of all those of whom by regulation mention is to be made always in the Church; and later he begins to make mention of those who have departed, as if to show that this sacrifice keeps us in this world, and grants also after death, to those who have died in the faith, that ineffable hope which all the children of the Sacrament of Christ earnestly desire and expect.
The priest recites quietly these prayers, and immediately after, takes the holy bread with his hands and looks towards heaven, and directs his eyes upwards. He offers a prayer of thanksgivings for these great gifts, and breaks the bread. While breaking it he prays for the people, that the grace of God may be upon them, and says thus: "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you." The people accept this and answer with the usual words. And with the bread he makes the sign of the Cross over the blood, and with the blood over the bread, and he unites and joins them together, in order to reveal to all that although these elements are two, they are nevertheless one in power, and are the remembrance of the death and the Passion that affected the body of our Lord, when His blood was shed on the Cross for us all. When the priest makes the sign of the Cross over them he unites them and joins them together, because the human body is one with its blood, and where the body is there also is the blood; and from whatever slit or cut, whether large or small, that is made in it, blood will necessarily flow according to the size of the cut. The body of our Lord was so constituted before His Passion, and much blood must necessarily have been shed from it by the wounds of the crucifixion. When |106 our Lord gave both of them, He said: "This is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins, and this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins." In the first sentence He referred to His Passion, and in the second to the severity and length of His Passion, in which much blood was shed.
It is with justice, therefore, that according to this teaching, we place both of them on the altar, in order to refer to happenings that took place afore, and to show that both of them are one in power, as they belong to the one person who received the Passion, that is to say to the flesh of our Lord, from which blood was also shed. This is the reason why the priest, at the end of the Anaphora, rightly breaks the bread and joins it with the blood while making the sign of the Cross, and then likewise brings the blood near the bread in order to show that both of them, which the Passion affected, are one, and that we also are ordered to perform the remembrance of this Passion in this way.
It is customary to throw the vivifying bread into the chalice in order to show that they are not separable, that they are one in power, and that they vouchsafe the same grace to those who receive them. The priest does not break the bread to no purpose, but in remembrance of Christ our Lord, who after His resurrection from the dead appeared to all His followers: He first appeared to the women, then to the eleven Apostles, and later, little by little, to individuals and to the rest of the believers while they were gathered together, as when He appeared to Cleophas and his companion, who were two in number. His aim in this was to show Himself to them that He had risen, and by His resurrection He revealed and announced to them that they also will participate with Him in those great benefits with which He greeted them, and He thus prepared them to rejoice in the expectation of the future good things. This is the reason why even to the women, to whom He immediately appeared after His resurrection, He said: "Peace be with you." For these reasons it is with justice that now also the priest does the same |107 thing after the service has come to a complete end, according to the teaching of our Lord, and the remembrance of the death and the resurrection has been accomplished.
He breaks the bread according to the first method (used by our Lord), who varied His apparitions, once appearing to this and once to that, and another time showing Himself to many, so that He might draw all to Him; and (in the present case) so that they may embrace the good thing that was made manifest to them, and worship Him while acknowledging the greatness of the honour that came to Him. They think in their minds, while eating the holy bread, that they also are receiving an ineffable communion with Him. By this we are steadfastly led with much happiness, a great joy and a strong hope to the greatness which, through the resurrection, we expect to have with Him in the next world.
At the end all the bread is broken, so that all of us who are present may be able to receive (communion). Each one of us takes a small portion, but we believe that we receive all of Him in that small portion. It would, indeed, be very strange if the woman, who had an issue of blood, received Divine gift by touching the border of His garment, which was not even part of His body but only of His garment, and we did not believe that we receive all of Him in a part of His body. This is also illustrated by the fact that when we kiss we are in the habit of kissing only with the mouth, which is but a small part of the body, but we believe that we embrace all the body. Furthermore, how many times do we not hold one another by the arms in walking together, and show our whole fellowship with one another through parts only?
For the sake of the things that will take place at the end, it is necessary that the priest, who offers this holy and ineffable sacrifice, should begin also with this (act). When, therefore, the priest has finished all the service of the Anaphora, he rightly begins to break the bread, from which we must picture in our mind that Christ our Lord, through each portion of the bread, draws near to the person who receives Him, while greeting |108 him and speaking to him of his resurrection, and while becoming surety for us concerning the future benefits for the sake of which we draw near to the holy Sacrament, and obtain the gift of immortality through an immortal nourishment.
When everything comes to an end, the Church crier shouts and mentions in short words those for whom every one ought to pray, and before any other thing he says: "We ought to pray for those who presented this holy offering," as if one were saying: for those who (gave us the occasion) of becoming worthy of this offering; and for this let us also pray that we may be found worthy of looking at it, standing by its side, and partaking of it. The priest finishes the prayer by imploring that this sacrifice may be acceptable to God, and that the grace of the Holy Spirit may come upon all, so that we may be able to be worthy of its communion, and not to receive it to punishment, as it is much and immeasurably higher and loftier than we are. After he has finished the prayer with words such as these and has blessed the people with "peace be to you," they answer him with the usual words which are recited by all those present, while duly bowing their heads.
Sometime after the priest has finished this prayer, and after all the above services have been brought to an end, and while every one of those who is about to receive the communion is looking, the Church crier shouts: "Let us be attentive." He prepares loudly every one to pay attention to the thing which is about to be said. And the priest says loudly: "The holy thing to the holies," because this food is holy and immortal, as it is the body and the blood of our Lord, and is replete of holiness on account of the Holy Spirit who dwells in it. Not everybody partakes of this food, but only those who have been sanctified for some time. This is the reason why only the baptised ones partake of it, those who have received the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit in the second birth of baptism, and have been found worthy to receive holiness therefrom. It is for this reason that the priest says: "The holy thing to the holies" and directs the |109 mind of all to look at the greatness of the oblation. He says in this way that you ought to observe the greatness of the offering which is laid (on the altar). You should know that you partake of a food of which, by your nature, you are not worthy, as it is immortal and immutable in everything; and it is not right for every one to partake of it, as it belongs to those who have been sanctified. This is the reason why when you alone partake of this food, as men who have received holiness through baptism, you ought to know the greatness of the gift, and what you had to make you worthy of this holy food. You must, therefore, strengthen in you the gift, which has been bestowed upon you, with good works, so that in doing, in the measure of your power, the works that are worthy of the thing given to you, you may partake of this food, which would then be fit for you.
God has provided in every animal, which is born of another animal, the food that is suitable to the one which is born. Indeed, every animal is born of another of its species and feeds itself from it. A sheep is born of a sheep, and feeds itself from the nature of a sheep; and so a horse in a like manner; and so also all other animals of one species are born of others of the same species, and have their food in the nature of the one which brought it forth. In this way it is right and fit also for you, who were born in baptism of the grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and who have received holiness therefrom, to partake of a food similar to it, from the grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, in order to confirm and increase the holiness which has been promised to you, and perfect the expected benefits which will come to us in the next world and through which all of us will be wholly holy. It is in this meaning that we must understand the (sentence) "The holy thing to the holies"; and it is with these things that we draw near to the greatness of this communion; and it is with this mind, with this faith, with this diligence, with this reverential fear, and with this love that we must partake of the holy and immortal food.
In this sense, after the priest has said, "The holy thing to |110 the holies," all answer and say: "One holy Father, one holy Son, one holy Spirit." They profess that one is the nature that is truly holy, and this is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a nature that is alone eternal, alone immutable, and alone capable of bestowing holiness upon whomsoever it wishes. And they add: "Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen," as it is fit that those who make a profession of faith in the holy nature should glorify it with their duty of glorifying.
After all these things have taken place, and all the service has come to an end, all of us hasten to receive the communion, and from a communion-table which is awe-inspiring and higher than words, we partake of the immortal and holy food. Although those who wait at the altar and are appointed for Divine service draw near to the altar and partake of the Divine food, while the rest partake of it from a distance, there is nevertheless no distinction in the food itself, because one is the bread and one is the body of Christ our Lord, into which the element of bread is changed; and it receives this great change from one descent of the Holy Spirit, and all of us partake of it equally, as all of us are one body of Christ our Lord, and all of us partake of the same body and blood. As through the second birth and through the Holy Spirit all of us become one body of Christ, so also by the one nourishment of the holy Sacrament, through which the grace of the Holy Spirit feeds us, all of us are in one fellowship with Christ our Lord. In one passage it is said: "For by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free," and in another passage: "For we are all partakers of one bread, because the bread is one, and we are many but one bread."
When all of us partake, therefore, of the one body of Christ, and receive communion with Him through this nourishment, we become one body of Christ, and from this we receive communion and close union with Him as (the members) with the head, because: "the bread which we break, is it not the communion |111 of the body of Christ, and the cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" (The Apostle) shows here that by our partaking of these we are united to the body and the blood of our Lord, and so when we partake of them we remain in communion with Him, while we are the body of Christ; and through this communion we strengthen that which we had received from the second birth of baptism, by becoming His body, according to the words of the Apostle who said: "You are the body of Christ," and in another passage: "The Christ is the head from which all the body is joined and knit together, and increases with the increase of God."
The gift of the communion of the Sacrament is thus granted in a general way to all of us, because all of us are equally in need of it, as we believe that in it is found the happiness of the eternal life. The priest who is offering the sacrifice draws near first and partakes of (it), so that it may be made clear that he is offering the sacrifice for all according to the order written in the rules for priesthood, but that he is in equal need with the others of partaking of it, and asserts that there is utility in this food and drink. In saying: "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, shall live for ever," He (our Lord) refers not to the one who offers the sacrifice but to the one who eats (of it), and this, like the sacrifice, belongs equally to all of us. It is indeed offered so that by the coming of the Holy Spirit it should become that which it is said to be: the body and the blood of Christ. All of us partake of them, when they become like this, because all of us believe that in this food and in this drink of which we are ordered to partake, there is life, according to the words of our Lord.
To partake of them is common to all, but the one who, through love, faith and good works, shows himself, in the measure of human capability, to be worthy of them, obtains something more from them. It is, however, clear that not a single man is worthy of partaking of them, because how can a man who is mortal, corruptible and burdened with sin, be deemed worthy to |112 take and to receive that body which became immortal and incorruptible, which is in heaven, and at the right-hand of God, and which receives honour from all as Lord and King? We have confidence, however, because of the grace of our Lord who granted these things, and we draw near to them with the best zeal and diligence which we can possess and produce by ourselves. We draw near to them in the measure of the power of the human nature.
It is with these expectations that all of us draw near to Christ our Lord, who promised to us the second birth in baptism, in which He made us His flesh and His body—as it is written "Behold I, and the children which God has given me" —and who, firstly in the likeness of the love of a carnal mother, strove to feed us from His body, and secondly placed before us the elements of bread and cup which are His body and His blood through which we eat the food of immortality, and through which the grace of the Holy Spirit flows to us and feeds us into an immortal and incorruptible existence, by hope; and through these leads us steadfastly and, in a way that no one can describe, to the participation in the future benefits, when we shall really feed ourselves from the grace of the Holy Spirit, without signs and symbols, and shall become completely immortal, incorruptible, and unchangeable by nature.
It is in this way and through these remembrances and these signs and symbols which have been performed that all of us draw near to Christ our Lord risen from the dead, with a great joy and happiness. And we joyfully embrace Him with all our power as we see Him risen from the tomb, and we hope also to participate (with Him) in the resurrection, because He also rose from the tomb of the holy communion-table as from the dead, according to the symbol that has been performed; and He draws near to us by His apparition, and announces resurrection to us through our communion with Him. Although He comes to us after having divided Himself, all of Him is nevertheless in every portion (of the bread), and is near to all of us, and gives Himself to each one of us, in order that we may hold Him and embrace Him with all our might, and make manifest |113 our love to Him, according to the pleasure of each one of us. It is in this way that we partake of the body and the blood of our Lord, and expect to be changed into an immortal and incorruptible nature. It is with these (expectations) that each one of us draws near while looking downwards and stretching out both hands. By his looking downwards he signifies that he is offering a congruous thing (to God) through adoration, and giving thanks for his receiving the body of the King, who became the Lord of all through His union with the Divine nature, and who is worshipped as a Lord by the whole creation; and in the fact that both his hands are stretched out, he confesses the greatness of the gift which he is about to receive.
To receive the Sacrament which is given, a person stretches out his right hand, and under it he places the left hand. In this he shows a great fear, and since the hand that is stretched out holds a higher rank, it is the one that is extended for receiving the body of the King, and the other hand bears and brings its sister hand, while not thinking that it is playing the role of a servant, as it is equal with it in honour, on account of the bread of the King, which is also borne by it.
When the priest gives it he says: "The body of Christ." He teaches you by this word not to look at that which is visible, but to picture in your mind the nature of this oblation, which, by the coming of the Holy Spirit, is the body of Christ. You should thus draw near with great awe and love, according to the greatness of that which is given: with awe, because of the greatness of (its) honour; and with love, because of (its) grace. This is the reason why you say after him: "Amen." With your answer to the words of the priest, you confirm and subscribe to the words of the one who gives. The same thing happens in the communion of the chalice.
As to you, after you have received the body,15 you offer |114 adoration as a confession of the power placed in your hands, while remembering the words uttered by our Lord to His disciples after He rose from the dead: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." You press it with great and true love to your eyes and kiss it, and you offer (to it) your prayers as if to Christ our Lord, who is at present so near to you, and in whom you believed before that you had confidence, which you will receive now that you have drawn near to Him and held Him. You pray, while confessing your weakness, the great number of your sins, and your great unworthiness for such a gift. You glorify also in a fitting manner the One who granted these things to a person such as you, and rendered you worthy to receive help from Him to the extent that you became worthy to receive the communion, free from all evil things and doing all the things that please Him.
You receive the communion with these and similar (devotional acts), and you send the participation of the Sacrament inside,16 as not only the body but also—and even before the body —the soul does the grace of the Holy Spirit nourish through this awe-inspiring communion, when in the next world it will render the body immortal and the soul immutable, and not subject to any sin whatever. After you have received the communion you rightly and spontaneously offer thanksgiving and praise to God, so that you may not be ungrateful with regard to this Divine gift. And you remain (in the Church), so that you may also offer thanksgiving and praise with every one, according to the regulations of the Church, because it is right for all those who received this spiritual food to offer thanksgiving to God publicly for this great gift.
We have, as you know, spoken in many past days of things pertaining to such a Sacrament the greatness of which far exceeds what the words are able to express. Indeed, what can mortal words say that is worthy of immortal, heavenly and unspeakable |115 things? It was necessary, however, to speak of them to your hearing, so that you might not remain completely ignorant of the greatness of the gift. It is right for you now to make use of an intelligence consonant with these sublime things of which you have been rendered worthy, and to think well, according to the measure of the greatness of a gift such as this, what we were and into what we have been transformed: that we were mortal by nature and we expect to receive immortality, that from being corruptible we shall become incorruptible, from passible impassible, from mutable, for ever immutable; and that we shall be transferred from the evils of the earth to heaven; and that we shall enjoy all the good and delightful things found in heaven. We have acquired this hope from the Economy of Christ our Lord, who was assumed from us. He was the first to receive this change, from Divine nature, and in this way He became to us the usherer of our participation in these great things. We strive, therefore, to partake of the Sacrament because we believe that through symbols, as through unspeakable signs, we possess, sometime beforehand, the realities themselves, and also because after having received the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit in our participation in the Sacrament—firstfruits which we obtain when we are baptised into the second birth—we believe that, when we receive the communion, we do receive it for the nourishment and the sustenance of our (spiritual) life.
We ought to think of these and similar things every day and in all our life, and to endeavour to make ourselves worthy, as much as possible, of the Sacrament; and we shall be worthy of it if we obey the commandments of Christ our Lord, who promised afore these and similar benefits to us, if we strive to turn away from evil things and cleave to good things, and to reject cruelty and adopt mercy, which brought us benefits such as these. Indeed if our Lord, who ordered those who pray to say: "Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors," added: "For if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses" |116 —we will all the more not receive the grace and the benefits prepared for us by God, while still in this world, if we do not strive with all our power to have mercy upon our neighbours. We become, therefore, worthy of this awe-inspiring Sacrament if we think of things of which we spoke above; and if we acquire in the measure of our power, a mind higher than earthly things; and if we contemplate heavenly things, and think continually that it is in their hope that we have received this Sacrament.
It is fitting for those who always lead an unmarried life to spurn earthly things and constantly look towards heavenly things, and remember the words of the blessed Paul: "He that is unmarried thinks about the things that belong to His Lord, how he may please Him; and he that is married thinks about the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife." He shows here that it is suitable to the one who is unmarried to be free from all worldly care, and to have his entire regard for the things that please God, to whom he also joined himself by promise. It fits such a one, who has drawn near to this Sacrament and has been called to heaven where there is neither marriage,3 nor food nor drink,3 to live, in the measure of his power, beforehand, while still in this world, according to that which is congruous to a world in imitation of which he chose to be unmarried. It is also fitting for the married persons not to be tied to the cares of this world, as through the Sacrament they have received the hope of the happiness of the world to come in which we shall cast away marriage, and—to express myself succinctly—all the affairs of this world. It is creditable for those who lead a married life to strive, with all their power, to imitate the world to come, as the blessed Paul said: "It remains for those that have wives to be as though they had none, and they that weep to be as though they wept not, and they that buy to be as though they possessed not, and they that rejoice in possessions to be as though they rejoiced not, and they that use this world to be as not abusing it, for the fashion of this world passes away."
Because all this world stands in a worldly fashion which will |117 pass away, according to the words of the Apostle, and will undoubtedly suffer dissolution, and because we are expecting the world to come which will remain eternally, it is right for us all to order our life according to the things of the next world. This is especially good and suitable to us, who partake of the food of the Sacrament and look for the things in the hope of which we participate in the holy communion. The sins which come to us from human weakness are not capable of deterring us from the communion of the holy Sacrament. As those who live in sins are not to draw near to this communion without fear, so also those who care for their salvation ought to draw near and receive the holy communion, while thinking that as for the sustenance of our present existence we are by necessity obliged to take food, so also for our future existence we partake of spiritual food from Divine grace, through the Economy of Christ.
It is right for us, therefore, neither wholly to abstain from communion nor to go to it unworthily, but we must strive with all our power after the things that are right, and after having thus striven we must hasten to receive communion, well aware that if we devote our life to unworthiness, and sin fearlessly, and do anything we take fancy to, and are careless of our duty, we shall eat and drink this food and this beverage which words cannot describe, to our damnation; but if we are careful of our salvation, and hasten towards good works and meditate upon them continually in our mind, the sins that come to us involuntarily from (human) weakness will not injure us; on the contrary, we will acquire great help from our communion. Indeed, the body and the blood of our Lord, and the grace of the Holy Spirit that is promised to us therefrom, will strengthen us in doing good works, and invigorate our minds, while driving away from us all ungodly thoughts and surely quenching (the fire) of sins, as long as we have committed them involuntarily, and they have come to us against our will, from the weakness of our nature, and we have fallen into them against our desire, and because of them we have sorrowed intensely and prayed God in great repentance for our trespasses. The communion of the holy |118 Sacrament will, without doubt, grant us the remission of trespasses of this kind, since our Lord plainly said: "This is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins, and this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins," and: "I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.
If, therefore, we sin carelessly, it is hard for us to draw near to the holy Sacrament, but if we do good works with diligence and turn away from evil works and truly repent of the sins that come to us, we will undoubtedly obtain the gift of the remission of sins in our reception of the holy Sacrament, according to the words of Christ our Lord, because while we were sinners we have been chosen to a penitence, a deliverance and a salvation that embrace all, solely by the grace of the One who has called us. This may also be learnt from the words of the blessed Isaiah, because the awe-inspiring vision which he saw was a sign of the Economy of Christ our Lord, from which all the earth was about to be filled with Divine glory, was to learn also the mystery of the Trinity, and receive evangelisation, faith and baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To make this manifest, the Seraphim shouted in a loud voice the canticle: "Holy, holy, holy the Lord of Sabaoth, the heaven and the earth are full of His praises."
When the prophet saw these things in a spiritual vision, he fell upon his face, because he remembered human weakness, which is full of sin and iniquity; and one of the Seraphim was sent to him, and took with tongs a live coal from the altar, and brought it to his lips and said: "This has touched your lips, and your iniquity is taken away, and your sins are forgiven." There were, therefore, live coals on the altar: a figure of the Sacrament that was to be given to us. A piece of coal is at first dark and cold, but when it is brought to the fire it becomes luminous and hot. The food of the holy Sacrament was going to be similar to this: at first it is laid upon the altar as a mere |119 bread and wine mixed with water, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into body and blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.1 This is the reason why he (the prophet) saw the sign and the figure of what was to take place in the form of live coals. The Holy Spirit also came down from heaven in the form of fire upon the blessed Apostles, through whom the grace of the Holy Spirit was united to all the human race. As the Seraph drew near, purified, and forgave all the sins of the prophet, so also we ought to believe that by participation in the holy Sacrament our trespasses will be completely wiped out, if we repent and are grieved and afflicted in our mind for our sins.
When the prophet was granted this (vision) he fell upon his face and said: "Woe is me, for I am wretched, sorrowful, and a man, and my lips are unclean, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, and I have seen with mine eyes the King, the Lord of Sabaoth." Because these are words of a repentant man, smitten by his conscience for his sins, while he was in this state it was given to him to hear the above words when a live coal was brought to him by the Seraph. And if we also strive to act similarly, it is clear and evident that the grace of the Holy Spirit will promise us help to do good things, and like fire which consumes thorns, will completely obliterate our sins.
And the Seraph did not hold the live coal with his hand but with tongs. This vision demonstrates that the (faithful) should be afraid to draw near to the Sacrament without an intermediary, and this is the priest, who, with his hand, gives you the Sacrament and says: "The body of Christ," while he himself does not believe that he is worthy to hold and give such things; but in the place of tongs he possesses the spiritual grace, which he received in his priesthood, and from which he acquired the confidence for giving such things. He holds (the elements) with his hand, so that he may himself receive confidence with his own hands; and he not only is not in fear because of (their) greatness, but has much confidence because of (their) grace. |120
If the live coal that was carried with tongs by the Seraph took away sins when brought into contact with the lips, and did not scorch or wholly consume according to the nature of the object that was seen, how much more will it not be right for you, when you see the priest bestowing upon you this gift with his hands, and with great confidence, because of the grace of the Spirit conferred upon him for this service—to have also confidence and to receive it with great hope? You have fear because of the greatness of the gift, but when you have received it, you will put your trust on Him who granted such things to mankind, and who bestowed also such a confidence upon the priest; not only upon himself alone, but upon those who are in need of the grace of God, if according to the words of the blessed Paul, he stands "to offer sacrifice for his own sins and for the people's."
It is such a thought and such a love that we ought to possess concerning the holy Sacrament. If a great sin, contrary to the commandments, is committed by us, and if we do not induce ourselves to turn away from sins of this kind, it is right for us to refrain always and without reservation from receiving the communion, because what utility can come to us from this act if we are seen to persist in these sins? We must first induce our conscience with all our power to make haste and fittingly repent of our sins, and not permit any other medicine to ourselves. Let us know that as God gave to our body, which He made passible, medicinal herbs of which the experts make use for our healing, so also He gave penitence, as a medicine for sins, to our soul, which is changeable. Regulations for this (penitence) were laid down from the beginning, and the priests and the experts, who heal and care for the sinners, bring medicine to the mind of the penitents who are in need, according to the ecclesiastical ordinance and wisdom, which is regulated in accordance with the measure of the sins. This is the reason why our Lord said: "If your brother shall sin against you, tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear you, you have gained your brother, but if he will not, then take with you one or two, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word |121 may be established; and if he will not hear them also, tell (it) to the Church, and if he will not hear even the Church, let him be to you as a publican and an heathen man."
This is the medicine for the sins, which was established by God and delivered to the priests of the Church, who in making use of it with diligence, will heal the afflictions of men. The blessed Paul also said thus: "Teach in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and comfort." He ordered that the sinners should be reproved "with all long-suffering and doctrine," so that they should reveal their sins to (the priests); and the "rebuke" is administered so that they may receive correction by some ordinances, and obtain help therefrom for themselves. He ordered also to "comfort them," in the sense that after they have been seen, through reproofs and rebukes, to be eagerly willing to amend themselves, turn away from evil and be desirous of drawing near to good, he necessarily added "doctrine and long-suffering" to all of them. He singled out "long-suffering" because it is highly necessary, as it soothes the one who is gained; and also "doctrine" because in everything that takes place, whether he (the sinner) be reproved or rebuked or comforted, it is by words that he learns what is necessary and draws near to what is fit.
This the blessed Paul seems to have done when he learned that among the Corinthians an insolent man had taken his father's wife. He ordered him to be delivered to Satan, who had caused him to be driven out of the Church, and he showed the purpose of this by saying: "for the destruction of his flesh, that he may live in spirit in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. As if he were saying: I order this so that he may suffer and be conscious of his sins, and receive reproof; and that through rebuke he may be reprimanded, learn wisdom and turn away from sin and draw near to duty; and after he has thus moved away from sin, he will receive full salvation in the next world, because, at his baptism, he had received the grace of the Spirit, which left him when he sinned and persisted in his sin. He undoubtedly calls the salvation of the spirit the turning away |122 from sins and the full reception of the Holy Spirit, who will cause him to revert to his previous state.
When (that man) had repented in this way he (the Apostle) ordered in the second Epistle that he should be received, and said: "Sufficient to such a man is his reproof, and you ought contrariwise to love him and to comfort him more, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love toward him. To whom you forgive, I forgive also." With these words he ordered that he should be reinstated in the same confidence as that he had before, because he had been rebuked and had amended his ways, and, through true repentance, had received forgiveness of his sins. Afterwards he laid down rules concerning these things and said: "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a drunkard, or a railer, or an extortioner; with such a one do not eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are outsiders? do not you judge them that are insiders?"
He shows here that this correction is not to be given by us to those who are outsiders but to those who are insiders: those who obey the things that are said and rightfully accept a correction that comes from us. He shows also the nature of the gain that accrues to those who are insiders, by saying: "But those who are outsiders, God judges." He demonstrates here that if those who are outsiders remain without correction, they will undoubtedly receive punishment, as being strangers also to religion; as to the children of the faith, if they are willing to receive that correction, they will obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and will be delivered from the threat of the punishment of the world to come. Owing to the fact, therefore, that it may happen that some people do not accept the correction that is offered to them, he said: "Put away from amongst yourselves that wicked person," as if one were saying: let him be completely outside you. This is similar to the sentence which our Lord uttered: "And if he |123 will not hear the Church, let him be to you as an heathen man and a publican."
Since you are aware of these things, and also of the fact that because God greatly cares for us gave us penitence and showed us the medicine of repentance, and established some men, who are the priests, as physicians of sins, so that if we receive in this world through them, healing and forgiveness of sins, we shall be delivered from the judgment to come—it is right for us to draw near to the priests with great confidence and to reveal our sins to them, and they, with all diligence, pain and love, and according to the rules laid down above, will give healing to sinners. And they will not disclose the things that are not to be disclosed, but they will keep to themselves the things that have happened, as fits true and loving fathers, bound to safeguard the shame of their children while striving to heal their bodies.
After we have thus regulated our life, and known the greatness of the Sacrament, and of the boundless grace to which we have been called; and been solicitous for our salvation, and endeavoured to rectify our trespasses in the right way—we shall be deemed as deserving the future hope for the sake of which we have been rendered worthy, by Divine grace, to perform this Sacrament. And we shall delight in the Kingdom of Heaven and in all those ineffable and eternal benefits, which all of us will be enabled to receive by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
Here end the six discourses on the interpretation of the sacraments of the holy Church, composed by Mar Theodore, bishop and commentator of the Divine Books. Glory be to Christ our Lord.
[Most footnotes omitted, as being biblical references or explanation where the translator deviated from the literal meaning. I have also removed Thou and Thee etc.]
1. 1 Or: circumcised.
2. 1 I.e., the registrar of baptisms.
3. 2 The rite of conducting a person and answering the questions of the registrar.
4. 2 The words between brackets represent a blank of one or two words which were illegible in the MS. from which the copyist was transcribing.
5. 1 I.e., the registrar of baptisms.
6. 2 The godfather.
7. 4 The registrar.
8. 1 Evidently this orarium spread on the crown of the head was somewhat different from the modern stole.
9. 1 All this refers to superstitious acts.
10. 1 John iii. 9 and 8. I use "Spirit" instead of "wind" in the sense in which the author understands the word πνεῦμα of the sacred text, which in Greek and in Syriac means both "Spirit" and "wind."
11. 7 This passage is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (see Prefatory Note).
12. 3 The word Kurbana may be translated throughout by "offering," as is often done in the English Bible, or by "sacrifice."
13. 5 Allusion to the Diptychs.
14. 3 Or: "oblation" in both cases. The expression is a translation of the Greek word Anaphora.
15. 4 In Syriac literature the word paghra, "body," is used for the consecrated Eucharistic bread. See Barsalibi's treatise against the Armenians in my Woodbrooke Studies, vol. iv., pp. 28 and 57, etc.
16. 2 I.e., apparently you eat and swallow the Eucharistic bread, so that it may mix with the blood, which, according to the ancients, was the seat of the soul. See Woodbrooke Studies, vol. v., p. 5, and the references given there.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: marutha_nicaea_02_text.htm
Marutha of Maiperqat, On the Council of Nicaea
Marutha of Maiperqat, On the Council of Nicaea
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
In a recent Hugoye (http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol9No2/HV9N2Depuydt.html) there was a list of Syriac Mss at Yale. I noticed this item in it:
8. Maruta of Maiperqat, On the Council of Nicaea
Rn/M36. — A paper booklet consisting of two quires (Clemons, "Checklist," No. 241). The hand is the same as No. 12. Contents: Maruta of Maiperqat, On the Council of Nicaea. Baumstark, Geschichte, 53,27-54,10. One quire contains the text, the other a handwritten English translation.
Now unpublished English translations are something which I think should appear online, where they can promote interest among the general public.
So I wrote to Yale and found that this was just a modern booklet of some 14 pages. I did ask them if they could just run a digital camera over it -- it wouldn't take long to press a shutter 28 times, after all -- but they've been saddled with a rogue supplier of reproductions and wanted $216 (!) to do this. However they did kindly supply me with a rather terrible printoff from a microfilm, albeit very slowly.
This contained the Syriac text, in the East Syriac hand, followed by the following translation. The microfilm contained a book-plate indicating that the booklet was given by a certain A.H.Wright to the American Oriental Society. There were also two footnotes in a different hand, marked with an asterisk and a cross, rather than a number. These were signed AHW, and I would infer from this that he did not make the translation but acquired it from elsewhere.
A google search revealed this reference to a book, Bâb und seine Secte in Persien, written by a Dr. A. H. Wright of the American Mission at Urúmiyya, Persia, which was contributed by J. Perkins, also of the aforesaid Mission, to the German Oriental Society, and published in Vol. v of the Z. D. M. G. (Leipzig, 1851, pp. 384-385). This would appear to be our A.H.Wright: Austin H. Wright, who in 1852 assisted Justin Perkins to publish an edition of the OT Peshitta at Urmiah.
David G.K. Taylor added in the Hugoye list that there is also an extensive German translation of the whole of this text by Oscar Braun, De Sancta Nicaena Synodo. Syrische Texte des Maruta von Maipherkat nach einer Handschrift der Propaganda zu Rom Übersetzte, (Muenster 1898), iv, 128pp. (What we have in the newly available English translation is only a part of the whole work.) There are some illuminating notes regarding the problematic Syriac manuscript base of Braun's translation in Robert Murray's indispensable 'Symbols of Church and Kingdom' (p.34 and esp. n.2).
Roger PEARSE
May 2007
22 1
(Translation)
A brief account of the council (of Nice), as given by Marutha of Meparkat by direction of the Patriarch Isaac.
The blessed Apostles, when they went forth to proclaim the glad tidings of the glorious Gospel of Christ, did not establish creeds and confessions, but their main care was to turn men from the worship of idols to the worship of the holy cross *; and that those, who were discipled should keep themselves from fornication, from the uncleanness of things offered to idols, from strangled and from blood. But when their message went forth into all the world and their words into all the earth, and the faith of Christ was spread abroad in every country through their instrumentality and Jews 21 and Gentiles received and became subject unto it, Satan showed his wickedness and his servants became manifest and clothed themselves with disgrace and shame; and since the evil one gained nothing in his first war but reproach, he set his forces in battle array again with more bitterness than ever, and spread wide dissentions, controversies, and confusion among those who were invited to Heaven, and introduced numerous heresies into the church. So that the number of heresies equalled the number of bishops and right was oppressed and the truth was persecuted. True believers diminished and heretics increased. Then, like the rays of the Sun in the midst of dark clouds, was seen the faithful crown of the pure kingdom of the blessed Constantine, the holy emperor and 20 worthy of immortal honor, who, being stimulated by zeal from the true faith, wrote to the most excellent and orthodox Bishop of Jerusalem, Alexander, to wit, "I have learned from the Holy Scriptures that out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. You will then immediately upon the reception of this my royal epistle, come to my presence, for it is necessary to the Holy Church, that the true faith of Christ should issue from those sacred temples (of Jerusalem). I have two Bishops who give me trouble daily, and by their controversies produce confusion and irregularity. It has not been practicable for me hitherto to give attention to this subject in consequence of the many wars which we have been prosecuting against our enemies, and especially against Jews and Heathens who are without [(unnumbered)2] the Christian fold. But now that we are at peace with all around, and both friends and enemies are subject to our authority, I have no other care than to settle the disputes which have arisen in the church. We now wait for your arrival in order that we may learn from you the truth and then proceed to action. You will of course do as we have directed, and we desire your prayers in behalf of our kingdom.
When the blessed Alexander received the letter, ordering hum to proceed to the Capital, he immediately made preparations for his journey and fearing to go by land on account of the heretics that he would meet with, he selected a ship to go by sea. The very day that he went on board, a man appeared unto him in a dream and said to him, "You will not see the face of [(unnumbered)] the earthly king, for you will be taken speedily to behold the face of the heavenly king." He then wrote a letter in relation to the true faith of Christ, that the emperor desired to learn, which he sealed and committed to Priest Makaris to carry by land to the Capital. Alexander then proceeded by sea and arrived at an island called Pataia. There he was seized by the heretics, who made him large promises if he would join himself to their party. But as he did not listen to their alluring words, they sent his soul to the presence of the Lord, with excruciating torture. He was thus honored with the crown of martyrdom for the sake of the words of Christ, and departed from this world of sorrow. When the Emperor Constantine received the news of his death, he was overwhelmed with grief, and when the letter of Alexander 19 which was brought by Priest Makaris reached hum, he burned with divine zeal and wrote the following order to all the Bishops in the world; viz. Constantine Augustus Caesar, Constantine Autocrat and king, to every church under heaven, obedient and not obedient to Christ our king, be peace. Give heed all of you to this order, and delay not to assemble in General Council at the city of Nice in the province of Bithynia for the investigation of the true Christian faith. Let not any delay to come either of those who agree in sentiment or of those who disagree, and let no man prevent another's coming that he may declare his faith in the council in the presence of all the Bishops, in order that there may be one mind and one bond of faith and perfect unity, and that the whole church may stand in one body with an undivided faith 18 with one perfect will, and that no man may transgress or despise the command of the church or state. We will allow one year and two months which will be sufficient time for all to assemble from every quarter. In the month of October let all the Bishops be found in Nice, a city of Bithynia, which is in the neighborhood of our Christian Capital. May you all be prospered in the Lord."
As the presence of all Bishops whether in the dominions of Constantine or not of them was desired, Mar Shimeon, Bar Sabae, Patriarch of Seleucia and Ctesiphon was desired to be present, but on account of the disturbed state of the surrounding countries he was prevented from going. He wrote a letter, which he forwarded by the hand of Priest Shahdost, of the following purport: "If it were not that 17 the heathen are thirsting for my blood, I should by all means attend and be blessed by the ecclesiastical council and by the pure state of Constantine. But whatever the Bishops in council assembled who have been persecuted for the sake of the true faith may do, I shall gladly agree to."
When the Bishops had assembled according to the royal command, the king read the declaration of faith, which Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem had written and forwarded by the hand of Priest Makaris. It was read in the presence of 2048 Bishops, but only 318 of these assented to it. The king then took his ring, sceptre and sword and gave them into their hands, saying, Here is given to you authority over the whole church, over ecclesiastical and civil affairs, and over all the orders in church and state. 16 Do whatever you please, and God will require at your hands an account of the sons of the church. The General Council having thus received authority from the king, the fathers directed that there should be gradations in the assembly and that each Bishop should sit in his place according to his rank. Chairs were there made for all and the king entered and sat with them. He kissed the spots which were the marks of Christ in their bodies. Of the 318 fathers, only 11 were free from such marks, whose name were Absalom, Bishop of Edessa, and son of Mar Ephrem's sister, Jonah of Raikson, Mara of Dora, George of Shegar, Jacob of Nisibis, Marouta of Mepairkat, John of Goostia, Shimon of Diarbekir, Adai of Agal, Eusebius of Caesarea and Joseph of Nicomedia. But all the others were more or less maimed in their persecutions 15 from heretics. Some had their eyes taken out; some had their ears cut off. Some had their teeth dug out by the roots. Some had the nails of their fingers and toes torn out; some were otherwise mutilated; in a word there was no one without marks of violence; save the above-named persons. But Thomas, Bishop of Marash was an object almost frightful to look upon; he had been mutilated by the removal of his eyes, nose and lips; his teeth had been dug out and both his legs and arms had been cut off. He had been kept in prison 22 years by the Armanites [Armenians] who used to cut off a member of his body or mutilate him in some way every year, to induce him to consent to their blasphemy, but he conquered in this fearful contest to the glory of believers and to the manifestation of the unmercifulness of the heretics. The fathers took him with them to the Council and when 14 the king saw him, he fell down upon the ground and worshipped + him saying, "I worship thee, O thou martyr of Christ, who art adorned with many crowns."
To describe the doings of the Council from the beginning to the end is a great task, for the fathers were in sessions three years engaged in discussions about every kind of heresy. Protracted controversies took place between the fathers and the heretics, once party giving their views in writing and the other answering them in the same manner.
The following Confession of Faith was agreed upon by the 318 holy fathers, who assembled in Nice a city of Bithynia in the time of the Emperor Constantine, on account of the blasphemous doctrines of the accursed Arius. We believe 13 in one God, Father Almighty, maker of things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only Begotten and first born of all creatures; who was born of the Father before all worlds and was not created; true God, of the true God, of the nature of the Father, and by whom the worlds were made and all things created, and who for our sakes and for our salvation descended from Heaven, took a bodily form by the power of the Holy Ghost, and became man; was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, was buried and rose again the third day as it is written, ascended to Heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the dead and the living; and in the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth that proceedeth from the Father, a life giving 12 Spirit and in one holy Apostolic Catholic church; and in one Baptism for the remission of sins; and in the resurrection of the body, and in life everlasting.
1. The numbers in brackets appear in the handwritten translation at the head of each page. They appear to be page numbers of the booklet, carelessly done, perhaps by an archivist.
2. This and the next page have no number at the top, as if two pages had been turned at once when numbering.
The following notes were added to the manuscript in a different hand. A certain A.H.Wright gave the manuscript to the American Oriental Society, and these are signed by him.
* Meaning simply in the East, or at least among the Nestorians, the worship of Christ, who hung on the cross. A.H.W.
+ An oriental custom. Men often prostrate themselves on the ground before the King of Persia, and Mountain Nestorians sometimes do the same before their Patriarch. A.H.W.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2007. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_0_eintro.htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) Preface to the online edition
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) Preface to the online edition
Here are a few notes compiled from Bedjan and Nau, which may supplement the information in the translation presented here.
I. Life of Nestorius (by Paul Bedjan)
Bedjan gives a summary of the life of Nestorius. Material in quotes is from a Syriac Life supposed by Nestorius himself, which he found in a Persian manuscript, and of which he says, "it was made from manuscript 134 of the library of the American missionaries at Ourmiah. The manuscript was written in 1558 AD." Page references are to this manuscript. I have translated Bedjan's words fairly literally.
Nestorius was born at Maras in Turkey (then Germanicia, in the province of Syria Euphratensis). His teacher was Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia. He embraced the monastic life at Antioch, where he had been ordained priest.
When he was called to the see of Constantinople in 428, he delayed his journey for two days, which he spent with his master. On their parting, Theodore said to him, "My son, I know you; I know that no woman has ever brought into the world a man so zealous as you; this is why I counsel you to moderate your zeal against the opinions of others... I rejoice in your enthusiasm, but I will be grieved if you perish at the hands of wicked men."
Nestorius made the presumptuous reply, "Master, why do you speak thus? If I lived in the times of our Lord, he would answer you: 'do you others also wish to depart?' The advent of our Lord is all we need to eat; the stomach that can digest this is nourished; that which does not is uncomfortable."
After he arrived at Constantinople he was consecrated bishop on 10th April 428, and, ascending his episcopal throne for the first time, he addressed the following famous words to the emperor, "Sire, give me your empire purged of heretics and I will give you the kingdom of Heaven. Give me power over the heretics, and I, I will subjugate the Persians who make war on you."
"The inhabitants of the city, hearing this bombast, were very annoyed. But Nestorius, five days later, gave the order to set fire to the churches of the Arians. Many houses also were caught in the flames, which was a great affliction to the people."
Nestorius boasts however of being very patient with the heretics.
"He abolished the circus games, the theatres, prohibited shouting, singing, dancing and the other amusements to which the Romans were devoted. This made him hated in the city.
"After Nestorius had the ornaments which the emperor's sister Pulcheria had given to the church removed, under the pretext that she had not completed what she had promised, she lent her influence to Cyril against him. Nestorius then had the portrait of her which was painted in the church effaced."
Nestorius says that he resigned as bishop of Constantinople. This is confirmed by the author of his life, who adds, "the tribune John was sent to Ephesus and presented the resignation to the emperor, who accepted it, and the seven bishops then returned home."
"After his resignation, he obtained as a great favour permission to return to his monastic cell at Antioch, and stayed there for four years. He was not unknown: his convent was close to the city, and the inhabitants visited him for instruction. The patriarch John became jealous of his popularity and wrote to the emperor. 'A woman cannot be the wife of two husbands,' he says symbolically, 'that is to say, a city cannot have two bishops. If Nestorius is to reside here, order that I be sent elsewhere.' The emperor, at the instigation of his sister Pulcheria, then sent him [Nestorius] into exile at the Oasis," in the Thebaid.
The history of the church does not mention this jealousy of John of Antioch, but it tells of the evil that the insubordination of Nestorius caused in the people who were sent to him, an insubordination in which he behaved increasingly like a heresiarch. This led the patriarch and the bishops of the East to make peace and union with those of Alexandria, a year after the Council of Ephesus, in condemning Nestorius and his teaching.
"After the death of Theodosius, Marcian was chosen emperor; he recalled Nestorius and the 26 bishops who were exiled at the same time with him. To his friends, who urged him to return, Nestorius replied, 'The desert pleases me by its aridity.'" (p.521)
The church histories and this Syriac biography agree that Nestorius only held the see of Constantinople for 3 years; he lived in a cell at Antioch then for 4 or 5 years; in exile in the Thebaid for 15 years. In the Bazaar he speaks of the death of Theodosius on the 28th July 450 AD. The author of his life, together with Zacharias Rhetor (according to Philoxenus of Mabbug, Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis II, p. 40, 55) pretends that he was called to the council convoked on the 17th May 451 AD. If we believe these statements, Nestorius must have lived in Africa from 436 to 451, which would be the year of his death.
Assemani correctly denies this famous invitation of Nestorius to the council. The idea was an invention of the Monophysites, in hatred of the Catholic Church and St. Leo, who sought to represent all that happened there as Nestorian. In fact the celebrated council of Chalcedon again condemned Nestorius as a heretic.
The Bazaar speaks explicitly of the death of Theodosius (p. 506), but makes no mention of Marcian who succeeded him on the 24th August, that is to say 27 days later. Had Nestorius really been invited to Chalcedon, he would certainly have boasted of it in his writings, as despite repeated condemnations over 20 years, he continued always to complain that he was being misrepresented!
On the next to last page of the Bazaar, the author speaks of the Vandal barbarians who had invaded Sicily and even Rome. He adds with the air of a prophet that they will return, that Leo will be obliged to give them the sacred vessels with his own hands, and that he will see with his own eyes the princesses, the daughters of the emperor, led into captivity. Here Nestorius, who knew the celebrated letter of Leo and who speaks at such length of the Robber-synod of Ephesus in 449, is silent about Marcian, silent about the Council of Chalcedon at which he was again condemned, and mentions only two invasions of Rome by the barbarians. History tells us that Attila invaded Italy in 452, and was turned back by Leo; that Genseric came from Africa via Sicily and pillaged Rome in 455 and captured two imperial princesses. For these reasons it is necessary to believe that these great events were added after the event by a forger who wanted to give the halo of a prophet to the founder of the sect. In the manuscript, indeed, this last chapter has the title "Prophecy."
All this leads us to suppose that Nestorius died in 450 or 451.
A longer biography is given by Nau, with references.
II. The manuscript
The information that we have is rather unsatisfactory. Bedjan writes:
Nestorius wrote in Greek. His works were condemned to be burned, so only a few sermons and letters have reached us, in either Greek or Latin. In the catalogue of Syriac writers drawn up by Ebedjesu, bishop of Nisibis, at the end of the 13th century, we see that Nestorius' work On Tragedy, his Heracleides, his letter to Come, his liturgy, a volume of letters, and another of sermons still existed in Syriac translation. Today only his liturgy and the Bazaar survive.
The title of the Bazaar must be translated: Liber inscriptus: Mercatura Heraclidis Damasceni, scriptus a D. Nestorio. "Tegourta" which is translated "Bazaar" is no doubt the translation of the Greek πραγματεια which signifies "mercatura" and also "tractatus" (philosophiae vel theologiae) [i.e. treatise of philosophy or theology].
A single manuscript of the Syriac translation of the Bazaar survived to the end of the 19th century, at which time it was found in the library of the Nestorian patriarch. That dignitary had found it necessary for his own safety to base himself at Kotchanes in the mountains of Kurdistan. Bedjan tells us that the Syriac translation was made around 535 at the time of the patriarch Paul, and according to notes in the copy of it at Ourmiah (ms. 147), it was about 800 years old. The manuscript was mutilated. This mainly happened in 1843, during a famous massacre carried out by a Kurdish chief and Turkish official, Bader Khan Bey, against the Christians. Bedjan tells us that he has met survivors of the massacre himself in Persia.
Based upon the blank pages in the manuscripts which I have seen myself and some small notes of the copyist, I calculate that in the text as far as p. 146 of my edition some 55 pages of text are missing; to page 161, 42 pages are missing; to page 209, 36 pages are missing. This calculation can only be approximate. Also there are some passages where a number of lines have been left blank, and in other places small sections are unreadable through age.
A copy was made from this manuscript by the priest Ouchana in 1889, secretly and in haste, for the library of the American missionaries at Ourmiah. Two copies were made from this copy. One was made for Cambridge, and the other for Strasbourg. I have both of these here with me. In addition, I have obtained a third manuscript from Kurdistan, one part of which was written at Van and the other at Kotchanes directly from the famous manuscript of the patriarch. Because I received both parts from Van, I have referred to them both under the same name [of Van].
A footnote thanks the Rev. Bethune-Baker for loaning the Cambridge copy to Bedjan.
It is quite unclear how a copy could be written at Van unless a further copy had been made sometime, or else the manuscript had travelled there. Bedjan's words are repeated by Driver and Hodgson. Francois Nau's introduction, p.xxii ff, elaborates the story and supplies additional detail.
The unique manuscript preserved at Kotchanes belongs to the 11th or 12th century....
From this manuscript, a copy was taken in secret and in haste in 1889 by the priest Auscha`nâ, for the library of the American missionaries at Ourmiah, cf. infra, p. 4 note 5. All the copies derive from this copy of Ourmiah, apart from that (V) which P. Bedjan had made, part at Van (coming from Kotchanes) and part at Kotchanes itself.
From the Ourmiah copy there were made:
1. A copy for the university of Strasbourg by the efforts of the abbé H. Goussen, cf. Martyrius Sahdona's Leben und Werke, Lepizig, 1897, p. 15, note 1, and the analysis of A. Baumstark in Oriens Christianus, t. III (1903), p. 517-520.
2. Two copies for Messrs. Parry and Jenks, the first of whom was the leader and the other a member of the English mission at Ourmiah. [A footnote tells us that while the US mission was founded in 1836, there was a mission sent out from England around 1890 by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the request of the Nestorian patriarch]. Jenks' copy was first placed at the disposal of Bethune-Baker, and was translated for him by one of his friends in order to be used for his book, Nestorius and his teaching.
Jenks' copy is currently in Cambridge University Library. Parry's copy was donated to the British Library. In common with so many manuscripts at that institution since WW , it has been effectively unavailable to those who could use it. Nau continues:
3. A copy in 1899 for Rendel Harris, which can now be found at Harvard college in the USA. Cf. Bethune-Baker, loc. cit. p. xiv-xv.
Bethune-Baker's book (Cambridge, 1908) is online at google book, although only to US readers. Bethune-Baker tells us (p.xiv-xv) that:
...I learn from Mr. O. H. Parry, the head of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to the Assyrian Christians at Urmi... that members of the mission had long been acquainted with the book, and that several copies had been made.
Mr. D. Jenks, a former member of the mission (1892-99) was the first to learn of the MS [the copy in the American library at Ourmiah] and to procure a copy of it. A copy was also obtained by Dr. Rendel Harris in 1899. (This copy is now, I understand, at Harvard.) Mr. Parry himself has had a copy by him for the last seven years and has made a translation of part of it.... Mr Jenks, now a member of the House of the Sacred Mission,... brought [his copy] back with him to England in 1899 and has kindly placed his copy at my disposal for use in this fresh examination of the teaching of Nestorius.
A friend, who is an expert Syriac scholar, has been good enough to make a translation of it for me, and it is his translation which I have used whenever the book is referred to or quoted.... I should have wished his name to appear on the title page. But his standpoint on matters concerning the church and church doctrine is not the same as mine. He would not treat the subject as a whole as I have treated it, nor would he wish to associate himself with all the inferences which I have drawn from the fresh evidence which is now available.
SPCK announced ca. 1920 that a translation prepared by Norman McLean, also a Cambridge don would be forthcoming, so I think that we may presume that he was the anonymous friend referred to. No such work was published, however. The whereabouts of this translation are now unknown. I queried whether it had been deposited at Cambridge University Library, but they have little by McLean other than a couple of letters.
Nau adds:
In 1903 the manuscript at Strasbourg (S) had already been copied and vocalised by Fr. Bedjan, and the abbé Ermoni began to translate the work into Latin from this copy. He halted after completing around a third of the work and had to abandon it at that point.... It was in 1909 that Fr. P. Bedjan asked me to translate the Book of Heraclides from the proof-sheets of his edition.
Bedjan continues:
These various copies have allowed me to verify the text, to fill up accidental gaps, and to compensate, to a certain degree, for the absence of the ancient manuscript, of which I have not been able to have knowledge....
The Cambridge copy is of a very nice calligraphy and is the only one that is vocalised, although often in a very defective manner. The proper names are mispronounced, especially towards the beginning. [Problems with the name Sophronius] Sophronius, bishop of Tella, was excommunicated at the Robber council led by Disocorus as a partisan of Nestorius.
A footnote adds that the details about Sophronius can be found in Assemani, B.O. t. 1, pp. 202, 402. He was the cousin of Ibas, it is said. He was reintroduced at Chalcedon, after which he was obliged to anathemise Nestorius. (Labbe, t. IV, 623 D).
In the different copies we can see that each has tried to reproduce the old manuscript, and each has placed the second folio where the first should be, and vice-versa. The copyists through an excess of scrupulousness have followed this false pagination. I have placed the pages back in their natural order.
During the First World War there were very significant losses of manuscripts. The library at Ourmiah was destroyed, although a few books were saved. Presumably the ancient ms. of Kotchanes was also lost. The whereabouts of the Van copy is also unknown to me. The Strasbourg and Cambridge copies still exist. If anyone has any additional information, I would be most glad to hear of it.
Roger Pearse
30th September 2006
Postscript
The industrious Steven Ring has discovered that a catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts at Harvard is now online. This of course includes Ms. 95, the Liber Heraclidis, from which I digest the following:
Title: Liber Heraclidis. Syriac
Title: Te'gurta d-Heraqlidos: manuscript, 1899.
Location: Houghton library MS Syriac 95
Finding aids: Goshen-Gottstein, 76; Titterton, Syriac manuscripts in the Semitic Museum, 176.
Description: 1 v. (280 p.); 37 cm.
Provenance: Bookplate of former owner J. Rendel Harris with his number (87). Purchased by the Harvard Semitic Museum in 1905 (accession no. 4023). Semitic Museum deposit, ca. 1959.
Notes: Title from colophon, p. 279. This also gives the scribe's name, the priest David from ʻAnbi in Tergawar. It also states that the ms. was copied from a ms. written by Oshana Saru in March 1889 in Kochanes.
A subscription by Oshana Saru in the original ms. is copied on a front flyleaf by W. A. Shedd. This explains that he left blank spaces corresponding to damage in the ms. from which he worked, and that he added vowels.
Written in a neat East Syriac hand, with vowels, in black with occasional red.
Bound in half tan calf and cloth by Wilsons of Cambridge.
Cite as: MS Syriac 95. Houghton Library, Harvard University.
References: Baumstark, 117.
This is indeed, then, the Rendel Harris copy. The vague descriptions give way to specific information here about scribes and copies. Thus this is not a direct copy of the ancestor Kotchanes manuscript. Steven is going to Harvard; I will ask him to look at this manuscript.
RP
28th July 2007
Bibliography
Paul Bedjan, Nestorius: le livre d'Heraclide de Damas. Leipzig (1910).
F. Nau, Nestorius: le livre d'Heraclide de Damas, traduit en Français. Paris (1910)
The Syriac life of Nestorius is presented by Maurice Brière, La legende syriaque de Nestorius, revue de l'orient chrétien (1910), and reprinted separately by A. Picard & fils, Paris (1910).
Luise Abramowski, Untersuchungen zum Liber Heraclidis des Nestorius. / CSCO 242, Subs. 22. Louvain, 1963, pp. I-II ff. I owe this reference to Nikolai Seleznyov in the HUGOYE-L email list, but I have not seen the volume. This apparently states that the original Ms was lost during the First World War.
H.Goussen, Martyrius-Sahdona's Leben und Werke (Leipzig, 1897). I owe this reference to Nikolai Seleznyov in the HUGOYE-L email list, but I have not seen the volume. On p.15 the author apparently mentions the Ms & its copying.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_0_eintro .htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (2007) Manuscript colophons
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (2007) Manuscript colophons
Bazaar of Heraqlidos MS - colophons
The colophons of Harvard MS Syriac 95 were noted down during a visit to the Houghton Library, Harvard University USA, on th August 2007. What follows is an edition a of the Syriac colophons with translations and notes. This MS has been previously described by Dr. J. F. Coakley and additional details can be found in his on-line b description. Dr. Coakley's very helpful descriptions of all the other Harvard Syriac MS are also accessible on-line. c
Syriac texts
ܐܨܝܚܐ ܕܡܢܗ̇ ܐܨܚܬ ܐܢܐ ܟܬܘܒܐ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܐܘܫܥܢܐ ܡܚܝܠܐ: ܣܓܝ ܚܫܝܟܐ ܗܘܬ ܘܐܦ ܬܒܝܕ ܗܘ̣ܬ ܡܢܗ̇ ܘܢܘܩܙܐ ܠܝܬ ܗܘ̣ܐ ܠܗ̇. ܠܕܘܟܝܬ[ܐ] ܕܚܫܝܟܐ: ܫܒܩܬ ܚܘܪܬܐ. ܘܠܗܘ ܕܢܦܝܠ ܬܘܒ ܘܪܩܐ ܚܘܪܐ ܫܒܩܬ. ܘܠܢܘܩܙܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܣܡܬ ܒܪܡ ܡܛܠ ܕܥܡ ܩܠܡܐ ܪܗܛܐ ܣܡܬ. ܘܠܐ ܒܩܪܝܢܐ ܢܝ̣ܚܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ. ܟܒܪ ܢܗܘܐ ܛܥܘܢܐ ܡܕܡ. ܘܐܢܬ ܬܙܕܗܪ ܕܐܢ ܣܘܟܠܐ ܠܐ ܐܚܕ: ܟܒܪ ܢܘ̈ܩܙܐ ܠܐ ܬܪܝܨܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܚܠܦ ܐܡܪ ܐܡܪ: ܬܘ: ܬܡܪܬ ܚܠܦ ܬܡܪܬ ܘܫܪܟܐ.
Colophon 1 edited from the flyleaf of Harvard MS Syriac 95. 01 A different spelling would have been expected, ܨܚܚܐ; 03 The aleph is a suggested restoration. Sayyeme points would also have been expected to mark the plural here.
ܠܡܟܬܒ ܟܬܒܐܕܡܬܩܪܐ ̇ܬܐܓܘܪܬܐ ܕܗܪܩܠܝܕܘܣ ܕܥܒܝܕ ܠܢܨܝܚ ܒܩܕܝܫ̈ܐ ܘܛܘܒܬܢ ܒܟܠ ܡܪܝ ܢܣܛܘܪܝܣ. ܐܦܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܩܘܣܛܢܛܝܢܦܘ...
Colophon 2, excerpt 1 edited from Harvard MS Syriac 95, f. 279a.
ܐܬܟܬܒ ܒܩܪܝܬܐ ܗܝܕܪܠܘ̣ܘܐ ܕܠܬܚܬ ܐܝܬܝܗ̇ ܡܢ ܣܝܪܐ ܩܪܝܬܐ ܕܒܓܘܗ̇ ܡܕܝܪܝܢ ܫܠܝ̈ܚܐ ܐܡܖ̈ܟܝܐ ܒܩܝܛܐ: ܒܫܢܬܐ ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ ܀ ܐܦܨܛ: ܒܝܘܡ ܐܪܒܥܒܫܒܐ ܀ ܟܢܘܢ ܀ ܒ ܀ ܟܘ ܀ ܒܗ: ܐܬܟܬܒ ܡܢ ܚܕ ܕܟܬܝܒ ܗܘ̣ܐ ܒܝܕ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܐܘܫܥܢܐ ܣܐܪܘ ܒܓܘ ܩܘܟܢܝܣ ܥܕܬ ܟܘܪܣܝܐ ܕܦܛܪܝܪܟܘܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܥܬܝܩܬܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ: ܒܫܢܬ ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ ܀ ܐܦܦܛ...
Colophon 2, excerpt 2 edited from Harvard MS Syriac 95, f. 279a with some text omitted between excerpts 1 and 2 and after excerpt 2.
Colophon translations
Colophon 1 found on the flyleaf:
"The exemplar from which I, the Scribe-Elder Aush`ana the weak copied, was much obscured and damaged and it was grammatically un-pointed. And the obscured passages I have left white, as also where the pages have fallen [out], I have left white-space. And I have added all of the pointing. It is eaten away because it is running with parasites. I have added [the points] but what is written doesn't read well. Perhaps it is a mistake and you should take care if the sense isn't captured. Perhaps the points are incorrect here and there d."e
Colophon 2 found on folio 279a:
That Aush`ana copied the decayed exemplar MS in Cochanis in the year AD 1889 is made clear in the colophon of the present MS, as found on folio 279a f:
Excerpt 1:
"To write the book which is called 'The Bazaar of Heraqlidos' which was composed by one excellent amongst holy ones and our blessed in everything, Mar Nestori[u]s, bishop of Constantinople..."
Excerpt 2:
"It was written in the village of Haydarluwe which is under Sira g a village h, which is in the summer habitation of the American Missionaries i, in the year AD 1899, on Wednesday 26th in the month nd Kanun j. It was written from another which was written by the Elder Aush`ana Saru, in Qochanis k, the church of the patriarchal throne of the old Church of the East in the year AD 1889..."
Steven Ring, August 26th 2007
Postscript on the catalogue of the library at Urmiah:
According to the catalogue entry in front of me, Urmia MS 147 is the Bazaar, the MS dimensions were 9" x 7", it had 328 pages and it was copied in 1889 from an exemplar about 800 years older, i.e. of the 11th century. Of course, this meshes nicely with what we know from the Harvard MS colophons. Hence, the Harvard MS is most probably a copy of Urmia MS 147. The geography and other circumstances also make this very likely.
Notes:
a This edition uses the Meltho font, 'Estrangelo Edessa' ©1992-2002 courtesy of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. All Rights Reserved. The Meltho fonts are available on-line and the URL is: http://www.bethmardutho.org/meltho/
b The URL for Dr. J. F. Coakley's description of Harvard MS Syriac 95 is as follows: "http://lms01.harvard.edu/F/6QQVF4NEGV9BCR13GJIKKNJ461LK8CAUK3BGTVT7EEQ2DSDDQI-01879?func=direct&doc_number=009269125"
c The URL and HOLLIS catalogue search string for all the Harvard Syriac MSS is as follows: "http://lms01.harvard.edu/F/6QQVF4NEGV9BCR13GJIKKNJ461LK8CAUK3BGTVT7EEQ2DSDDQI-05553?func=scan&scan_code=IOT&scan_start=MS+Syriac"
d The Syriac text includes two examples of variant pointing, but I failed to record them.
e Near this colophon on the MS flyleaf, there is a note written by W. A. Shedd in English to say that the exemplar MS was un-pointed.
f I selected and recorded only two excerpts from colophon 2.
g This village is near the city of Urmia which was then in Turkey, but is now in Iran.
h This village is mentioned in a number of other manuscripts. See vol. 1, p. 182 in Sachau, E. 'Koenigliche Bibliothek zu Berlin. Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften.' 2 vols, (Berlin: A. Asher, 1899). This catalogue is now available on-line with many other useful Syriac books, courtesy of the BYU and CUA Syriac reference library. Another East Syrian manuscript, Rylands 26 which is dated AD 1895 also seems to have been copied in Sira, see Coakley, J. F. 'A catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the John Rylands Library' in 'Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester' Volume 75, number 2, summer 1993, page 150.
i Literally in the Syriac text, 'the American Apostles'.
j That is to say, this Harvard MS was completed on Wednesday January 26th, AD 1899.
k This is probably the same place as one called 'Codshanis' which can be found on the maps published in 'The Patriarchs of the Church of the East from the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries' Heleen H.L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, Leiden University, Published on-line in Hugoye volume 2 number 2, July 1999. The URL for this paper is as follows: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol2No2/HV2N2Murre.html
This text was written by Steven Ring, 2007. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Syriac text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_0_intro.htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.iii-xxxv. Introduction
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.iii-xxxv. Introduction
NESTORIUS
The
Bazaar of Heracleides
Newly translated from the Syriac and edited with an
Introduction
Notes & Appendices
by
G. R. DRIVER, M.A.
&
LEONARD HODGSON, M.A.
Fellows of Magdalen College., Oxford.
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1925
Oxford University Press
London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai
Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
PREFACE
The present volume is the result of collaboration between two colleagues, the one a student of the Semitic languages, the other of Christian doctrine. After the former had prepared an English translation of the whole work, the manuscript was handed over to the latter, who read it carefully through; the difficulties were then jointly discussed. The editors hope that by this means they are able to offer a reliable rendering of the original text. The absence of any English edition of a work which has given rise to much theological discussion has, in their opinion, justified them in undertaking the task; but, although their edition is based on an independent study of the Syriac version itself, they desire to acknowledge their indebtedness to MM. Bedjan and Nau, the editors of the Syriac text and of the French translation respectively, their reliance on whom is evident on every page of the translation and in almost every note; indeed, if they had not already covered the ground, it is unlikely that the present work would ever have been accomplished.
We wish to express our gratitude also to those whose encouragement and assistance has enabled us to complete our work: to the President and Fellows of Magdalen College and to the Trustees of the Denyer and Johnson Fund for most generous financial grants; to the staff of the Clarendon Press for their courtesy and care; to the Rev. F. W. Green for reading the proofs, and to him and to Mrs. Margoliouth for |vi many valuable suggestions; to Dr. B. J. Kidd for permission to draw on his History of the Church to A.D. 461 in compiling the historical section of our Introduction; to the editors of the proposed Patristic Lexicon for putting at our disposal for the purpose of Appendix III the material which they had collected, and to the Rev. T. G. Jalland for his help in drawing up that appendix; and to the proprietors of the Journal of Theological Studies for permission to reprint Appendix IV from their pages.
G. R. D.
L. H.
MAGDALEN COLLEGE,
OXFORD.
October, 1924.
|vii
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v
INTRODUCTION.
i. History of The Bazaar
ix
ii. The Text xi
iii. Value of the Syriac Translation xii
iv. History of the Controversy xvii
v. The Argument of The Bazaar xxix
TEXT.
The Syriac Translator's Preface 3
Book I, Part I 7
Book I, Part II 87
Book I, Part III 96
Book II, Part I 186
Book II, Part II 336
(N.B.----The following are the chief historical sections:
pp. 96-142, 265-93, 329-80.)
APPENDICES.
i. Translation of the Syriac Fragments of Nestorius 382
ii. Critical Notes 398
iii. The word πρόσωπον 402
iv. 'The Metaphysic of Nestorius' 411
INDEX 431
|viii
ABBREVIATIONS
C = Cambridge. S = Strassburg.
L = London. V = Van.
P = Peshitta Syriac Version.
|ix
INTRODUCTION
i. History of The Bazaar.
The Council of Ephesus met in June, A.D. 431, and was dissolved in September by the Emperor Theodosius II without the two parties, the Orientals and the followers of Cyril of Alexandria, having come to an agreement. Nestorius was bidden to return to his monastery at Antioch, and Maximian was consecrated Archbishop of Constantinople in his place. In August 435 imperial edicts forbade the meetings of Nestorians and decreed heavy penalties against all who should copy, preserve, or read the writings of their master, which were ordered to be burned. By a rescript of the following year Nestorius himself was banished to Arabia, but he was actually sent to Egypt, where from a reference in Socrates he is known to have been in 439.1 But he was not left in peace in Egypt, for besides being on one occasion made prisoner by Lybian marauders, the ill will of his Egyptian opponents led to his being somewhat harshly treated by the imperial agents responsible for the supervision of his exile.2
In 1825 Augustus Neander, in referring to the citations made by Evagrius 3 from a history of his misfortunes written by Nestorius during his exile, wrote 'That the work bore the title of "Tragedy" is reported by Ebedjesu, a Nestorian metropolitan of the fourteenth century, in his list of Syrian ecclesiastical writers in Assemani bibliotheca orientalis, T. iii, p. i, f. 36. This work of Nestorius has unfortunately not come down to us, unless, perhaps, it may be somewhere found in a Syrian translation.' 4 As a matter of fact, Ebedjesu mentions six works of Nestorius as extant in Syriac in his day, the Tragedy, the Book of Heracleides, a Letter to Cosmos, a Liturgy, a book of Letters, and a book of Homilies and Sermons,5 and Neander's prophetic hope has been fulfilled |x by the discovery, not indeed of the Tragedy, but of The Bazaar of Heracleides.
This work was introduced to English readers by Dr. Bethune-Baker of Cambridge in 1908 in his monograph Nestorius and his Teaching.6 In his preface Dr. Bethune-Baker gives the following account of the work.
The book must have been written by Nestorius in the year 451 or 452, seeing that there are references to the death of Theodosius II in 450, and to the flight of Dioscorus of Alexandria.7 Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but though formally deposed by the Council in October of that year was not condemned to banishment until the following July. On the other hand, Nestorius, though speaking of the triumph of the orthodox faith of Flavian and Leo, does not seem to be aware of the formal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. It appears, therefore, that Dioscorus must have fled when the Council decided against him, and that when Nestorius wrote he must have heard of his flight, but not of the formal decision of the Council or of the imperial decree by which sentence of exile was pronounced upon him.
Dr. Bethune-Baker identifies this work with that mentioned by Evagrius. He conjectures that the Syriac translation may have been undertaken at the instance of Maraba, Catholicos of the Eastern Church, between 525 and 533, but no absolute certainty can be attained on this point.8 Apart from the reference to it by Ebedjesu it is not again heard of until the nineteenth century. The original manuscript is at Kotchanes in Kurdistan, and for several years its existence has been known to members of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to Assyrian Christians, some of whom obtained copies of it. It was noticed in the last decade of the nineteenth century by two German scholars,9 and attention was called to it by Dr. Loofs of Halle in his Collection of Nestorian remains published in 1905.10 In 1908 Dr. Bethune-Baker published |xi his monograph, and in 1910 a Syriac text was published in Leipzig by P. Bedjan 11 and a French translation in Paris by F. Nau.12
ii. The Text.
Our translation is based on Bedjan's Syriac text.13 Nestorius himself wrote his defence in Greek; his works were condemned to be burnt and only a few sermons and letters have survived in Greek and Latin.14 Now only the Nestorian liturgy and The Bazaar of Heracleides are known.
The Syriac translation of the latter work was made about 535 under the patriarch Paul, according to Bedjan 15; of this there is extant only one mutilated manuscript, which is preserved in the library of the Nestorian patriarch at Kotchanes, in Kurdistan. This manuscript has suffered considerable damage, chiefly at the hands of the Kurds on the occasion of the massacre of Nestorian Christians by the Kurdish chief Bedr Khan Bey in 1843.16 Of this manuscript Bedjan 17 says: 'According to the blank pages in the manuscripts which I have had in my hands, and according to certain brief notes of the copyists, I have reckoned that at page 146 of my edition [i. e. Syr., p. 146, as given at the top of each page in our translation] there are very nearly 55 pages which have |xii disappeared; at page 161, 42 pages are missing; at page 209, 36 pages have been lost. One can only make this calculation approximately. Further, there are passages where some lines have been left blank; other places of no considerable length have been obliterated by age.'
There are four copies of this manuscript, the first made in 1889 for the library of the American mission at Urmiyah. From this two other copies were made: one for the University of Cambridge, and the other for that of Strassburg. In addition to these, Bedjan had a copy, written partly at Van and partly at Kotchanes, from the original in the possession of the Nestorian patriarch. Of these manuscripts only the last mentioned, which is the archetype of all the others, is of any value for the text; Bedjan himself confesses that, where his text differs from that, the variations are errors or conjectural emendations of an original which was not accessible to him.
iii. Value of the Syriac Translation.
That the Syriac text is a translation is definitely stated by the writer of the 'Translator's Preface'.18 Fortunately, although the Greek original has been lost, we are in a position to estimate the value of this translation, since the Greek of certain passages has been preserved in the Fathers. In the first place, Bedjan 19 is undoubtedly right in seeing in the title 'the Bazaar of Heracleides' a mistake; the original Greek word seems to have been πραγματεία which connotes both 'business' and 'treatise', which the Syriac translator rendered by te'gurta 'merchandise'! There are, however, very few bad blunders in that part of the Syriac text which can be checked by a reference to the original Greek, as the following list shows, while in many cases the cause of the error can be detected:
[Omitted from the online text]
|xiii
Besides these obvious blunders, there is at least one instance of error through homoeoteleuton,20 and one where an imperative is translated as if it were an optative.21
Secondly, there are a few errors for which no palaeographical explanation can be found:
[Omitted from the online text]
|xiv
No reason also can be assigned either for the fact that in the phrase 'he who begins and grows and is perfected is not God, although he is so called on account of the gradual growth' the translator always substitutes 'revelation' or 'manifestation' for 'growth' (Gk. αὔξησις),22 or for the fact that the name Aethericus regularly appears as Atticus in his version.23
Seeing then that a certain number of errors can be charged to the account of the Syriac translator and proved against him, it is not too bold to assume in a few passages similar mistakes.
Finally, three other passages where the Greek and Syriac texts diverge may be mentioned.
[Omitted from the online text]
There seem also to be two passages where the double negative οὐ μή in Greek has led the translator into error. On p. 259, for the Syriac 'For I have not denied that Christ is not God', the context requires 'For I have not denied that Christ is God'...; on p. 324, for the Syriac 'how do they escape from saying that the human attributes do not belong to the ousia of God the Word?', the context requires 'how then do they escape from saying that the human attributes belong to the ousia of God the Word?'... Another Greek |xv construction over which the translator seems to have blundered is that of the double accusative....
[Omitted from the online text]
Against these errors there can be set a few passages where the Syriac version is clearly superior to the Greek original, and several others where it can be used to decide between alternative readings. In the first class come such passages as that on p. 234, where for the Greek ὑπόστασις the Syriac substitutes πρόσωπον in conformity with the regular usage of Nestorius; again, the Syriac rightly assigns the quotation on p. 244 to St. Luke, where the Greek has St. John.
In the second category fall the following passages:
[Omitted from the online text]
|xvi
The Syriac translation may therefore be accounted good after its kind. Though occasionally pedantically accurate, as when the see of Beroea of the original text is called by the translator that of Aleppo,24 it aims generally rather at representing the sense of the original than at reproducing the Greek word for word; for the retention of the Greek redundant negative even against the sense in a few passages is due rather to the tendency of the Syriac language to model itself on Greek, regardless of the requirements of Semitic idiom, than to the slavish fidelity of the translator to his original. This is proved not only by the loose rendering of individual words and phrases----for example, of αἰδέσιμοι by 'beloved' (on p. 103)----but also by a certain laxity in regard to the translation of technical or semi-technical terms, due largely to the relative poverty of the Syriac language in comparison with the Greek;... Against this, the translator accurately renders ἐκκαπηλεύειν, 'to adulterate' (on pp. 323-4), according to its peculiar usage in the Cyrillian writings.
The present editors, therefore, mindful of the fact that they are translating into a third language a translation----and that one which possesses no grace of style or elegance of diction----of a lost work, whose meaning depends solely on the precise value assigned to a number of technical terms, have frequently sacrificed the English to an endeavour to render faithfully the Syriac version, keeping as far as possible the same English word for the corresponding Syriac even at the cost of a certain harshness or awkwardness in many passages; for they have regarded it as their aim not so much to present the reader with their view of what Nestorius said as to enable him to form his own opinion from a careful and accurate version of the Syriac text. |xvii
iv. History of the Controversy.25
Date.
Events. Refs. in The Bazaar.
PAGES (English).
428. April Nestorius becomes bishop of Constantinople 274-5
November Anastasius preaches against Theotokos.
Christmas Nestorius begins a course of sermons 131
Day Protest of Eusebius (afterwards bishop of Dorylaeum) 338
429. Lady Day Proclus' sermon, replied to by Nestorius. Eastertide Nestorius preaches three sermons in reply to Proclus.
Cyril sends his encyclical Ad Monachos Aegypti. Photius replies to it.
Cyril stirs up accusers against Nestorius.
Caelestine of Rome makes inquiries.
Letters from Nestorius reach Caelestine 132
June Cyril Ad Nestorium I 103 ff.
Nestorius replies peacefully; his diocese is disturbed and he is not ready for war.
Nestorius is approached by the Pelagian exiles, Julian and Caelestius.
Basil and his monks petition Theodosius II against Nestorius, and ask for an Oecumenical Council 102
430. Cyril Ad Nestorium II and Ad Clericos Constantinopolitanos 101 ff., 143-4,
149 ff., 218,
226, 243, 263
Lent Nestorius replies to Cyril, this time more pugnaciously 141-2, 162, 257
Cyril De Recta Fide, (1) Ad Theodosium, (2) Ad Arcadiam et Marinam, (3) Ad Pulcheriam et Eudoxiam.
April Cyril Ad Caelestinum, sent by Poseidonius, with other documents enclosed 131-2
Cyril Ad Acadian (of Beroea) ----a fruitless effort to win over 'the East'.
August Nestorius is condemned at a Council at Rome. Caelestine writes to Cyril instructing him to carry out the sentence, and to Nestorius bidding him to submit and to renounce his 'novel doctrines' on pain of excommunication. |xviii
Cyril writes to John of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem.
John writes to Nestorius begging him to submit and accept the term Theotokos.
November Nestorius Ad Caelestinum III.
Theodosius II and Valentinian III summon a General Council to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost 431.
A Council held at Alexandria.
Cyril Ad Nestorium III (Synodical Letter), with the XII Anathematisms appended 268-9, 287-93, 325
December 7 Nestorius receives Cyril's 'synodical' letter and Caelestine's sentence of excommunication, which cannot be put into force owing to the Imperial Letter summoning the Council of Ephesus.
Dec. 13 & 14 Nestorius preaches two sermons (xiii and xiv) and sends them to Cyril with counter anathematisms. He also replies to John of Antioch, and with the aid of Cyril's anathematisms wins him over.
430-1. Cassian De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorianos, written at the invitation of Caelestine.
431. Marius Mercator Nestorii blasphemiarum capitula, based on Nestorius' December sermons.
John of Antioch enlists Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus on the side of Nestorius.
Cyril Apologia contra Orientales, in reply to Andrew, and Apologia contra Theodoretum pro XII capitibus, and Adversus Nestorii blasphemias libri V.
Cyril writes to Caelestine asking what is to be done if Nestorius recants.
431. May 7 Caelestine replies that 'God willeth not the death of a sinner', and Cyril is to do what he can to win Nestorius back.
June 7 Whitsunday.
June 12 By 12th June there are assembled at Ephesus:
(1) Nestorius with ten bishops.
(2) Counts Irenaeus and Candidianus, the latter |xix representing the Emperor, who had given him a letter of instructions.
(3) Cyril with fifty bishops.
(4) Juvenal of Jerusalem with the bishops of Palestine.
(5) Flavian of Philippi with the bishops of Macedonia.
(6) Besulas, a deacon, representing the African Church.
Memnon closes the churches of Ephesus to the Nestorians 267,269
Conversations between Nestorius and (a) Acacius of Melitene, (b) Theodotus of Ancyra 136-141
June 21 Cyril receives a letter from John of Antioch saying that he hopes to arrive in five or six days. Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis bring a message from him, that the Council should not wait for him if he is delayed on his journey.
Nestorius and Candidianus wish to wait for John 106-108, 269
But Cyril and Memnon, with the support of their followers and the populace of Ephesus, have Nestorius summoned, and proceed without delay 134, 312
June 22 Candidianus protests, reads his Imperial instructions, utters his contestatio, and on being overruled withdraws 106, 108-16
The Gospels are placed on the throne, as representing the presence of Christ 119-21
Cyril presides, claiming to do so in virtue of Caelestine's letter of August 430; but the force of his claim is doubtful since the imperial summons to a General Council had superseded Caelestine's commission to Cyril to deal with Nestorius, and Caelestine had himself sent legates to the Council.
June 22 Session I. Nestorius refuses to attend. The following are read:
(1) The Creed of Nicaea 141
(2) Cyril Ad Nest. II----received with acclamation |xx 143-4. 149 ff.
(3) Nestorius Ad Cyrillum II----rejected with anathemas 141 ff., 162
(4) Caelestine's Letter to Nestorius of August 430.
(5) Cyril Ad Nest. III with the Anathematisms ----received in silence 151, 268, 269
(6) Testimonies of various bishops concerning conversations with Nestorius 136-41
(7) Passages from certain Fathers, including Athanasius, Theophilus, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa 191-2, 223-265
(8) Extracts from the writings of Nestorius 188-263
(9) The letter of Capreolus, Primate of Africa.
Nestorius is deposed and excommunicated 265
Cyril, Nestorius, and Candidianus all write to Emperor 268
June 26 Arrival of John of Antioch and the Easterns 267
John immediately holds a Council. Forty-three bishops are present, and Candidianus. They depose Cyril and Memnon, and excommunicate all their adherents who will not repudiate Cyril's XII Anathematisms 267-9, 286-7
Candidianus sends reports to the Emperor 117, 124
June 29 An Imperial Rescript arrives in which Cyril is rebuked for his haste, and the bishops are commanded to await the arrival of an Imperial Commissioner in Ephesus 117-18, 128
July 10 Caelestine's Legates arrive----the bishops Arcadius and Projectus and the priest Philip 126
In accordance with Caelestine's instructions they give their support to Cyril.
Session II. Cyril presides. Caelestine's Letter to the Synod, written on th May, is read.
July 11 Session III. The minutes of Session I are read. Philip announces Caelestine's assent to the sentence passed on Nestorius. Letters are sent to the Emperor and to the Church of Constantinople.
July 16
Session IV. John of Antioch and his supporters are summoned, but refuse to attend.
July 17
Session V. John sends a message refusing to have anything more to do with the Cyrillians. |xxi They excommunicate him and his adherents, and send reports to the Emperor and to Caelestine.
Events in Constantinople in July.
The Cyrillians cannot get their messages through to the Emperor owing to the activities of Candidianus and Nestorian agents. At last a beggar carries in a cane a letter from Cyril to the bishops and monks at Constantinople. With the aid of the abbot Dalmatius they enlist Theodosius' sympathies for Cyril 272-8
Theodosius then gives hearing to Cyril's envoys, Theopemptus and Daniel.
Nestorius' letters, and his friend, Count Irenaeus, put the case for the other side, and Theodosius orders Cyril's deposition.
The arrival of John, Cyril's chaplain and physician, turns the scale. Theodosius decides to treat Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius as all deposed, and to send a new commissioner to Ephesus 279
July 21 & 31 Sessions VI and VII are not directly concerned with the Nestorian controversy.
August Count John, the imperial commissioner, arrives at Ephesus 279, 280
He announces the deposition of Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon, puts them all under arrest, and reports the fact to the Emperor.
The Orientals write to the Emperor, to Antioch, and to Acacius of Beroea.
The Cyrillians send two professedly Synodical letters to the Emperor. Count John tries to persuade them to confer with the Orientals. They will not, but the Orientals draw up as a basis of reconciliation, and send to the Emperor, a letter including the formulary which is later known as the Formulary of Reunion. The Cyrillians ask to be allowed either to lay their case before the Emperor at Constantinople, or to go home. Their appeals stir up again the clergy of Constantinople and Dalmatius. |xxii
431. August Cyril writes from prison his Explicatio XII Capitum.
September 11 Theodosius receives at Chalcedon eight delegates from each side 284, 287-8
No agreement is reached, and Theodosius, despairing of a solution, dissolves the Council, sending Nestorius back to his monastery at Antioch, and ordering the consecration of a new bishop of Constantinople (Maximian) 281, 285
The rival parties go home, the Orientals accusing Cyril of having won his case by bribery 279-82, 286
October 30 Cyril arrives in triumph at Alexandria 281
Maximian deposes Nestorian bishops; the Orientals renew their condemnation of Cyril, and treat Nestorius as unjustly deposed.
432. January 27 Caelestine dies, and is succeeded by Sixtus III 375
Rabbula of Edessa and Andrew of Samosata show signs of going over to the Cyrillian side.
Cyril writes to Maximian, and sends the Emperor his Apologeticus ad Theodosium, which placates him.
April The Emperor suggests as a basis of reconciliation that the Orientals should give up Nestorius and Cyril his XII Anathematisms. He sends letters to this effect to John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and St. Simeon Stylites. The letters and the negotiations are entrusted to the notary Aristolaus 289, 329
John, Acacius, Alexander of Hierapolis, Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus hold a Synod at Antioch to consider Aristolaus' proposals. They demand the dropping of Cyril's Anathematisms, but are willing to make peace on the basis of the Nicene Creed as explained by Athanasius. These proposals are embodied in a letter from Acacius to Cyril, and taken to Alexandria by Aristolaus. No mention is made of abandoning Nestorius.
Cyril replies that if the Orientals will accept the |xxiii deposition of Nestorius there need be no trouble about the Anathematisms 286
John and Acacius wish to agree on this basis 290-1
Theodoret agrees on the doctrinal question, but dislikes the abandoning of Nestorius. Andrew wavers and Alexander stands out.
Autumn John and Acacius determine to go forward, ignoring the opposition of Alexander. They send Paul of Emesa as their envoy to Alexandria 318
Meanwhile Cyril has been working hard to win over the Court at Constantinople. The clergy and monks of Constantinople, including Maximian, Dalmatius, and Eutyches, have approached the Empress Pulcheria, while Cyril has heavily bribed her maids of honour, important eunuchs, and the Grand Chamberlain Chrysoretes.
Winter Paul of Emesa arrives at Alexandria, bringing (i) The Propositions of the Synod at Antioch, (ii) The Formulary of Reunion, and (iii) A Letter of Introduction from John to Cyril, cordial but containing no mention of the deposition of Nestorius. When pressed, Paul agrees to accept that deposition together with the deposition by Maximian of four Nestorianizing bishops.
December 18 Paul is received into communion at Alexandria.
Christmas Day Paul is admitted to preach in Alexandria as an orthodox bishop.
433 Aristolaus and Paul return to Antioch, and persuade John to agree 290-1
John announces his decision in a Circular Letter to Sixtus III of Rome, Maximian, and Cyril, and also sends two private letters to Cyril. Cyril replies with a letter (Ep. xxxix) afterwards given oecumenical authority at Chalcedon. The question of the XII Anathematisms is left unmentioned by both sides 291-2
Synod of Zeugma. Theodoret, Andrew, and John of Germanicia acknowledge the |xxiv orthodoxy of Cyril, but refuse to accept the deposition of Nestorius.
Alexander and some Cilician bishops renounce both Alexandria and Antioch.
434. Death of Maximian. Proclus becomes bishop of Constantinople.
An Imperial Rescript orders the bishops of 'The East' to abandon their resistance to John and Cyril. Theodoret, Andrew, and others obey 292-3, 328-30, 338
435. The Tome of Proclus is approved by both Cyril and John.
April Alexander and seventeen other irreconcileables are deposed and banished to the Egyptian mines.
Some Cyrillians begin to think that Cyril has compromised the faith by admitting 'two natures'. Acacius of Melitene writes to Cyril of the general uneasiness, and receives letters composed to reassure him 180, 293-318, 323, 325, 329
August Edict of Theodosius proscribing the writings of Nestorius and meetings of his followers 374
Aristolaus is charged to carry it out.
436. Nestorius is banished to Arabia, but actually sent to Upper Egypt. Count Irenaeus is also sent into exile 117
Nestorianism begins to spread in the East outside the Empire, e. g. in Persia.
437. John of Antioch writes to Proclus to say that all have now accepted the deposition of Nestorius, and that peace is restored.
438. Proclus has the relics of Chrysostom restored to Constantinople.
439. The Empress Eudocia returns from her pilgrimage to Palestine.
440. John of Antioch dies, and is succeeded by his nephew Domnus. Sixtus III of Rome dies, and is succeeded by Leo. The abbot Dalmatius dies, and is succeeded by Eutyches.
441. Eutyches' godson, the eunuch Chrysaphius, |xxv gains an ascendancy over Theodosius, and Pulcheria's influence declines
342
444. Cyril dies, and is succeeded by Dioscorus.
The Empress Eudocia is suspected of unfaithfulness and banished 379
446. Proclus dies, and is succeeded by Flavian, who neglects to placate Chrysaphius with 'golden eulogies' 336
447. Count Irenaeus is recalled from banishment and consecrated bishop of Tyre. Theodoret Eranistes seu Polymorphus.
448. February An Imperial Rescript proscribes the works of Porphyry and Nestorius, and orders the deposition of Irenaeus.
Dioscorus complains both to Theodoret and to Domnus of the former's unorthodoxy. Theodoret replies and protests to Flavian and others, but Theodosius orders him to be confined within his own diocese.
May Eutyches writes to Leo to say that Nestorianism is on the increase.
June Leo replies cautiously, asking for more detailed information.
September Photius is consecrated bishop of Tyre in place of Irenaeus.
November Synod of Constantinople. Eusebius of Dorylaeum accuses Eutyches before Flavian 340
Eutyches is summoned, but does not appear till Session VIII, when after being examined he is condemned. He immediately writes in protest to Leo, and Chrysaphius procures a letter from Theodosius to Leo on his behalf 340
Eutyches also writes to Peter Chrysologus, archbishop of Ravenna.
Flavian writes to Leo, giving his account of the trial, and asking the West to recognize Eutyches' condemnation.
449. Leo, receiving first the letters of Eutyches and Theodosius, writes to Theodosius and Flavian complaining that he has had no report from the latter, and asking for one.
Eutyches invites Dioscorus to take his part 340
Chrysaphius promises his aid, and that of |xxvi Eudocia. Dioscorus admits Eutyches to communion, and asks the Emperor for a General Council.
March Theodosius summons a General Council to meet at Ephesus in August 342
April Eutyches persuades Theodosius to have the Minutes of the Synod of Constantinople verified, and to order Flavian to produce a written statement of his faith 343
The Minutes are verified, and Flavian produces his statement.
The Eutychians procure the condemnation of Ibas of Edessa.
May Leo acknowledges the receipt of Flavian's letter.
Theodosius summons the abbot Barsumas to represent the abbots of the East at Ephesus, and tells Dioscorus that Barsumas is to be allowed to sit and vote.
Dioscorus is appointed to preside, Counts Elphidius and Eulogius to keep order 345
Theodosius' summons to the Council reaches Rome. Leo promises Flavian his support.
June Leo appoints Julius, bishop of Puteoli, the presbyter Renatus, the deacon Hilary, and the notary Dulcitius to represent him at Ephesus 345
They take with them letters to Pulcheria, the archimandrites of Constantinople, the Council, and Julian of Cos, and The Tome for Flavian.
August The Latrocinium.
The Council meets, charged by Theodosius to put an end to Nestorianism and the trouble stirred up by Flavian.
Dioscorus presides. Of Leo's legates, Renatus has died and the others, since they sit apart from one another and do not understand Greek, have little influence 345, 351
Session I. Dioscorus refuses to allow bishops who had taken part in the deposition of Eutyches at Constantinople to take part in this Council 352
He has the letters of Theodosius read, but prevents the reading of Leo's Tome 345-6
The Minutes of the Council of Constantinople are read |xxvii 353
Eusebius of Dorylaeum is refused a hearing 352
Eutyches and his followers are absolved and restored to their lost positions. Flavian and Eusebius are condemned, a protest being met by Dioscorus calling in the Counts and the soldiery, and obtaining the verdict by military compulsion 347, 354-5, 358-61, 369
Dioscorus sends in his report to Theodosius.
Session II, a fortnight later. Flavian has died from the violence of Barsumas and his monks 343, 362, 376
Eusebius, Domnus, and Leo's legates are not present.
Ibas, Irenaeus, Theodoret, and Domnus are all deposed 348-9
Cyril's XII Anathematisms are solemnly ratified.
September While a Synod is sitting on other matters in Rome, letters are received from Theodoret and Eusebius protesting against the Ephesian decisions, and Hilary brings his account of the Council.
October In the name of the Roman Synod, Leo writes to Theodosius and Pulcheria protesting against the proceedings at Ephesus. He also writes to various Eastern bishops, bidding them stand fast.
The Eutychians Anatolius and Maximus hold the sees of Constantinople and Antioch.
450. February The Western Court visits Rome, and Leo persuades Valentinian III, his mother, Galla Placidia, and his wife, Eudoxia, to write to their Eastern kinsfolk, but it is all in vain. Theodosius confirms all that was done at Ephesus, and informs the West that all is well in the East.
July Leo offers to recognize Anatolius if he will accept Cyril Ad Nest. II and his own Tome. There is no response.
Theodosius dies from a fall from his horse 369
He is succeeded by his sister, Pulcheria, who puts Chrysaphius to death and marries the senator Marcian. |xxviii
Eutyches is put under restraint, and Flavian's body buried with honour in Constantinople.
Theodoret and others are recalled from exile, and many of the bishops who supported Dioscorus at Ephesus explain that they did so under compulsion.
November to June 451 Correspondence between Pulcheria, Marcian, Anatolius, and Leo. Leo says the trouble is due to Dioscorus and Juvenal of Jerusalem, and can easily be settled without a Council, which would be difficult to arrange owing to the invasion of the Huns. Nevertheless, Pulcheria and Marcian summon a Council to meet at Nicaea in September.
Leo appoints legates. Bishops assemble at Nicaea.
Eutyches excommunicates Leo.
Marcian cannot go so far as Nicaea for fear of Huns in Illyricum, and orders the bishops to move to Chalcedon.
Strong measures are taken to exclude monks and laymen, and to keep order.
451. October 8 Session I. Dioscorus is treated as defendant and accused by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Theodoret is admitted as a bishop.
The Minutes of the Latrocinium and of the Synod of Constantinople are read.
Flavian's memory is vindicated, Dioscorus and his supporters are deposed, and the assembly bursts into singing the Trisagion----the first occasion on which it is known to have been used Cp. 365 ff.
October 10 Session II---- mainly occupied with the discussion of Leo's Tome.
October 13 Session III. Dioscorus is formally deprived of his episcopal dignity Cp. 375
October 17 Session IV. The Council accepts 'The Rule of Faith as contained in the Creed of Nicaea, confirmed by the Council of Constantinople, expounded at Ephesus under Cyril, and set forth in the Letter of Pope Leo when he |xxix condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches'.
October 22 Session V. The Definition of Chalcedon, under Roman and Imperial pressure, is amended so as definitely to exclude Eutychianism, and as adopted includes the following words: 'Following therefore the holy Fathers, we all teach, with one accord, one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,... who for us men and for our salvation, according to the manhood, was born of the Virgin Mary the God-bearer,26 one and the same Christ, Son, Lord----only-begotten, confessed in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division or separation. The difference of the natures is in no way denied by reason of their union; on the other hand the peculiarity of each nature is preserved, and both concur in one Prosopon and one Hypostasis.'
October 25 Session VI. Marcian and Pulcheria attend in state. The Definition receives civil sanction, and is promulgated.
v. The Argument of The Bazaar.
Nestorius' apologia contains two lines of defence, historical and doctrinal. Although the one shades off into the other, as the doctrinal issues are called to his mind by the memory of the wrongs he has suffered, and vice versa, yet on the whole three sections of The Bazaar may be distinguished as historical sections27 in contrast to the remainder of the book which is mainly occupied with theological discussion.
The references to the text in the Historical Summary above provide almost all the introduction needed for Nestorius' historical sections. His argument is twofold. He claims to show, first, that his own condemnation at Ephesus was unjust, and secondly, that the vindication of Flavian, who had suffered from the same causes and for the same faith as |xxx himself, was the vindication of all that he had stood for. To this end he gives a detailed account of the two Ephesian Councils of 431 and 449, showing how at the first Cyril by violence and bribery won imperial and episcopal assent to a verdict which was no genuine verdict of a council constitutionally assembled, while at the second Flavian had suffered in similar fashion at the hands of Dioscorus. But there was this difference. The injustice done to Flavian had been recognized by the Church and redressed, while that done to himself had not. So he claims that he never had a fair hearing, but was condemned untried for defending the faith which was ultimately accepted by the Church.28
But though he is not lacking in a lively sense of the wrongs he has suffered, Nestorius realizes that the triumph of the truth is of more importance than his own fate. Indeed, in a notable passage he asserts his determination not to press his claim to have been vindicated in the vindication of Flavian lest the odium of his name should delay the complete victory of the true faith.29 It is that victory for which he chiefly cares, and hence the main bulk of The Bazaar is occupied with the doctrinal discussion of the Christian faith in the Incarnation.
In Book I, Part I, Nestorius sets forth his views in contrast to those which he holds to be erroneous. The section, which is divided into ninety-three numbered sub-sections, to which titles have been added by the Syriac translator, is cast in the form of a dialogue with one Sophronius. Here Nestorius sets forth as it were the theme of his thesis, and the remaining doctrinal discussions are little more than variations on it. He begins by a brief review of errors. The heathen, the Jews, the Manichaeans, the followers of Paul of Samosata, of Photinus, and of Arius are described, and their doctrines criticized. The theories which deny either the true godhead or the true manhood of Christ, or which involve the changing of one into the other, or the production of a third nature by the combination of divine nature with human, are pilloried. In the fifty-fourth sub-section,30 in passing over to the positive assertion of his own christological beliefs, he directly denies that he teaches |xxxi that there were 'Two Sons' in Christ, and the remaining sub-sections are mainly occupied with a statement of his own position, though the last five are again devoted to criticisms of other views already mentioned. Similar criticisms compose the short Part II of Book I. Having thus laid down his doctrinal position, in Part III Nestorius begins his historical review of the controversy between himself and Cyril. The remaining doctrinal discussions, lengthy as they are, do not carry us farther. They are concerned with contrasting his own views with those of Cyril and his followers, and repeat over and over again two points. On the one hand his own doctrines are shown to be consistent with the Scriptures,31 the faith of Nicaea,32 and the writings of accepted Fathers of the Church;33 on the other hand the teaching of Cyril is exhibited as self-contradictory 34 and, on the points at issue between Cyril and himself, as having affinities not with orthodoxy 35 but with the heretics described in the opening section of the book.36 The place of that opening section in the plan of the book can therefore clearly be seen. In it Nestorius describes the general doctrinal issues in the field of Christology, and sets the stage for the discussion of the particular points of the controversy between himself and Cyril.
What precisely did Nestorius teach? This is the question over which controversy has raged since the discovery of The Bazaar. It is not the object of the present volume to enter upon the discussion of this problem, but to provide English-speaking theologians with the necessary material to study it for themselves.37 The following summary of undisputed facts may, however, be given without entrenching upon the questionable ground. It will be well first to state what Nestorius denies, and what he assert? |xxxii
(i) He denies that the unity of Christ is a 'natural composition' in which two elements are combined by the will of some external 'creator'.38
(ii) He denies that the Incarnation was effected by changing godhead into manhood or vice versa, or by forming a tertium quid from those two ousiai.39
(iii) He denies that God was in Christ in the same way as in the saints.40
(iv) He denies that either the godhead or the manhood of Christ are 'fictitious' or 'phantasmal', and not real.41
(v) He denies that the Incarnation involved any change in the godhead, or any suffering on the part of the Divine Logos who, as divine, is by nature impassible.42
(vi) He denies that the union of two natures in one Christ involves any duality of sonship.43
(vii) He asserts that the union is a voluntary union of godhead and manhood.44
(viii) He asserts that the principle of union is to be found in the prosopa of the godhead and the manhood; these two prosdpa coalesced in one prosopon of Christ incarnate.45
(ix) He asserts that this view alone provides for a real Incarnation, makes possible faith in a real atonement,46 and provides a rationale of the sacramentalism of the Church.47
It is clear that the crux of the question is to be found in the eighth of these points, and that the difficulty arises from the difficulty of determining the sense in which Nestorius used the word prosopon. His own theory can be stated almost in a dozen words. It is this: Christ is the union of the eternal Logos and the Son of Mary, the principle of the union being |xxxiii that the πρόσωπον of each has been taken by the other, so that there is one πρόσωπον of the two in the union. Did one know precisely what Nestorius meant by the word πρόσωπον, one would know precisely how he thought of the Incarnation, and would be able to decide whether the logical implications of his teaching are those of Nestorianism or of orthodoxy. It is certain that he himself did not wish to teach what is known as 'Nestorianism'. His denunciations of Paul of Samosata and his followers show that he had no sympathy with those who think of the Incarnation on adoptionist lines, and when accused of 'Nestorianism', as on pages 19 and 47, he indignantly repudiates any such views. The intention of his doctrine is accurately summed up in the heading inserted by the Syriac translator to the fifty-fourth section of the first part of The Bazaar----'Concerning this: that God the Word became incarnate and there were not two sons but one by a union.' 48
Nestorius, then, accepted as a matter of religious belief the faith of the Church in a Christ who was truly God and truly man and truly one, and through reflection on this he produced a theological theory which he thought adequately related this belief to the knowledge of the universe gained by metaphysical investigation. The positive teaching of The Bazaar of Heracleides is simply an elaboration of this theory of a prosopic union. With wearisome iteration it is put forward again and again, and is shown to be satisfactory when tested by reference to the teaching of Scripture, the doctrine of the Fathers, the needs of religion, and the demands of the intellect.49 In contrast to this the 'hypostatic union' of Cyril is shown to be unscriptural, unorthodox, destructive of true religion, and unintelligible----unscriptural because it ignores the scriptural distinction between the use of the words 'Logos' and 'Christ';50 unorthodox since it involves if not Arianism, then docetism or Apollinarianism;51 destructive of true religion in that it abolishes the work of Christ as High Priest of the human race, undermines the doctrine of the Eucharist, and |xxxiv empties the Atonement of its meaning;52 and unintelligible to such an extent that sometimes one is simply baffled by the contradictions in his teaching,53 and sometimes forced to conclude that he has confused the essential distinction between godhead and manhood, thus undermining the true humanity of Christ and dishonouring his divinity.54
It seems possible that in this last point lies the solution of the vexed problem of what was at issue doctrinally between Cyril and Nestorius. Perhaps the most difficult task for Christian philosophy is the thinking out of its doctrine of creation, in which it is essential that man be conceived both as owing his existence to God and 'made of nothing' other than God, and yet also as in a real sense distinct from and other than God. If sometimes we are tempted to abandon the quest as hopeless, it is well to remember that even if we give up our Christianity we do not thereby remove our difficulty. The relation of the temporal to the eternal is no less difficult a problem for the secular philosopher than for the religious. Now in the fifth century the implications of the doctrine of creation do not seem to have been thought out. In the struggle with Arianism the Church had been forced, it seems for the first time, openly to face the question whether or no God could create directly and not only through some intermediate being, and the assertion that the Logos 'through whom all things were made' is 'of one substance with the Father' denies the impossibility of direct creation by God Himself. Before the implications of this assertion had time to be fully assimilated, the Church was stirred by the Christological controversies. In these all parties seem to have assumed a conception of the relations between godhead and manhood which made impossible any union of the two in Christ such as the Christian religion demanded. It was not noticed that it would also have made impossible any such direct creation by God as the Fathers at Nicaea had asserted, and was, in fact, a conception belonging to certain strains of ante-Nicene thought which ought to have been abandoned |xxxv through being found to require an Arian rather than an Athanasian Logos. But Apollinarius provoked reply too soon.
It is the heretics, Apollinarius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, who are the logically consistent upholders of this outworn conception of the relation between godhead and manhood. Cyril's teaching, no doubt without his realizing the fact, was inconsistent, for he had not consciously abandoned this ante-Nicene position, with the result that his positive teaching on the Incarnation, while consistent with the Nicene doctrine of Creation, demanded a revision of his conception of godhead and manhood, a fact which he does not seem to have realized. But, as has happened so often in the history of thought, the inconsistency of a thinker great enough to recognize truth at the cost of his system won for his thought a place in posterity far above that of the barren coherence of his rival.
Nestorius has been called a confused thinker, but careful study of The Bazaar of Heracleides makes it clear that, whatever he was, he was certainly not that. His few points are repeated again and again with monotonous consistency. His trouble was rather that that confusion in the apparent nature of things which is the challenge to thought was too many-sided for so narrow and precise a thinker as he. The Bazaar may be long, and full of needless repetition, but it never contradicts itself, and were it not for two facts might well be studied in an abbreviated edition. Only, first, when a man has been for centuries condemned unheard, it is hardly fair to enforce a closure on the time allotted to him for his defence; and, secondly, when there is difficulty in determining precisely what he is trying to say, it is possible that in the course of often repeating an argument some little variation of detail may give a clue to the meaning of the whole.
[Most of the footnotes have been reproduced here, but renumbered]
1. 1 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. VII. xxxiv.
2. 2 Cp. Evagrius, I. vii.
3. 3 Id. ib.
4. 4 Neander, Church History (Eng. Tr., T. and T. Clark, 1855), vol. iv, p. 207.
5. 5 See p. xi, n. 4.
6. 1 Cambridge University Press.
7. 2 See below, pp. xxviii, 369, 375.
8. 3 See p. xi, and especially n. 5.
9. 4 H. Goussen, Martyrius Sahdona's Leben und Werke (Leipzig, 1897), and Braun, Das Buch der Synhodos (Stuttgart, 1900).
10. 5 Loofs, Nestoriana (Halle, 1905).
11. 1 Nestorius, Le Livre d'Heraclide de Damas, édite par Paul Bedjan, P.D. L. M. (Lazariste), avec plusieurs appendices (Leipzig and Paris, 1910).
12. 2 Nestorius, Le Livre d' Heraclide de Damas, traduit en francais par F. Nau (Paris 1910).
13. 3 See Bedjan, op. cit., pp. viii-xi, whence our account of the text is drawn.
14. 4 At the end of the thirteenth century it is clear from the catalogue of the Bishop of Nisibis that most of Nestorius' works in Greek and Latin had disappeared; only a Syriac version of his Tragoedia, his Letter to Cosmos, his Liturgy, a volume of letters and another of sermons, besides The Bazaar of Heracleides, survived at that time (op. cit., pp. vii-viii).
15. 5 This date, however, seems to be at variance with the fact that the translator calls the Bishop of Beroea 'Bishop of Aleppo'; now if, as Nau states on this passage, the name of the see was changed from Beroea to Aleppo in a. d. 638, the translation must have been made after that date, provided that the original Syriac manuscript also has Aleppo (see p. 330, n. 1). The new (Eastern) name, however, may have been current long before the name of the see was officially changed.
16. 6 See p. 192.
17. 7 Op. cit., pp. viii-ix.
18. 1 See p. 3.
19. 2 Op. cit., p. viii, n. 2.
20. 2 See pp. 241-2, and crit. n. on p. 400.
21. 3 See pp. 302-3.
22. 2 See p. 200, n. 1.
23. 3 See p. 355, n. 3.
24. 1 See p. 330, n. 1.
25. 1 This summary is compiled from B. J. Kidd; A History of the Church to A.D. 461 (Oxford University Press, 1922), vol. iii, chs. xi-xvi.
26. 1 τῆς θεοτόκου.
27. 2 pp. 96-142, 265-93, 329-80.
28. 1 See pp. 176, 374.
29. 2 P. 378, cp. p. 370.
30. 3 P. 47.
31. 1 Pp. 46-55, 64-70, 164-7, 188, 192-203, 207, 228-30, 256-9.
32. 2 Pp. 143-6, 168-71,181-2, 263-5
33. 3 Pp. 168, 191-203, 214 -17, 220-2, 223-5, 261-3, 316.
34. 4 Pp. 150-6, 161, 169, 170, 303, 316-17, 322-3.
35. 5 Pp. 142-3, 146-50, 173-5.
36. 6 Pp. 129, 162, 176-81, 210-11, 240-1.
37. 7 A contribution to the discussion by one of the two editors is reprinted as Appendix IV, and it has not been possible entirely to keep his views out of the notes on the text, though this has been done as far as could be.
38. 1 Pp. 9, 36-43, 84-6, 161, 179, 294, 300-1, 303-4, 314.
39. 2 Pp. 14-18, 24-8,33-7, 80, 182.
40. 3 P. 52.
41. 4 Pp. 15, 80, 172-3, 182, 195, 208.
42. 5 Pp. 39-41, 92, 93, 178-9,181, 184, 210-12.
43. 6 Pp. 47-50, 146, 160, 189-91, 196, 209-10, 215, 225, 227, 237-8, 295-302, 314- 317.
44. 7 Pp. 37, 179, 181, 182.
45. 8 Pp. 23, 53-62, 81, 89, 156-9, 163-4, 172, 182, 207, 218-19, 227, 231-3, 245-8, 260-1.
46. 9 Pp. 62-76, 205, 212-14, 253.
47. 10 Pp. 32, 55, 254-6.
48. 1 P. 47.
49. 2 E.g., pp. 188 sq., 263. 33 and 213, 308-10.
50. 3 E.g., pp. 188 sq.
51. 4 E.g., pp. 150, 304.
52. 1 E.g., pp. 248 sq., 212.
53. 2 E.g., pp. 257, 297, 303.
54. 3 E. g., pp. 232, 238-40, 250, 294.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_1_book _part .htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.1-86. Book 1, Part 1.
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.1-86. Book 1, Part 1.
The Book which is called
THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES
of Damascus
which was composed by
MY LORD NESTORIUS
SYRIAC TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 1
2................................................................................. apostolic 3 he was known and famous in the labours of....4 that your enthusiasm.... and in your fulness.... of earthly kings. So you undertook the labour of a long voyage from the East to the West to give light to the souls which were plunged in the darkness of the Egyptian error and intent 5 on the smoke of the blasphemy of Apollinarius; men, however, loved the darkness more than the light, since the eyes of their minds [were dimmed] by personal prejudice 6.... for your pride.... only the darkness.... comprehended it; but, on the contrary, although.... they became old. They were not convinced; they were convicted of error and exposed. In this firm confidence in the might of your prayers mine Insignificance draws nigh to translate this book from Greek into Syriac; yet at least, the hope of the help of the living God being laid upon my tongue and confirmed in my thoughts, I therefore draw nigh to compose these eight chapters wherein the purpose of the book is made clear.
1. Concerning the aim of the book. The aim, therefore, which has been proposed by the writer for this writing is this: that, because many, thoughtlessly [led astray] by the multitude of men and by the desire of possessions, have fallen without examination into the slough of prejudice through hatred and through attachment to persons,7 from which.... not....8 they have been condemned to that woe which was written by the prophet: Woe unto them that call evil good.9 My lord the blessed Nestorius / [set himself] to write this book to be a remedy to heal souls labouring |4 at this stumbling-block and plunged in the depth of impiety. For great, to speak as in truth, was the schism which the devil introduced into the Christian body of the holy Church, such as, if [it were] possible, to deceive even the elect, and for this reason this remedy has necessarily been required [to be] a corrective and a healing of the sickness of their minds. This is the aim of the book.
2. Concerning the utility thereof. I suppose that, before [the beginning of] the text, the spiritual utility of this book has been revealed to the reader from [its] aim. According to the punishment that comes upon the doers of injury who make the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent, it gives indeed light to the eyes of the souls by teaching concerning that Christian dispensation which is in truth the more excellent theory concerning the divinity and the humanity. For through this we are both far removed from blasphemy about the divine nature and about the dispensation, and we are brought nigh unto knowledge through his manifold mercies. But, that our discourse may not be prolonged concerning the great assistance which we gain from this book, which succours us.... let us state in a few words the proof that he clears away the thorns.... and causes the seed to sprout in [place of] them.
3.....Much has been written concerning the manner of the union, but not even one of them [that have written about it] in this research makes it clear and establishes it in all truth; for they have delighted to make many distinctions, and there are others who have ventured to fuse [the natures] without examination. But this blessed [Nestorius] has undaunted delivered to us the knowledge thereof which is right.
4. The cause of its title. It is called indeed the Bazaar of Heracleides, for this is evident that it is the bazaar of spiritual knowledge; but it is not evident who Heracleides [was]. This is apposite to the illumination thereof, O reader; namely, Heracleides was a man honoured for his conduct and |5 esteemed for his knowledge, and he dwelled in the neighbourhood of Damascus. Now this man, in consequence of his superiority in these things, was famous even before [his] Majesty for his truthfulness and the justice of his words; who, being superior to all the passions which remove [men] far from the truth, did everything without partiality. It seemed [therefore good] to the writer to entitle the book with the title of this man's name, lest on account of his own name, in that many abhorred it, they should not / be willing to read [it] and be converted to the truth----[a book] which he sets as a judge between him[self] and the impious Cyril, speaking and defending themselves. But the book, nevertheless,..........
5.10....................................11 as that of the dispensation and of the truth of the inquiry concerning the faith, and the fourth [kind of literature is that] of history; but this book is placed in the third class, that is of chapters concerning the faith, to be read after these two books which were made by the saint----and I mean Theopaschites and Tragoedia, which were composed by him as a defence against those who blamed him for having wanted a council to be held.
6. Into how many parts it is divided. Now in the first place he composed one dissertation wherein he speaks of all the heresies against the Church and of all the sects that exist concerning the faith of the three hundred and eighteen, arguing valiantly against those who are of greatest repute among them. And in the second part he assails Cyril, putting before [everything else] the inquiry touching the judges and the accusation of Cyril. And the third [contains] his own defence and the comparison of their letters; and with this he finishes the first book. But the second book he divides into two parts: the defence and the refutation of the blame for the things on account of which he was anathematized; and in the second |6 [part he recounts that which took place] from [the time] when he was anathematized until the end of his life.
7. Concerning the literary form of the book. The literary form of the book is.... and drawing inferences....12
8. Under what 13... 12 Now for the most part it is theoretical, because it is teaching us the complete knowledge of the dispensation touching our Lord Christ. With these [words] we will therefore stop our address / and approach the body of the book, requiring of those who come by chance upon what has been written by us that they blame us not as fault-finders, if haply there be [defects] in the composition of our discourse, but [that] they display a ready will and correct what is deficient in us. But if he conceives the reverse about us, for us the prayers of those who labour not with this sickness are sufficient; while the former will prosper in their own affairs, knowing that we have made no innovations at all. The editor is blameless.
[Here follow the titles of §§ 1-93, which are omitted as they are repeated in italics in the text.]
Finished are the titles of the chapters which are [given] in the preceding dissertation. And unto Yah [be] glory! Amen. |7
The beginning of the book, that is, the beginning of the Discourse of the Saint is from here.
THE BOOK OF
MY LORD NESTORIUS PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE
AND THE CANON OF ORTHODOXY
BOOK I. PART I.14
/ Preface. Now in my opinion whoever is about to investigate the truth in all seriousness ought not to compose his discourse with preconceived ideas, but should bring forward and explain everything which is opposed to the truth. As those who have a knowledge of gold show the distinction between good gold and that which is poor by a comparison of the one with the other in the sight of those who wish to accept what is alloyed as though it were pure, and even in preference to the pure (for many choose evil instead of good and falsehood instead of truth, in that both are equal to them, and their readiness is the greater to dispute and to defeat one another [in argument] than to establish the truth); so, since different people confess different opinions about Christ and hold fast / only to the name, we ought to set out the fictions of each one of these heresies concerning Christ, in order that the true faith may be known by comparison with [these] heresies, and that we may not be shaken, falling into the one or the other like men who do not see.
1. Wherefore the Heathen do not call Christ God....
The heathen indeed are not content to name Christ God because of the suffering of the body and the cross and the death, and they consider that the miracles were [accepted] |8 in error. And they are not differentiated in name, because there is indeed no distinction between them, in that all of them are heathen.
2. Wherefore the Jews do not admit that he is Christ.
But the Jews do not confess that he is Christ because of the Cross and the death, in that they look for the advent of 15 Christ in all great glory and dominion.
3. Wherefore the Manichaeans do not admit that Christ is also man by nature, but only God.
The Manichaeans also, and those who have sprung up from them and among them, declare that he is not man but only God / because of the miracles; but as touching his human [qualities], they place them in schema and illusion and not in nature.
4. Wherefore the Paulinians 16 and the Photinians profess that our Lord Christ himself is only a man and that he is not also God.
But the Paulinians say that he is not God but only man because of the birth and death; but they attribute to him miracles as to any of the saints.
5. Wherefore the Arians profess that Christ is neither God whole and without needs, nor yet a man, but half God and half man.
The Arians confess that he is halt God and half man of soulless body and of created divinity; deeming him inferior to men in saying that there is not a soul in him and again deeming him inferior also to God in saying that he is not uncreate and without needs. But because of the incarnation and the birth of a woman and the death they consider that in his human [qualities] he became God, and they confuse his divine with his human [qualities], attributing his incarnation not to [his own] authority, but to an overruling command,17 saying that the union with the flesh resulted in one |9 nature and not / according to the use of the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf, but even as the soul and the body are bound [together] in one nature and [the soul] suffers sensibly the sufferings of the body whether it will or not, even though it has not of itself [the means] to accept them in that it has not a body in which to suffer. So also they say that God has only one nature in the body, suffering of necessity, whether he will or not, the sufferings of that nature which he took upon himself, as though he was not of the nature of the Father impassible and without needs. And this they say in order that they may not show him alone to be endowed with authority and command, so that even the command which he accepted is a punishment, and from a punishment which lies in his nature there is no escape; and, while he wished it not, he suffered the sufferings of the body by virtue of the sensibility of the nature: he hungered and thirsted and grew weary and feared and fled and died, and he rose not by his nature but by the authority and the might of the Father; and in short they say that he naturally endured whatsoever appertained to the sensible nature which he assumed.18
6. Which the sects are which agree with the Manichaeans.
.... In the midst of these there sprang up heresies, some of the Manichaeans and others of them from the Paulinians.
7. And which those are which agree with the Arians. |10
... 19 / 8. And wherein they are far removed from them, and in what again they adhere to them. They are far removed from them....
9. Wherefore he has not written [the names of] the chiefs of these sects but only their dogmas.
But we wish to decline to [give] the names of their chiefs, so as not to prolong our discussion nor to be found to have omitted any point in the inquiry by first becoming entangled in [questions of] names.
10. What the statements are of those who say that by nature God the Word became flesh without having taken a body.
So they accused the Manichaeans of saying that the body of our Lord Christ was not truly a nature but a fiction and an illusion; but they tolerate miracles for the most part only of God, either as though it were impossible or even as though it were not decent that they should come about through the body.
Sophronius.20 It appertains to the omnipotent and infinite nature to be able to do everything; by its will then all other things are limited while it is not limited by anything, and it, as God, can do what cannot be [done] by any one else. For it cannot be [created] by a nature or a cause greater than itself, by which it possesses [the property] of being / and of not being God. And on account of this they fear to confess that the flesh truly came into being, lest in saying this they assume that God is the flesh 21; they say: How could this be, seeing that we confess that the body is God, for even that which is supposed to be flesh is the nature of God and is the same and nothing else?
11. How water which becomes ice is in its nature ice, |11 becoming that which it was not without receiving it from outside: so they say that God the Word became a body without having taken a body from outside.
As, after running and flowing water is frozen and becomes solid, we say that it is nothing but water which has become solid, so God truly became flesh though he was by his nature God; and he was in everything and he acted as God. And, as touching [the operations of] the flesh, he both did [them] also in truth, and he suffered also as flesh, and he became flesh in the womb, and in that he became [it] he both was born and grew up truly as flesh; and, after he had chosen to become it, he both hungered and thirsted and grew weary and suffered and was crucified truly, seeing that he was truly flesh. For as water, which cannot be broken because it is frozen, can in truth be broken / and truly accepts the suffering of the nature which it has become, so also God who became flesh in truth accepted truly all [the sufferings of] the nature which he became without having been expelled from his [own] nature.
12. As he was revealed in human form to Abraham and Jacob without having taken bodily frame from outside, so also was his incarnation.
As also he was seen of our fathers Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the rest of the saints in truth in visible nature, walking in him who walked and talking in him who talked, and eating and drinking in him who ate [so also was his incarnation]; for nothing is done of God through deception, but everything in truth and in nature; for he is the creator and the creator does nothing in schema and in illusion but in nature and in truth. But those things which were not in the nature of the creator are rightly said to be fiction and illusion, since they cannot be seen in [virtue of] their nature.
13. How they take the [words] 'truly and not in nature', and in how many ways 'truly' is said.
Nestorius. Truly then they say that God became flesh?
Sophronius says: We confess / that he became flesh truly but not by his nature, in that he who became, became [so] |12 in truth, and he is the nature but not in the nature. Indeed the flesh has not always existed, but, as flowing water when frozen has the nature of ice though it is not so in its nature but has become [so], thus also has God truly become flesh, and he is the nature of the flesh and not in his nature, in that he is not it always but he became [so] afterwards. For this is truly the Incarnation, in his nature to become flesh and man and not in illusion nor in schema nor in fiction without hypostasis, which truly would be no incarnation. He therefore who wants to suppose that it came about in fiction flees from the truth.
14. Wherein those who say [this] agree with the Manichaeans and wherein they are supposed to be distinct from them.
Has it then been revealed to thee wherein they are imagined [to be] the same and wherein they are supposed to have differences and abide by the same? And we ought to leave out the things which follow these, in order that we may not vainly suppress the truth in what is confessed.
Nestorius says: I for my part say: Let us not entirely neglect this point, although thou dost wish to run over it as one which is confessed. Since it has been so unscrupulously said as to / be accounted absurd by the hearers, I suppose that it is so also to thee. I will now explain this inquiry to any one who wishes in order that that which surely is supposed may come to explanation; for I do not see in it anything like or akin to anything [else]. For they are quite as far removed from one another as fiction is far from truth and [as] the body of fiction [is] from the body [of truth]. I see many who strongly insist on these [theories] as something [based] on the truth and ancient opinion. And for this reason I wish thee to examine them not cursorily but with all care, in order that the words of the faith may not be [treated] without investigation and lightly, but may be clear and known to all men, as things which are somehow defined by definitions and natural likenesses, and not like things which are represented by their shadows [and] resemble this or that so long as they |13 are figured in the same likeness.22 In what then dost thou say that they say the same thing, in that they are like the Manichaeans even in the things wherein they reprimand them?
Sophronius. Those who say this are not repudiated by them as though they hold our body in contempt, for both of them deny that the body was taken, but because they do not say 'in truth', but that the nature of the flesh is illusion. We see then also their readiness in these things, [in bringing forward] what plea is justly theirs, lest their blasphemies should extend beyond what is right.
/ 15. The refutation of those who say that God the Word became the ousia of the flesh without having taken a body.
Nestorius says: I say therefore generally [in reference to] what they say more [insistently] than those who depend on themselves, in order that they may not suppose that they have been condemned because they had not an advocate nor a helper: for you seem like to me to be fully convinced of what they say, and with many words you are capable of making their words prevail, so as to be able to make also the hearers believe that they are so. So then, constrain thou me also to speak unto them. Take each one of the words that has been spoken by me and thine also, and bid me give an answer to each one of them if I can. But I can, if God wills and gives me that which ought to be said [in order] to instruct according to my own ability. For I indeed am of no worth; but it is for the sake of those who knock and seek at the door of the truth, when it is the truth.
Sophronius. I say that what I have said is a proof of the divine power to be able to become truly flesh, being God. For he who says 'God in truth' attributes to him the [quality] of being able [to do] everything; for everything that he wishes he does. He wished indeed to become flesh and he became flesh, not the schema of the flesh / but the nature of the flesh, that is truly flesh. And thereby did he truly become incarnate, because he was man by nature and not by anything else; |14 and the Trinity was the Trinity without having accepted the addition of another ousia.23 Speak then in answer to these [assertions]: for they appear to use the common words and views in such a way that to dispute against them would be great boldness.
16. Concerning this: that he who has become body in ousia ceases to be God and omnipotent and to be as God.
Nestorius. In truth hast thou spoken, and we ought not to dispute what has been said in truth; for indeed [thou hast said] that God is all-powerful and does all that he wishes. And because of this his ousia became not flesh, for that which becomes flesh in its nature ceases to be able to do everything, in that it is flesh and not God.24 For it appertains to God to be able to effect everything, and not to the flesh; for it cannot do everything that it wishes. But in remaining God he wills not everything nor again does he wish not to become God so as to make himself not to be God. For he is God in that he exists always and can do everything that he wishes, and not in that / he is able to make himself not to be God; for he into whose ousia the nature of the flesh has entered makes himself not to be God, and further cannot do everything that he wishes.
Sophronius. He is not able to wish not to be what he is, but only to be that which he is not. And for this reason he became in truth man, which he was not; that is, he became truly flesh and man, but not in nature. For that which he is, he is in nature; but that which he became, he became it not indeed in nature, but truly he was that which he became.
17. Whether it is assumed by them that God the Word became truly a body in ousia or in illusion. |15
Nestorius. Dost thou attribute 'truly' as in ousia' or 'in illusion and in fiction'?
Sophronius. [Yes,] for both of them can truly be assumed.
18. Concerning this: If God the Word became flesh by nature and remained God as he was, then God the Word was two ousias naturally.
Nestorius. If that which is supposed to be in ousia is [so] ----thou sayest therefore that truly God is in ousia / and that he is according to the flesh----[then] after he became flesh there were two ousias, that in which he was by nature and that in which he became, the one of God and the other of the flesh.
Sophronius. There is not one ousia and another, but the same ousia of God, which became also the ousia of the flesh; and for this reason there is one ousia. Just as when water is running and when it is congealed there are not two ousias of water but one, which exists both in the liquid and in the solid state, although the solid is supposed [to be] the opposite of the running state, so also God: the same is body and without body, but in that he is body he is distinct from that which is without body.
19. Concerning this: that those things which have no distinction in nature and are distinct, are said to be distinct in schema.
Nestorius. I say therefore that they 25 have no distinction in nature; and things which have no distinction in nature and are distinguished are distinct in the prosôpon. But [to be distinguished] by the prosôpon without nature is a schema without hypostasis in another schema.26 Or dost thou say, like the Manichaeans, concerning the flesh and the things of the flesh that [they came about] in fiction and illusion, alleging that the incarnation took place by deception? What then dost thou |16 suppose is true? That we should concede / that the flesh issued naturally from the ousia of God and [that] the two ousias become one, and become that which it is impossible that they should become, that is, that he is not God but flesh, or that he became flesh in illusion?
Sophronius. Things which should properly be received with faith you accept with 'natural logic' and reduce them to impossibilities. Then you deprive us in truth of the Christian faith as heathens or Manichaeans who stumble at the Cross of Christ.
Nestorius. And who are those who like heathens and Manichaeans stumble at the Cross of Christ? Are they not those who accept his humanity as a change of the ousia? For it appertains to the heathen to say that God works by a change in [his] likenesses in any ousia whatsoever and in... 1 into the nature of which he has been changed; and further they set aside the nature, [even] that which was in the beginning. And the Manichaeans also have taken [these opinions] from them and say that the change of likeness resulted in a schema without hypostasis. And you, in saying that, are following them, and you speak as those who stumble at the Cross of Christ.
20. Concerning this: that those who say that the Incarnation [ lay in] a change of likeness confess that Christ is neither God nor man.
/ You do not confess that he is God in ousia in that you have changed him into the ousia of the flesh, and he is no more a man naturally in that you have made him the ousia of God; and he is not God truly or God by nature, nor yet man truly and man by nature.
21. Concerning this: that he who comes into being by ousia from a preceding hylê is that which he has become and not that which he was before he became [so], as from a woman there came into being a statue of salt.
And it is nothing else than this, that, as a man of wood and stone is not truly called man, being the nature of wood and stone, so also neither is he who has become man from the |17 ousia of God called man by nature, so long as the divine nature subsists.
Sophronius. Then, O admirable man, from stones God can raise up children unto Abraham, and from a human bodily frame a pillar of salt, and from the earth a man; and nothing has prevented God nor yet is anything preventing him from doing that which he wishes, preventing him from becoming flesh.
Nestorius. First, then, investigate that which thou hast said. / Prove this to us, that God wishes it so. For the whole opinion of the world is agreed that God can do everything whatsoever he wishes. But again thou hast made use of proofs to the contrary. For he who becomes man from stone or from earth is the nature of man, in that he truly has become man, and not the nature of stone or of earth; and that which has become a pillar of salt from a human body is only the nature of whatever it has become. For things which are changed from their first ousia possess only that nature into which they have been changed. Therefore, if thou sayest that he became the nature of the flesh from the former hylê of the nature of God, he possesses that ousia which he has become without having been [it]. And it is of no importance that, as I have said, the ousia of man issues from a stone or from earth or from the seed of man, for that which is from a former ousia is changed into the nature which it has become; and if he is not changed, he does not at all become flesh by nature.
Sophronius. Divine Scripture solves for us this problem and does not permit us to be obstinate and to speak arbitrarily. For the staff of Moses, when it became truly a serpent, was a serpent as well as a staff; and the waters of the Nile, which became blood, became the nature of blood as well as of water. The ousia was the same although it was changed and for this reason / the children of Israel used water which had become blood as the nature of the water, and Moses [used] a serpent as a staff, in that it was truly both of them. For God sustains natures as he will. |18
22. Concerning this: that the waters of the Nile, when they were transformed into the ousia of blood, were only that ousia into which they were changed.
Nestorius. Again thou usest proofs like these because, as I suppose, thou art bewildered. There were then two ousias; for the water which was taken by the Hebrews was blood and water and that which was taken by the Egyptians was both in the same way. But if the former was only water and the latter only blood, then they were afterwards changed; for when they were taken, those which were taken were changed and further were something else, namely that which they became. How then is it not seen that that which it became by nature is by all means that which it has become and nothing else?
Sophronius. And behold! we see that Divine Scripture / has said that from the same ousia there are two things by nature, when that which has become man by nature from dust and earth and is man by nature, says: I am dust and ashes, if it be that thou mayest not revile Divine Scripture as though it has said things that are impossible, when it says of him who was man, by nature man, I am dust and ashes.
23. Concerning this: that one ousia, which appears in two ousias, is in the one ousia by nature but in the other in schema only.
Nestorius. If Divine Scripture, in reiterating these things about the nature of man, says [that], and [if] every man is the nature of man and nothing else, then also God the Word, who truly became man in nature, is dust and ashes in nature and is not of the ousia of God but of dust and ashes. If it [were the divine ousia] from which he became [man], it indicates----if indeed every man is this [ousia] 27 by nature while he is not this ousia but the ousia of God----[that] he was not man except in schema, as the Manichaeans say; and the statements also concerning him are in schema, that it may not be revealed to every one what he is; since one ousia, if it be recognized in two ousias, in the one / is ousia but [is] in the other in schema or in falsehood and in illusion. |19
Sophronius. So thou art attributing to God nothing more than that he should be God truly by nature and man by nature. It is the same nature in both of them, except that God is in man. And what is the Incarnation except that he became man by nature in the nature of man and that he spoke to us in our nature and that he endured naturally all the things that are ours, since for this thing indeed he became incarnate. But, further, you lay down that God did [this] by means of an intermediary 28 and the clothing of the schema, and absurdities such as this, in that he likened himself to tragedians and singers who somehow disguise themselves.
24. Concerning this: that he who can be visible by his nature has no need to become anything else in order to be visible in it.
Nestorius. But, O admirable man, it remains to compare the things which have been said by thee, [namely] that he appeared to us in his own nature without an intermediary. For what reason then hast thou said that he became the nature of man while remaining God? For he who appeared in his nature had no need to become another ousia in which to appear. If he appeared in his own, then thou sayest an impossible thing, that he was a mediator for him[self]. / For a mediator is not of one, but God is one, and consequently he cannot be God but the mediator of God.
25. Concerning this: that if, when God appeared to the saints, he appeared in a change of ousia, he therefore became incarnate in many ousias and not in one.
But further be persuaded to consider this: dost thou predicate of God one incarnation or many? What sayest thou of this? Then, since you say that he became the nature of man and was seen by Abraham and Jacob, and by each one of the saints in any schema whatever, in whatever schema he was, he |20 was naturally changed into the nature in which he was seen and in the last days he was changed into the nature of man in order to become incarnate. [Therefore] you predicate many incarnations, if indeed you agree that the Incarnation was to become incarnate in his nature. There are many changes through which he appeared in schema.
Sophronius. One incarnation do we predicate, [affirming] that at that time he truly became incarnate in his nature and appeared not to some men, as to Abraham and to Jacob, but to all men.
26. Concerning this: that if the word incarnation is employed of his appearing to all men and not to certain ones, as to the saints, / in that he appeared not to all men, he has not then indeed become incarnate at all.
Nestorius. [It follows] from this statement that he became not incarnate at all, in that he appeared not to all men, but [only] to those in Palestine. Why then was his incarnation partial and not for all men? Or is this what thou callest the Incarnation, that he became man in nature when he became incarnate for all time and appeared to all men?
27. Concerning what has been said about the Incarnation, in that he appeared in human nature.
If then the Incarnation was truly one and for all men and not for some, both for those who saw him and for those who saw him not, both for those who were [present] and for those of old, and if the Incarnation happened at the same time for all nature, we duly confess that God the Word was not the nature of man; for that is not the nature of man which is not the nature of man but of God. But in the ousia of man [he is] truly man, of the true nature of the true man in which he became incarnate altogether for all and which he made his prosôpon, and he was revealed in the things of men in comporting himself in the nature of man, being God in human nature. As a king in the schema of a soldier comports himself as a soldier and not as a king, / he is clad in the manner of a soldier against whatsoever has |21 need of correction, and it is said that in everything he is [so] clad, in that he has become the schema of one soldier, even that which clothes all the soldiers. So he became incarnate in one man for all men who are of the [same] nature, since he was in their nature, and in it he spoke to all men, as if he spoke in his own nature.
Sophronius. Then, when he was in the nature of man, it is said that he became incarnate; and through it and in it for all men and not rather on his own account, in that he became a man in truth and thereby was associated with a man who was of their very nature. And in truth incarnation took place in that by his own nature he became man and had no need of another nature.
Nestorius. The Incarnation indeed lay not in this, as a king, in using as a king the schema of soldierhood, becomes not a soldier indeed in the manner of a soldier; or perhaps it is] as if one were to say that in name only he becomes a soldier. Thus no more did God become incarnate, being not in human nature, but....
Sophronius. What meanest thou by 'as a king' and 'as a soldier'?
Nestorius. Just as purple is the clothing of royalty but not of soldierhood and as the clothing of soldiers is the equipment which belongs to soldiers and not to kings, when / therefore a king wishes to put on the clothing, that is the equipment, of soldiers and to lay aside the purple of royalty, though [clothed] in the schema of a soldier of which he has made use without descending from his royal dignity, he then remains in majesty and authority over everything, even in this schema. But when he wishes to condescend and to become one of the soldiers, [wearing] the clothing of one of these soldiers, as if he had become a soldier, and not [that] of royalty, and concealing himself in it and talking with them on equal terms and persuading them without constraining them, he so performs the duties of royalty in the schema of a soldier. Thus also God, when he wished to become incarnate, if he had not |22 come in human nature but had become flesh in his own ousia, would not at all have become incarnate, in that he would have become incarnate for them in his own ousia and not in the nature of men.29
28. Concerning this: that he who by a change of ousia becomes man is of another nature and not of the nature of men.
He indeed who by a change of ousia becomes man is of another nature and not of the nature of men, in that he has another description of nature and not that of men; because he is God by nature, and the ousia of man is something else than the nature of God, as both of them exist by nature: not that he passed from the nature of God to the nature of man nor [that he was] something else than these; / he is by nature in both of them, but the man is only man and God is only God.
Sophronius. And he had not so received the incarnation, but [if it] took place in another human nature and not from the ousia of God, how does the Trinity not accept an addition in [its] nature, since it has accepted the ousia of another? Or how is this God of the nature of men and not of the ousia of God?
29. Concerning this: that, in that he has become man in the ousia of man and has not become man in [his own] ousia, neither in nature nor in prosôpon does he accept any addition.
Nestorius. As a king, who takes the clothes of soldierhood and is [so seen], has not become a double king, and as the king exists not apart from him, in that he is in him, and as, further, he is not revered apart from him in whom he is |23 known and whereby men also have known him and have been rescued; so also God used his own prosôpon to condescend in poverty and shame even unto the death on the Cross for our salvation; and by it he was raised up also to honour and glory and adoration. Wherein he was abased, in that also he was glorified. For the sign of salvation and victory is [a sign] of honour and not of abasement. Nor did he receive any addition of the ousia, because the ousias remain without change. For then there is / an addition in the ousia when it accepts another ousia, an equal ousia.30 But also he received not an addition to the prosôpon, in that he took his own prosôpon and not another, not for distinction but for the union of his own prosôpon and that in which he became incarnate; and also his prosôpon 31 is in him and not in another. For he is clothed in the likeness of a servant, and by it he emptied himself and has clothed it with his prosôpon and has exalted his name above all names. In the prosôpon then of the divinity is he adored and in no other, and in consequence of this the prosôpon is one and the name of the Son [is one].
30. Against those who say not that God was changed into the nature of a man, but that he changed the ousia of man into the ousia of God.32
Now for those who predicate the union in a change there follows in any case an addition in ousia as well as in prosôpon. The ousia indeed, which became flesh out of God the Word, was added to the Trinity, and it is evident that this prosôpon is a part detached and that it is conceived in detachment; or it became the nature of the flesh [emanating] from the ousia of God the Word in detachment, an addition took place.... Whence then is the origin of these things and in what are they distinct? Further, we have already said the same thing. |24 / Let us turn then to another sect which has sprung from these and is distinct from them and at the same time is confounded with them....
Sophronius. They confess then that the body of our Lord is of his own flesh and therein they mock both at those who say that the flesh was in fiction and illusion and also at those who say that it was of the ousia of God the Word, saying....
31. What words those use who say that the nature of the body was changed into the ousia of God the Word.33
He came not to change his unchangeable ousia and to make it the ousia of the flesh but to raise up our miserable and changeable [ousia] to his own unchangeable [ousia] and to make it divine and adorable, not of itself but in the union. And he deems it worthy of the union with his ousia, in order that it may become one ousia and one prosôpon of one ousia; and the smaller has been mixed with and deemed equal to the great and unchangeable divinity. Even as things which are cast into the fire are made equal to the ousia of the fire and become the nature of the fire which has made them what they have become, so also the divine nature has accepted the human nature and has mingled it in its own nature, and has changed it and made it therefore one without distinction in ousia and in prosôpon; / and neither in nature nor in prosôpon has there truly been an addition to the Trinity; and thus the Incarnation also took place and is conceived.
32. In what they are distinct from the Manichaeans and in what they confess [the same] as they.
[Nestorius]. These indeed are distinct from the Manichaeans in that they confess truly that the flesh is of our own nature and that it is not the schema of the flesh but the nature of the flesh. But some of the others who are with them [are distinguished] in that they confess that the flesh is true, not belonging to human nature but being divine and of the nature of the divinity. In this they are distinct and they strive |25 with all their might. And those who suppose that they serve the church confess that the flesh is of our own nature and ousia and so its distinction is known to all men. Generally then they dispute with all:34 with the Manichaeans concerning the [point] that there was an ousia and an ousia in truth; and with the others that it was not of the nature of God but of our fathers; but with the church in that they change the flesh into the ousia of God. Therefore in that they do not allow the flesh to remain in its own ousia, they resemble the Manichaeans by destroying the ousia of the flesh, but diverge from them in that they say that God was altogether in the hylê of the flesh. But in that they immediately change [the flesh] into the ousia of God the Word and are unwilling to / confess that God was with the human body, they agree with the same opinion and feeling when they exclude the ousia of the flesh as if it existed not, insisting either on deifying the ousia of the flesh or, so to say, on making the ousia of God become incarnate in the ousia of the flesh of the divinity.
33. That those who change the nature of man into the divine nature do not say that God became incarnate but that a man was deified.
He then who is not the human ousia of the flesh and is called flesh is so called by homonymy, even as a man of gold or silver or of another ousia of whatsoever material is not man by nature, since he has not the nature of man; and this is not the incarnation of God but the deification of man.
34. Concerning this: that those who change the nature of man into the divine ousia make an addition to the Trinity both in the nature and in the prosôpon.
If therefore the nature of the flesh which has been deified remains in the ousia in which it has been deified, how has the Trinity not accepted an addition in the ousia and in he prosôpon? / For there is nothing of human nature in the Trinity, neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, |26 but it is alone; and in that which was not with it eternally but which has been [added] to it, it has received an addition. But how could an addition which is [made] to it not be an addition? And this also is another story and a Manichaean fable. But if that which was [added] became not what it was and the nature of men was harmed by the nature of the divinity as by fire, and [if] thereby the Trinity accepted not an addition, no more is this an incarnation, but the extinction of the Incarnation. For anything which results in the extinction of human nature and not in its preservation, is not named an incarnation but [is] as something which exists in relation to that which exists not.
35. Wherein those who change the nature of the body into the ousia of God agree with those who change the ousia of God into the nature of the body.
And herein they agree with those who change the divine ousia into human nature; for that is the same thing, that God becomes the ousia in the nature [of the body] or that he changes the ousia in man into the nature of God.
36. Concerning this: that it is not possible that the nature of God should be changed into bodily frame either by mixture or by change, nor yet that the body should be changed into the ousia of God the Word.
/ He indeed who changes the divine nature into human nature brings about its suppression, and he who changes human nature into the divine nature makes mock of it and makes of it a nature unmade, in declaring a nature [which is] made unmade, which cannot be. For of nothing the maker easily assembles the ousia and makes the ousia which is made by change of that which is made. But it is impossible that [he should make] that which is unmade 35 and that which was not from that which was, as thou sayest; or else surely thou dost deprive it of being ousia. But there are no means whereby the ousia which was should cease to be nor whereby that which was made should become unmade, nor again [are there any means whereby] that which is not should become an eternal |27 nature and be with the eternal; nor again whereby a nature which was not should come into being nor whereby that which is not eternal should become eternal either by a change of nature or by confusion or by mixture; or whereby from the ousia of the eternal [should come into being] that which is not eternally. For either by mixture or by confusion of the two ousias a change of ousia took place [making] for one nature which should result from the mixture of both of them; or one ousia of them was changed into the other. It is not possible that the unmade [should become] made and the eternal temporary and the temporary eternal and that the created [should become] uncreated by nature; that that which is uncreated and which has not come into being and is eternal should thereby become / made and temporary, as if it became part of a nature made and temporary; nor that there should come forth a nature unmade and eternal from a nature made and temporary to become an ousia unmade and eternal; for such things are not possible nor conceivable. For how can anyone conceive that the Maker, seeing that he is in every way other than that which is made, should change into his being the other which has been made? For in that he is the Maker, he is unchangeable; since he works by an unchangeable nature, and when he is not that which he is he works not. In effect either he is what he is by nature, eternally God, and became not another nature while remaining in the ousia of God; or, not being the nature of God, he was made and is not the Maker, which is absurd and impossible.
37. Concerning this: that those also who say that the nature has been changed in part, and not all of it, say [what is] impossible.
Although indeed anyone should grant that in part he changed his nature and in part was not changed, he who makes has in every way the lordship over him who is made and over him who is changed; for there is nothing which is more lordly in its [whole] nature than [in] a part of it, but whatever all of it is the same also / is in its part. Even if then we accept absurdities as well-pleasing, a part being mentioned in speaking of a nature simple and indivisible, not |28 even so does one avoid what is absurd and not eternal For wherein does that which is not the ousia come to be in the ousia? For in so far as he is God he is unchangeable, but when he is not God he does nothing. How then is that said which cannot even be conceived: that God is changed into another ousia or again that another ousia is changed into the ousia of God and becomes that which is the Maker, that is, that what was unmade and was not [became] that which was made and came into being? These [statements] are in fact contradictory. How then do the things which have been said appear to thee? Have both parties been sufficiently treated, those who stand by the statements of those men and [those also] who are of ours? Or is there still something lacking which they ought to establish? Thou oughtest to fill it in, as though thou speakest on their behalf. For if anything touching the faith has been omitted in their statements, we shall lend it our aid with all our might, in order that their discomfiture may be exceeding great, since they are supposed by many to be unshaken and unaltered, although they are not.
Sophronius. I suppose then that the statements of both parties have been well handled and there remains nothing for us [to do], and therefore / indeed I rejoice in an hour of silence, and I beseech thee also to desist; for I have no good or useful objection that can be raised against thee, except one word only which people confidently use in regard to what pleases them.
Nestorius. What [is that]? Speak confidently, undaunted, using manfully and adequately every one of their arguments even as they themselves [do]; for no one who is hesitating in his thoughts can strive manfully.
Sophronius. So must it be in regard to the union even as the bread, when it becomes body, is one and the same body and not two. And one also is that which is conceived as the nature of the body, and further it is no more conceived in its former nature but as itself in that which it has become; wherefore it is not that which it appears [to be] but that |29 which it is conceived [to be]. And consequently also the Apostle decreed a fearful punishment against those who supposed the body of our Lord to be common, when he said thus: If he who has violated the law of Moses dies without pity out of the mouth of two or three [witnesses], how much more is he counted worthy of a severe punishment who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has considered common the blood of his testament, whereby he was sanctified, and has scorned the spirit of grace. This he said / against those who regarded the blood and body of God as the blood and body of man, and who erred in supposing that the body and blood whereby we have been sanctified are common; and the spirit of grace they have scorned in confessing not that the Son of God is consubstantial with God and the Father, but that the body of the Son of God is the body of a man, whose body and blood he has raised to his own ousia and has not let them be upbraided and taunted with a human ousia but has [caused them] to be adored in his own ousia.
38. Concerning this: that the Apostle speaks also against those who consider the blood and body of Christ profane and impure, not as though to imply that it 36 has certainly been changed into the nature of God the Word but as though they refuse to call the blood blood and to call the body body and [because they assert] that they are not able to save us, as the Manichaeans say.
Nestorius. Is this proof, concerning which thou keepest silence, of small importance in thy opinion? They indeed insist much on it, and thou oughtest not to bring it forward negligently. It had indeed escaped my notice in the manner of those who see the mote but not the beam. [Now that] it has been revealed, let us examine it from all sides, [to see] how it is and how / Divine Scripture wishes us to understand [it], so that we incur not blame just and divine.
39. In how many ways the word which in Greek is called koinon is used.
And first, let us speak of the use of the word called koinon in Greek. Now in meaning it refers to [what is] polluted, |30 and [what is] common and to participation. [It refers to] what is polluted, as hel said in the Acts: Never have I eaten that which is impure and polluted 37; but to what is common in whatsoever they----the Apostles----had belonged to them in common; but to participation in the cup of thanksgiving which we bless, is it not a participation, in the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? And again: He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one; wherefore he was not ashamed to call them brothers, saying: I shall proclaim thy name to my brothers and in the midst of the assembly I shall glorify thee; and again: I shall put my trust in him; and again: Here am I and the children which God has given me.... Since then the children have participated in the flesh and the blood, he also has participated likewise in the same things? Since therefore this term is employed of a man who is impure and polluted and also of that which is common and further of participation, [did he 38 so use] this expression which covers three uses / and does not distinguish against what opinion the apostle meant it, when he laid it down that for this reason men trample underfoot the Son of God? Which of these three [interpretations] is accurate?
Sophronius. [He employed this word] against those who think that he died not for us but was in his own death as all men, and that both living and dead he was an ordinary man and that he possessed nothing more [than ordinary men], for they know not that he is the Son of God and that his blood is the blood of God and not that of a man.
Nestorius. Do you say this, that the body and blood are the ousia of the Son of God, or that the body and blood are of human ousia and have become the nature of the divinity? For, as you say, the flesh is not flesh, because it has been changed by him into the ousia of God the Word by means of a mixture and a union. And it [is what] the blessed Apostle meant when he mocked exceedingly at |31 those who confessed his body and his blood and [yet] supposed it impure.
Sophronius. He said not this against those who by no means confess the body in truth, nor against those who change or corrupt the ousia as by fire or [who suppose] the ousia of the flesh impure through mixture, but against those who confess the flesh and the blood and [yet] think that it is common. /
Nestorius. As it seems to me, the opinion to which thou dost cling is not more in harmony with these, but with those who change the ousia into the nature of flesh and blood without thinking that the ousia of the flesh and blood of our Lord is common, but that it is of God the Word and not of men.
Sophronius. Then one ought not to return answer to these but a reprimand for having used contradictory expressions. But speak of those who supposed that the flesh was of the ousia of God.
40. How one ought to understand: 'He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one.'
Nestorius. Thou art mistaken, for the Apostle said not two contradictory things. For he wished to say that he who sanctifies and he who is sanctified are of one and brothers of one and not of different ousias, and his children as those who are sprung from him. Thus he said: For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of them of one? The blood then whereby we have been sanctified and which has been poured out on our behalf is of one; thereby also are we his brothers, as if of one father, but again also his sons, [as those who] possess one ousia, wherein we are also sons. In God the Word in fact there is not anything whereby he and we should be of one, / or whereby we should be called sons in his likeness, that for this [reason] we should become his brothers, in that we have no reason for such a likeness, as those who are brothers and of one father; nor further that we should become his sons, because we do not participate |32 in the same ousia. So then the blessed Paul said this, accusing those who are not persuaded to admit that the blood of men can sanctify and who suppose that it is impure as being the blood of a man and consequently regard as impure the blood of the covenant whereby we have been sanctified and rescued from death through the true death of a man. And thereby he tells us that we are of one, and thereby he calls us his brothers on account of the nature which is born of our fathers and died for us; for in that he was born he is of our race and we are all of one; but, in that he died on our behalf and has renewed the future state by immortality and incorruptibility, we are his sons; for he is the father of the world to come. Are we not all in consequence of that one body in one? For we all receive from this same one bread, whereby he makes us participate in the same blood and flesh, which are of the same nature, and we participate with him in the resurrection from the dead and in immortality. So we are to him his body just as is the bread; even indeed as the bread is one, / so are we all one body, for we all receive of this one bread.
41. Concerning this: that, if in Christ the ousia of the body was changed into the divinity, we also are changed into the ousia of God the Word; for we are all one bodily frame and one body.
We then also have been changed into his flesh and we are his body, and we are therefore not the body and blood of man, but his own body. The bread indeed is one, wherefore we all are one body, in that we are the body of Christ. You indeed are the body of Christ and members in your parts. Is the bread the body of Christ by a change of ousia? Or are we his body by a change? Or is the body of the Son of God one with God the Word by nature? But if they are one by nature, there is then no more bread nor again is there [any] body. But to those who thought that the body of the Son of God was polluted the Apostle says that |33 they are trampling underfoot the Son of God in rejecting him and denying him, against those who confess that the body is of our own nature and who regard it as polluted, although [they admit] that it was given for the salvation of us all because it was pure and unstained and saved from sins, and that for all our sins he accepted death and became as it were an offering unto God. For if we are not of one, we are naturally not called / his brothers nor his sons, nor are we any more his bread and his bodily frame; but, if all these belong truly to Christ, we are his body and consubstantial with him, in that we are that which is also the ousia of his body. And these things are also known through the words of the dogma of those who are changed now into this and now into that, because they possess not the truth.39
42. Against those who say that the union took place in the ousia of God the Word and that the nature of the divinity effected the transfusion of the nature of humanity.
From these again another sect has arisen who in some things are like them and in others are distinct from them, while they indeed agree with the Arians but also dissent from them; but in another way they are clothed in the prosôpon of the orthodox, whereby again they keep aloof from the one but so fall into the weakness of the first. They confess indeed that the body of our Lord is of the nature of our fathers and therein they are to be likened to those against whom we have spoken a little before; but they are distinct from them in denying the change of the flesh into the ousia of the divinity and in accepting the union without mixture and without confusion. But they incline towards the Arians in saying that the union resulted in one nature, not by change |34 of ousia but by combination and natural composition, as the soul and the body are combined in one nature, and by natural force the soul naturally suffers the sufferings of the body, / and the body the sufferings of the soul. That which each one of them by its nature cannot accept, such as the sufferings and the activity, it has accepted in the natural combination by mixture, by one sensibility. They place the union not in revelation 40 and in use, but by natural force in a passible nature, and they say that the union took place for this [purpose], that they 41 should naturally participate in their activities and in their sufferings. But, further, they are distinct from the Arians in saying that there was an animal body and soul and that God the Word is consubstantial with the Father and that he naturally endured union with the nature, not by command but of his own will in order to accept on our behalf all the sufferings of human nature, not in any other nature but in his own.
The Apollinarians. He has not surely made a pretence of our salvation in schema, either by a change of likeness or by a change of ousia in such a way as not to endure sufferings in his own nature; for this would be [the action] of him who wished not to become incarnate because by nature he became man. But if, since he wished not or since he could not enter where there was an intelligence, he united himself by a natural union to the sensitive and vegetative soul and to the body so as to complete and fulfil the nature of man [and so as, starting] from impassibility and immortality, to suffer natural suffering naturally and to be delivered unto death naturally in the nature of the soul and of the body, from no / nature he became and he is the nature of a man.42 He had not been in a man but he was man truly, in that he was with the nature of man |35 and he was bound to the soul and the body in order to complete [them] and not to dwell [in them]. For he who dwells [in anything] is far removed from that in which he dwells and accepts neither the nature nor the name of that wherein he dwells. Consequently, seeing that he dwelt in all the saints, he is not said to have become incarnate and become man in any one of them, but only when he became truly man for the natural completion of the nature of man by constituting himself the intelligence ruling naturally in the body and the soul, and when he constituted a natural union. And therefore it was united without intelligence that he might not be supposed as it were to have dwelt in man, but to have been united for the completion of the human nature. That then is their [view]. But those who wish rather to adhere to the orthodox attribute to him a body and an intelligent soul and agree to the union in one nature for the completion of the nature. And as the body and the soul and the intelligence are the completion of the nature of man, so also the union of God the Word took place with the body and an intelligent soul for the completion of the nature. He became man in truth, since he had according to nature all [the properties] of a man; he was not the half of a complete [man], that is flesh only, or animal soul, for it is not in this that he became man, / in possessing nothing of man except animal bodily frame and soul without reason, but [in possessing] a rational soul and a rational body and a rational life, and not [all these] without reason. For all that is combined for the completion of nature participates in the same things and in one nature, since it participates both in suffering and in activity.
43. Against those who confess a body endowed with soul and a soul endowed with intelligence but [say that] the union of the divinity resulted in one nature by composition.
Nestorius. According to the former the statements of the latter are well said, that neither the animal soul nor again the bodily frame of the irrational soul are the body of a man; nor consequently is he----neither soul, nor body, nor divinity----a man who has nothing of a man; for the nature of man is not |36 constituted of an animal soul and divinity and body. How then did he become man by the combination of things which make not the nature of a man, unless perhaps he became by fusion another nature apart from our own nature? But nothing like that has taken place in anything nor in all natures which have aforetime existed; and now [forsooth], after all creation has been completed another nature has come into being apart from those which were when it existed not!
/ 44. Concerning this: that if the union of the divinity and the humanity resulted in one nature, that one nature is neither that of God nor that of man, but another nature which is foreign to all natures.
But generally the same things are said [in answer] also to these: that by man we understand and mean him who from the body and the rational and intelligent soul has become the nature of man in the combination of nature, but not him who from divinity and a rational soul and a human body has become man by a combination of natures; for this is impossible. For human nature is definite, and [the things] which he possesses who is man in ousia and in nature ought to be his who comes to be in the nature of man neither more nor less; since the [properties] of the nature are definite. Either then [he became] man in such a way that the union of God the Word with the body and the soul took place not with a view to [forming] one nature but in order to serve for the dispensation on our behalf; or he had the [properties] of another nature apart from that of men and of God, which is an animate body and God the Word, which nature is neither that of a man nor that of God, but a new nature, to which belongs [something] of all our natures.
45. Concerning this: that if the union of God / the Word with the body resulted in one nature, he is not to be conceived apart from the flesh, in that it is [possible] for him to become this in his nature.
God therefore is no more of an impassible but of a passible nature, being conceived as of that which he became by the natural union, while he became anew that which was newly created. |37 If then God the Word, who is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, has been united in a natural union, and thereby has that which he is, he exists not apart from it, since in it and by it he is united and unites himself, like the body and the soul which are united in one nature of a man, and are not to be conceived apart from their nature----but the body [is] in the soul and the soul in the body together with their sufferings and their operations, the body being natural and [the soul 43] not in a voluntary habitation, [both] mutually receiving and giving in a perceptible manner by natural mixture and fusion for the fusing of the nature.
46. Concerning this: that in the union two natures are not conceived as one nature.
What after all is the nature in this natural union which you predicate? Is it that of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, an impassible nature, immortal, eternal and without needs? Or is it [a nature] mortal and passible and with needs, which came into being yesterday and to-day and which belongs neither to men nor to God nor to any other nature, but is mixed from two natures for the completion of one nature? If then they say / that it is the ousia of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit united by a natural union, this is not a natural union with the flesh but a voluntary, since they are united for the use of the prosôpon and not of the nature; since [those things] which are united in one nature are not united voluntarily but by the power of the Creator, who combines them and brings them to a fusion in such a way that whatever is not of and belongs not to each of them obtains it in virtue of a natural and not a voluntary union, by which it has been united in one nature. By whom then are these united in nature? It is evident that that which has been united has been so [united] by the creator of the nature. If anyone says that anything is united of itself, I do not suppose that it is right; for when the natures are united in the ousias in one nature, it possesses also a certain kind of change of ousia and it is necessary that that nature which has been united should |38 be bound in virtue of an equality of nature and not by the will.44
47. Concerning this: that natures which are united voluntarily are not said to be united naturally, but prosôpically.
The natures indeed which are united voluntarily acquire the union with a view to [forming] not one nature but a voluntary union of the prosôpon of the dispensation. If then they say that the union of the natures resulted in one nature, even though we ourselves should concede to them that it took place voluntarily, / yet, after it took place, the union existed not voluntarily in that the natures have acquired it. And it suffers as being united, whether it will or not, and accepts the sufferings of that nature to which it has been united, since it is defined by it and not by impassibility nor by immortality nor by infinity. For the definition and circumscription of all nature is that in which it has to be. And if it has been united to a nature, it is in that [nature] that it has to be and also [has to be] as that which exists by the nature. And from this it is established that both the Father and the Holy Spirit, who are of the same nature, are of a passible and created nature; for that which the Son has accepted in his nature, the Father also can accept. For it is impossible that he 45 should be able to accept in nature that which he 46 is not capable of accepting. If the Son accepted in virtue of his acceptance of the union of this nature, whereas the former did not accept, how are they of one nature who are opposed to one another in accepting or not accepting? And after a change of nature you are compelled to take the word 'union' according to the interpretation of the Arians,47 that the nature of the Son has been united by the Creator of nature, in the same manner as he who created and made the soul and the body also united them; for the very work of creation also requires that he should unite |39 the soul / and the body in one nature, in that to him also belongs the realization of the creation of each one of them.
48. Concerning this: that a natural union is the work of a second creation.
The union in fact in one nature of natures which have been united is the work of a second creation. That which is not of itself naturally united to each one of them receives this from a second genesis. For indeed to hunger and to thirst and to perceive sensations by the senses belongs not to the body of itself, nor to the soul of itself, but comes to them from a second genesis. So if there had also been a union of nature with the soul and the body for God the Word, in such a way that he received from the union of nature that which he had not in his nature of itself: hunger and thirst and weariness and strife and fear and death, in the one genesis indeed of a second creation [would be found] the first creation both of his ousia and necessarily also [of] the Creator's, if he endured these things not in fiction but naturally. And vainly do you give the name of consubstantial to one from whom you were compelled anew to take it away and were compelled to join either the Arians or Manichaeans in such a way as to admit either that he suffered not naturally any one of these things or only in illusion and in fiction. Or, by granting that in nature naturally, by a passible sensibility, / he accepted sufferings, you evacuate him of impassibility and of immortality, and of being consubstantial with the Father, because he acquired a change of nature, seeing that [the Son] accepts and [the Father] accepts not [these sufferings]. Or if he had not had one change of ousia in his nature, while that of the Father and the Holy Spirit was without needs and accepted neither suffering nor death, he would have been deprived of being God in that he was not in everything of an ousia without needs.
49. Concerning this: that things united by nature endure natural sufferings naturally and not voluntarily.
By diminution indeed the nature without needs and impassible became a passible and needful nature. In the same |40 way as one who by his own will does away with his hand or his foot or his eye no longer possesses them after they have been done away, in that he has truly put them away, so he also who by his own will does away with his immortality and impassibility for the completion of a passible and needful nature no longer has that impassibility and freedom from needs which were formerly his, in that he was made equal to a passible nature until he obtained anew impassibility by command [apart] from nature together with the natural union, since after the resurrection from the dead he has been in a nature which is immortal and impassible, but not in virtue of his own nature which [was his] before he became a mortal man by a natural union; since / he accepted naturally all the properties of nature, he [accepted] also obedience unto death, even death upon the cross and also an uplifting of exaltation above which there is no glory, and the adoption of a name which by grace is above all names, before which every knee in heaven, and on the earth, and beneath the earth bows, for the glory of God the Father to whom he was subjected and fulfilled all obedience. He did not empty himself nor yet was he the similar to the Father nor received he anew the similitude from the Father. For indeed he exalted himself and emptied himself to [the state of] mortal nature and he became that nature, and that which he had in his nature he took by grace. And from a nature unmade he became a nature made and created by addition and diminution of natural power; and the ousia which accepted neither sufferings nor death became mortal and passible, and he died through weakness and through the power of God he became alive, in that he became a weak nature and endured the painful sufferings thereof, being in pain and suffering in consequence of the equality in nature of the soul and of the body, being torn apart and isolated from his nature; under constraint he was torn out of his nature and consequently he was not even corrupted by the parting of the soul from the body. As the body endures the suffering of |41 death and is violently torn apart from any equality [with the soul] and from the natural / union by division, so also God the Word who was united for the completion of the natural union must endure naturally all the natural sufferings of death; therefore also life and death belong in common to those who are united in nature. He then who concedes this concedes also the rest, whether he will or not, even if he says a thousand times that he is impassible in his nature; for he suffered in the nature which he became, whether of flesh or of man or of any thing else that we might mention. And let us not say that his nature does not accept sufferings, except that perhaps, as those who are able to die or not to die are not by their nature immortal, so also might we say of God the Word; for therein is God the Word conceived in his nature and he has nothing more. If thou sayest that his nature is not subject to death, in no way is it subject to natural death; the union took place not for nature but for the use of man according to the dispensation, so that the Incarnation of God the Word, who is impassible and immortal, took place. What then do they say? I ought fully to treat two things: to set out their objections and to resolve them as best I can, since thou hast persuaded me to do both.
Sophronius. They say in fact as follows: how is he called man heavenly and spiritual, if he is neither spiritual nor heavenly? / He who has been united to human nature is God the Word by nature as God; and it is said: As the first man was of the dust of the earth, so also is the Lord from heaven; and: The first man became a living soul and the second man became a quickening spirit. And not apart from the ousia of the body of dust is he called a man of dust nor again without the soul is he called animate, but in consequence of their combination, which results in the nature of man, is he so called apart from the ousia of the heavenly and the spiritual, which has been united by nature to the nature of man. |42
50. Concerning this: that if the second man, the Lord from 'heaven,' is adopted of God the Word, then men are heavenly since they are of the nature of God the Word; for ' as is the heavenly', so also are the heavenly ones '.
Nestorius. Hear then also this, when you read the rest of the book, that as is the heavenly, so also are the heavenly ones, and as we have clothed ourselves in the likeness of one of dust, so also [are we] of dust, because all possess the same nature, and as he is heavenly, so also [are they] heavenly, because they have the same nature as the heavenly; [so] also all of us, who wait to become [so] in this sort. We men are of the ousia of God the Word, since our soul and our body have been combined for the completion of such a nature, and each of us becomes that which God the Word is by nature; / for as is the heavenly, so also are the heavenly ones, and to the extent that they are heavenly men, they are Gods the Words, in that each single one of them is both of God the Word and of the human soul and body, not infinite in his nature, although in each one he exists [in some sense] infinitely except inasmuch as the nature of each single one of them is finite and apart from it his existence cannot be conceived. If you so understand the Lord is from heaven and the second man was a quickening spirit, how do you imagine the rest of it: as we have been clothed in the likeness of him of dust, so shall we be clothed in that of him from heaven? How then have we been clothed in the likeness of him from dust? What do we become? And in what have we been clothed? Have we become heavenly and spiritual men, [formed] of the soul and the body and of God the Word? Or has the spirit without body and without soul been clothed in the likeness of him of dust, [who is] body and soul and who urges us to become the likeness of spiritual beings, that is, spirits without soul and without body, although indeed it is not our affair but [that of our] Maker? If this is according to the truth, how does he urge us to be clothed in the likeness of spiritual man, that is, [of] Christ, as though Christ were without soul |43 and without body? And how then is he man, if he has nothing of man? Or how is Christ called spiritual / man, he who has been constituted the ousia of God the Word to [become] the nature of man, [that is], of soul and body? And we shall come to be without bodily frame and without soul in becoming as he is, having nothing that he has not. But this cannot be so. It follows that those who confess that the nature of God cohered for the completion of human nature say these and such like absurdities, for a passible and created nature is the result of a natural union with a passible and created nature. And therefore they fall either into the opinion of the Arians, who say that by nature God the Word became the nature of a passible and mortal man, in enduring sufferings sensibly, or into the opinion of those who say that he became body and soul in fiction, or into [that of] both of them in inclining now to the one and now to the other side, because they suppose by such inclining to escape from these absurdities.
51 Against those who suppose that Christ was a mere man.
So far the argument has been against these. Let us look then also at the heresies of those who dissent and confess that Christ was only a man, [and see] wherein they are distinct and in what they resemble those above, in order that we may distinguish and demonstrate their heresies, so that we may not, on account of what has been wrongly said, again escape / that which has been fairly said and so that further we may not without distinction accept that which has been wrongly said. For to confess that Christ is man both by nature and in truth appertains unto the truth and is attested by the truth; and therein is there no one who blames them. But in that they shun his divinity, though it exists in truth and in nature, they are to be repudiated, since they suppress the Incarnation of God the Word.
52. Concerning those who confess God the Word only in name.
The Sabellians. Among them indeed are also those who deny that God the Word exists in ousia and who say only |44 that the name 'God the Word' is that command: He spoke and it became. But thus also they predicate the Father and the Holy Spirit in name alone; so in short they agree rather with the Jews than with Christians.
53. Concerning those who say that God the Word exists indeed by nature, but that he has not been united by nature but in schema and that there are two sons.
The Paulinians. But others reprove them, confessing that God the Word is a nature or a hypostasis, as also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Concerning his incarnation they agree not with the orthodox, but they approach those / who say that Christ was only a man and that he comported himself in subjection to the law as one of the saints, and that by command he observed all the commandments and that by supreme observance he was without sin as a man, and thereby he is more excellent than all men, either because, after having been without sin, he appeared freed from death and rightly accepted immortality which is established for the honour of those who observe the law without sin, or because, having so comported himself in all these things, after he [had] observed all the commandments without fault, he accepted for himself to die for us and, in consequence of that greatness of his obedience, he received the honour and the name of Son by grace. He is not God the Word but he who has so comported himself and observed all the commandments. So they say.
The Paulinians: What purpose indeed could it have served that God the Word also should associate himself with him in operations and should operate with him as though he could not of himself observe the commandments? And what is that which has been preserved without sin? Or what is the victory? It is not a high merit if, being unable to be victorious, he had need of assistance so as with assistance to be victorious, since he [himself] could not do it [otherwise]. For it is not to him that victory comes but to him that assisted him and was invincible. What then is a combat for God? |45 And what is the merit? That he who asks [assistance] of anyone should be the saviour! / For what is he who sees that there is [nothing in common] between him and the prince who comes and finds nothing in him, when it is discovered that the [divine] nature has assisted him? And before whom is he judged, when he who judges and is judged is the judge? Who is it who has accepted the offering for all men, when it is he who accepts and he who is offered? Who is it who propitiates and who is propitiated, when he is in both of them? [Who indeed], unless perhaps they break up one sovereignty into two which are not like one another, and say that the Father was angry and the Son propitiated him when he was enraged, as they have learnt from the fables of the Manichaeans, who have foolishly invented them; or [unless] perhaps the Father manifested his anger in schema against those who erred and appointed a term hypocritically by showing himself angry and able to be propitiated as by the Word?
Now in another way there adhere also to that which the [followers] of Arius imagine [men] who say that God has not been propitiated in any other way than by the death of Christ, who from in the beginning was God and he was God. What urgent need then was there for this foolish invention? For he who was in him did this not by the death of another; further also it is not justice that he who is not of one nature should accept death for another nature for the remission of the debt; nor also has a true remission been shown, but a schema. / And they say that these things have been divided between two sons in such a way that some befit the one and others the other, in order that there may be neither contradictions nor schematisms in all the words that there are. There is one divinity and one lordship and one authority of the Father and the Son, who accept not any such schema. These things and such like they say, insisting on their views, and call Christ and the Son double in prosôpa as well as in |46 hypostases----in like manner as the saints have received the indwelling of God----and they speak also of his image in the same way.
Nestorius. Let us speak then also with every one of those who, decieved and deceivers, deny the incarnation which took place for God the Word. And first let us use against them their very own words. Thou then lay before me their words, those which are persuasive and are of use in persuading many; and combat manfully for them, so that no cause at all for excuse may be granted unto them. Since then there is only one divinity and lordship and authority and knowledge and opinion and power of God the Father and of the Son, by means of whom everything came from the Father and without whom nothing at all which has come into being came into being, for what reason does he apply only to God the Word he became flesh, not he made the flesh but The Word became flesh, even he who was with / God? And said he not of God the Father he who is with the Father? For he became and he made both belong unto him, since they make no division; nor is it [said] that the one is and that the other is not; but perhaps they confess that there are two Words as also two Sons and that the one is the divinity and the other the passibility in that it became flesh.
Sophronius. And what is there absurd in our confessing so? For this is evident; for the Evangelist said this also concerning him: he dwelt among us, that is, concerning the Word, [but] of man this: we have seen his glory, the glory as of the only begotten and: who is full of grace and of truth was not [said] of the only begotten, nor is it any more by nature, for he is full of glory, not by virtue of grace but by virtue of nature and he has no need of any addition.
Nestorius. When then the Father said concerning him This is my Son and again He has given his only begotten Son; and the only begotten who is in the bosom of his Father has |47 himself told us, did it speak of him who was in the bosom of his Father or did it speak of three only begottens, one who was from in the beginning God the Word and another who had the glory as of the only begotten without being / the only begotten, and a third apart from these whom he gave on behalf of the world?
Sophronius. What then? Did he give God the Word, consubstantial with him, who is immortal and impassible, unto death? And do not He who is consubstantial, impassible and immortal and He gave him unto death belie one another? Or is it perhaps so in schema?
Nestorius. Thou wilt confess aloud with us that there are not two Gods the Words or two Sons or two only begottens, but one, and so on with all the rest of them. Investigation is made on both sides similarly and rightly how he became incarnate voluntarily, when he was by his nature immortal and impassible, and how it is said that the Son is dead in nature and in so far as he is not immortal by nature.
Sophronius. But we say these very things to show clearly, although thou dost not wish [it], that thou dost predicate t\vo sons by nature, one impassible and immortal and the other passible and mortal.48
54. Concerning this: that God the Word became incarnate and there were not two Sons but one by an union.
Nestorius. It is not at all true; but if it is right in the first place to speak concerning this, from Divine Scripture itself will we learn that which we confess to one another. Let us see then what the Evangelist / says concerning God the Word. Does he speak of one God the Word or of two Words? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; everything came into being by him and without him came into being nothing whatsoever that came into being. |48 Concerning whom can these things be said by the Evangelist, except concerning him who is consubstantial [with the Father] and without bodily frame? And this: In him was life and the life was the light of men and the same light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not? Did he say it of another or of the very same? Therefore he called him both the life and the light, which indicate the immortal and quickening ousia, and [he said] it shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not, as if concerning things which had been in death and in darkness. But he is not dead, for he is the life and the light which are not extinguished, and he quickens those who are in death. Concerning what light does John bear witness, that all men should believe through it? Surely it was the light of the truth which gives light unto every man who has come into the world; he was in the world and the world came into being by him and the world knew him not; he came to his own and his own received him not; and but to those who received him he gave authority to become the sons of God, to those who / believe on his name, who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God? Did the Evangelist speak of another Word or of God the Word, by whom everything came into being, life and the true light, who came unto his own and his own received him not, who gave authority unto those that received him to become the sons of God, [who] were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God? And, further, whereby gave he to those who received him to become the sons of God? [Was it] to those who were born of the nature of God? [Or to those who] have been changed in nature into the nature of God and have become that which God the Word is in so far as he is born of the Father? Or have they remained in the same nature in which they are and have they become sons of God and have they been born of God by adoption and by acknowledgement? As they have received him as being God, who has become |49 [their] kin-by-adoption, and as they have acknowledged that he is their God who has made everything and who has come unto his own, so also he has made them his kin-by-adoption and has acknowledged them to be the sons of God, as sons who have entered into sonship but who possess not the nature.
55. Concerning this: that God the Word is one by nature and is [so] named and that there are not many who have been [so] named by homonymy.
Those who become sons by adoption and by acknowledgement [become the sons] of him / of whom they are born not by flesh nor by blood but by the will and the love of him who has no bodily frame but has become their body by adoption and by love and by acknowledgement like a father; so also God the Word who has come into his own has given authority unto those who have received him and confessed him and believed in his name; for he has not given to those, who are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of the man, to become the sons of God----for that should have been possessed by them beforehand in their natures----but they were born of God by adoption. Thus therefore he who came into his own and was received gave to those who believed in his name authority to become the sons of God, and he will be their flesh by the taking of the flesh and he will make it [his] by adoption and he will acknowledge it as his body by adoption. Consequently he has said: The Word became flesh; balancing in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and so on. He also adduced the Word became flesh and sojourned among us. As those who have received him have become voluntarily by reception the natural [sons] of God, so also he, in that he received the flesh and sojourned in it, became their flesh by adoption and not by change of ousia. Therefore also he adduced the peculiar property of God, saying And we have seen his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of / the |50 Father. He qualifies it not by likeness but as for confirmation, when he says 'full of grace', in calling that which is of the nature of the only begotten grace; for that is the fulness. For that which surely participates [in anything] is not full but is deficient in that of which the nature is altogether it, and he is full of grace and truth; not as one who has been changed but as one who is that which the beloved Son was; according as they have received him and according as they have believed in him, so also have they seen him who was revealed in flesh, [even] him and not another God nor again another Word nor another life nor another light nor again another only begotten, but the very same who was revealed in flesh. And of his fulness have we all received that which was not in us; and of his fulness have we received but not his fulness; for the fulness consists in being deficient in nothing, as God. And consequently the only begotten who is in the bosom of his Father has expounded unto us God whom no one has ever seen; and no one else than he who was in the bosom of his Father came and became flesh and dwelt among us; and he is in the bosom of his Father and with us, in that he is what the Father is, and he has expounded unto us what he is in the bosom of his Father----it being evident that he has not explained the infinity and the incomprehensibility of the ousia. As he knows our nature / he has expounded unto us in our very nature that which none of mankind has ever seen. How then is it possible that we should understand by him one Son and by Christ another Son, who is only such as a man is and who in the equality and the honour of sonship remains in the image of him whom you deny to have been sent and to have moved among us? By a kind of divine indwelling he who was in the likeness of God [so] dwelt, as the Evangelist clearly refers us back from God the Word to God the Word and apart from God the Word shows no other Word nor other only begotten of God, except him [who is] with his flesh. |51
Sophronius.49 But from what has been said understand what the Evangelist says: No man has ever seen God; the only begotten Son who was in the bosom of his Father has expounded [him], speaking of him who has been taken up and sits on the right hand of the Father, who is the Son in the image and glory of the Son, who has been shown unto us, who has come after me, who is mightier than I, on whom the Holy Spirit has come down and has remained in the likeness of a dove, who is the elect of God, the Lamb of God, the Nazarene, the Son of Man; you shall see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. It is not he who in ousia is God the Word, consubstantial with the Father; for no one has ever seen God, but he has been seen. But he spoke not of him but of the Son of Man, who by his grace was in the rank of the image of the Son of God, and thereby he was the Son and the only begotten by good will; in whom dwells all the fulness of the divinity in bodily frame. He is not the fulness, but all the fulness dwells in him in bodily frame as it has dwelt in every single one of the saints. For he who is the Son is not by himself apart nor again is the Father by himself apart, for the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. And consequently if the incarnation which took place in the ousia is that of the Son of God, it is also that of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, if you say that he is the Son by nature and not by equality and honour; for he has been sent in the prosôpon of the Son of God and is clothed in his prosôpon and everything appertaining unto him is referred unto him, as God is in an angel and in a mediator, for he is the mediator of God and of men, the Man Jesus Christ. And how then has there been one Son and |52 an incarnation of God, unless perhaps it is said that there has been an incarnation of God in every thing whereby God wrought the dispensation for men, and it is said that God has said and God has wrought and God has been seen in those things which have been said or wrought by Moses and by the prophets and by the angels. / Because in fact God by his nature is invisible and incomprehensible, he must have some mediator, through whom to provide these things, while to him are referred those things which are wrought or said by them by the doctrine of providence and of the dispensation and not in the course of nature. How is he who is man by nature God by nature, and not by grace and activity, as God can act at his will in the case of all nature, unless, perhaps, God be everything in him? Some one will say that God and man are acting [alike] and that he is two natures. I turn then to those things on which the whole investigation hangs.
56. Concerning this: that it is not said that God became incarnate also in one of the prophets or saints, nor even that he made use of any of them in his own prosôpon.
Nestorius. Since then, as they say, they adhere to the Divine Scriptures, the statement [of our case] against them causes us no labour. For never has any of the prophets nor of the angels been seen to make use of the prosôpon of God in his own prosôpon; but our Lord Christ said: I and God are one, and whoever sees me has seen God, and that which God has done, that I also do, as he, and as God has life in his hypostasis and gives life to whom he will, I also, even I, give life to whom I will, / and if ye believe not on me, believe at least in my works, because I and God are one? None further of the prophets nor of the angels dared to say these things; but, whatsoever they said or did, [they said] the Lord said, and not 'God or they'; and all that they said or did, [they said] that by their means God said [it]; they also said that God said [it], as the prophets |53 and as the angels. And wherein he took the schema of a man or of fire, it is said that God appeared or that one saw God; and in another place, that God gave the law, and again: by means of the angels the law was given. They are not lies nor further are they contradictory one to another; it is not that he calls the angels God nor again that an angel calls himself God; but, because he appeared by means of the angels, both are truly said, both that God appeared by means of the angels in the fire of a bush and that by means of it God appeared unto him.
57. Concerning this: that according to the Divine Scriptures we have learned to confess Christ God by nature and Man by nature.
Since then he called himself by the two [names], both the Apostles and the Evangelists say also that he exists in the two: [he is] both God by whom everything comes about, and he came into the world, and he made the world, and he was not received by his servants, and to those / who received him and believed in his name he gave authority to become the sons of God, and he became flesh and sojourned among us, he and none other. And since he became [flesh] and sojourned among us, he has drawn to himself the very flesh for [the purpose of] the adoption as for his own prosôpon, which is in both of them, in that on the one hand [there is] the ousia of God, but on the other the flesh by the union and the adoption; in such wise that the flesh, which is flesh by nature, is also Son by the union and the adoption of the prosôpon; although he exists in both of them, yet he is called one Son and one flesh. And consequently the only begotten Son of God and the Son of man, the same [formed] of both of them, is predicated in both of them, because he has made the things of their prosôpa his own prosôpon and is therefore acknowledged as his own prosôpon by the one as by the other; and he speaks with them now by virtue of the divinity and now by virtue of the humanity and now by virtue of both of them; as also the humanity used to speak now by virtue of the ousia of the humanity and now |54 by the prosôpon of the divinity: on this account he both is the Son of God and the Son of man and has so spoken.
58. That as also God the Word is conceived to have become flesh and the flesh is one, and there are not two fleshes, so also the flesh is Son and there are not two Sons.
/ Is it not as if the Word were Son only in so far as he became flesh? Since he took the flesh in his own prosôpon, he became flesh and the flesh was God because of the prosôpon of the Word, in such wise that God the Word is said to be flesh and man, while the flesh is called the Son of God. For until he took the flesh in his own prosôpon and was revealed therein, he was called Son on account of the divinity: in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; everything came into being through him, and without him also nothing whatever came into being. But since he became flesh in taking the flesh, he was named after both of them in both of them, but as though he were one in both of them, not [in both] in nature, but in the one indeed in nature but in the other in prosôpon by adoption as well as by revelation. The Son was revealed in flesh, being similar to his Father: / and my Father are one, he says in a manner demonstrative of his own prosôpon. He who was seen speaks from him who was conceived as from his own prosôpon, as though he were one and possessed the same prosôpon. Through one is the other conceived, and he who is conceived discourses by him who was seen as by the very prosôpon of him who was seen. If you do not believe on me, believe in my works, because I and the Father are one. / And all such things as these which have been said originally of the ousia [are to be said] accordingly also to speak and to understand and to operate in the very same way in the prosôpon as by adoption. For they are not far removed either in operation or in word or in ousia; nor are the things which are to be distinguished the one from the other in the prosôpon distinct in love, for they are conceived of his prosôpon in the love and the will of God in that he took the flesh; and therein he was revealed and therein he taught, and |55 therein and by means thereof he acts as though present and not as though absent. Of his own prosôpon he made use in the flesh, in that he wished that he should become flesh and that the flesh should become himself, so that those who see the flesh [see] also God, as his own body is in the bread and those who see the bread [see] also the body, because he has taken it for his prosôpon. He who is the similitude of God has taken the prosôpon of the flesh, the likeness of a servant, and he has given unto him, unto the likeness of the servant [which is] his likeness, a name which is more excellent than all names, that is 'Son', at which every knee shall bow which is in heaven and in earth, and which is beneath the earth} And consequently there must be two natures, that of the divinity and that of the humanity, that which has emptied itself into the likeness of a servant and the likeness of a servant which has been raised into the name which is above all names. For he who does not remain in his own ousia can neither / be emptied nor diminished nor even raised above all names. Therefore has he said 'the likeness' and 'the name' which it has taken, which indicates a prosôpon as of one; and this same name and prosôpon make the two of them to be understood; and the distinction of nature, one hypostasis and one prosôpon,50 is theirs, the one being known by the other and the other by the one, so that the one is by adoption what the other is by nature and the other is with the one in the body. As a king and a lord, who has taken the prosôpon of a servant as his own prosôpon and gives his prosôpon to the servant and makes known that he is the other and the other he, is content to be abased in the prosôpon of the servant while the servant is revered in the prosôpon of the lord and king, and for this reason, even though I should not have said the one for the other nor the other for the one, it is so with both of them who are one and possess the same prosôpon ----[so] are these things in regard to the two natures which are distinct in ousia but are united by love and in the same prosôpon.
59. Concerning this: that the adoption and the indwelling |56 ought to be accepted as the will of God and that we ought not to avoid a name as though that which is profane were said in consequence of the homonymy.51
For although the humanity of ours bears / as mediator the prosôpon only of God by adoption as well as by the indwelling of the ousia and not only by the indwelling of divinity, yet this indwelling is such as to result in one prosôpon, which is the same for him who is revealed as for him who is to be revealed. For the [words] He is and He dwelt are of necessity to be confessed and interpreted by us according to the will of God. God indeed is in all creatures; for in him we are and thereby is it defined that, although thus he is verily in all, he is said to have dwelt in some men; but in regard to others it is even said that he is not their God. And it is not said that he dwelt in all men in like manner, but according to his love; in some of us it is said that he only dwelt in a composition as in a house, as in the believers, while in others, although he is acting, yet [he acts] not in like manner but to a greater or less degree; in others as in all the apostles and in others as in the prophets and in others as in teachers and in others according to the division of gifts. In this one and in that and in another he dwells, and he acts also in all; and all of them are not equal to all nor like one another, but [all are] according to the love of him who dwells in them. Among them some hold the first place and others of them the second [rank] and in gradually descending order are they attached and joined one to another, in the same way as are the limbs / in the body. But Christ is the head of all and in him are we bound together; but also God is the head of Christ, for whom, as he is for us the head and the prosôpon, is God so also his head and his prosôpon in his incarnation. Therefore we have received |57 from him to become the sons of God, in that he is the only begotten Son; so that his flesh becomes that which also is the Son of God and of the Father so as to become the image of the Father, [being] the Son of the Father whose is the image; because this same is the prosôpon of the Son, it is he and none other which [exists] in the two ousias and is not distinguished.
60. Concerning this: that we should not thus think of the Archetype as also of images or as of angels or as of ambassadors who take the place of him who is absent, but [that we should think] that he has been united to the body by his own nature and by his prosôpon and that he has become incarnate in their making use of the body in its own prosôpon and the body's [making use] of the prosôpon of God the Word.
God is not indeed among the things which are represented in effigy for there things can be said to exist only in the visible shape, by visible shape and by likeness while far distant from the ousia, nor again as angels or ambassadors who take the place of those who send them and are thereby their prosôpa in virtue of service and mere authority, / but he himself has made use of his very [own] nature and his prosôpon in saying that 'I and the Father are one', and he is whatever he is in prosôpon and whatever he is in prosôpon he is, not that he made his likeness in another likeness but in his own likeness, nor in any other likeness like unto the likeness of a servant but in the very natural likeness of the other, so that the one became what the other was and the other that which the one was, both the one and the other remaining.
61. Concerning this: that through the nature of man he received a name which is more excellent than all names.
This in fact is the chief greatness of the nature of humanity: that, since he remains in the nature of humanity, he accepts a name which is more excellent than all names; neither in consequence of moral progress nor in consequence of |58 knowledge and faith, but therein 52 by virtue of his readiness to accept [it] has it come about that it should become his eikôn and his prosôpon in such wise that his prosôpon is also the prosôpon of the other. And he is both God and man, and the likeness of God in condescension and in kenôsis and in schema, [and] the likeness of the flesh as man; and the man is by exaltation what God is, through the name which is above all names. Consequently in the kenôsis he humbled himself unto death, even death / upon the cross, in that he made use of the prosôpon of him who died and was crucified as his own prosôpon, and in his own prosôpon he made use of the things which appertained unto him who died and was crucified and was exalted. And therefore [this] is said as of the one prosôpon of Christ, and the former things and the latter are each thus different, in nature, as the divine nature is different from the nature of man; so that Christ is two natures, the likeness of God and the likeness of a servant, that which has been exalted and that which exalts. If also he is called Christ because of the flesh which has been anointed, there is one prosôpon of the two natures, because also there is only one name which is more excellent than all names, [one for] both of them, if the divine nature is meant; for the names of the natural prosôpa are common in the condescension and in the exaltation.
62. Concerning this: that the dispensation for our sake ought to have taken place by both of them.
And it was congruous with the dispensation which is for our sake that both of them should be taken into the prosôpon; for, because God created the first man in his own image and in his likeness and the prosôpa of God the Maker----of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,----were not revealed to us, so that we might also know the Creator and obtain completely the teaching of the Divine knowledge and receive in completeness a complete idea / of the image of God, he has renewed all creation in Christ and has made known and shown unto us what the Maker is: he who from the beginning was the Word with God was also God the Maker |59 of all; everything came into being through him and without him also nothing whatever came into being.
63. Concerning this: wherefore God the Word built for himself the temple of the body.
Even as it must have been fitting that our renewal also should take place through the Maker of [our] nature, through him who also originally formed us and made us from the earth, he who took the body and made it in his likeness and constituted it in his prosôpon in everything as his own in the honour and glory of God, made use of the nature of the Divinity on the one hand and of the prosôpon of the Son on the other. For the honour of the Father and of the Son is one in such wise that those who honour the Father honour also the Son. He then has taught us that he who has created everything is God and that he created [it] with the Father and the Holy Spirit; for in him he lived, showing the natural union, [to wit] that the Father is [Father] of the Son and that the Father is in the Son and that the Holy Spirit lives in them. And he created the body in a new manner [other] than from a man and a woman, and, since it was an act of creation, he tells of that which is to be created and of him who creates: The Holy Spirit will come and the power of the Most High shall overshadow [thee] / ----denoting the Creator. Therefore he who shall be born shall be called the son of God ----that is the Holy One who is to be created; so that in the creation he calls [him] 'holy' and 'Son', denoting the image and the likeness which the first man received in the Creation and which he kept not. For, as the image of God, he ought to have kept himself for God without spot and without blemish, and that by willing what God wills, since he had the prosôpon of God. For [to have] the prosôpon of God is to will what God wills, whose prosôpon he has.53 Consequently the second man was created by the Holy Spirit and the power |60 of the Most High and he has received from him to be holy and the Son of God.
64. Concerning this: that he 54 has received to become 'Son' from [the moment of] his formation and not by degrees.
[In that he has received the title to be 'holy'] not as the rest of mankind by virtue of obedience in faith and in works, but from [the moment of] coming into being by the creation of the Creator, he has received his prosôpon as something created, in such wise as not originally to be man but at the same time Man-God by the incarnation of God who in him is what God was in the first man. He indeed was the Maker of all, the law-giver, without king, the glory, the honour and the power; he was also the second / man with qualities complete and whole, so that God was his prosôpon while he was in God.
65. Concerning this: how, in that he has not the prosôpon of his being, the prosôpon in the union ought to be understood:55
As God appeared and spoke unto Adam in schema, and as it was none other, so will God be [seen] of all men in the natural schema which has been created, that is, that of the flesh, appearing and speaking in his own image and the image in the Archetype. So that on the one hand God appeared in the image, since he is not visible, on the other hand the image is conceived as representing him who appeared not. For it is not [the fact] that the image is his being, but that on the other hand the very image and prosôpon [are] the humanity of the divinity and the divinity of the humanity. The prosôpon of him who is conceived, who was in the likeness and in the similitude of God took the likeness of a servant and in schema was |61 found as a man in him who appeared. And he who appeared [is considered] as representing him who is conceived as touching the prosôpon and the name which is above all names and honour and glory and adoration. For he gave unto him a name which is more excellent than all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow which is in heaven and on the earth and which is beneath the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus is the Lord [as it is] narrated. /
66. How the flesh is adored in the prosôpon of the Son and how, since it is in nothing worthy of that adoration, it is adored in the prosôpon of God the Word.
Man indeed is known by the human prosôpon, that is, by the schema of the body and by the likeness, but God by the name which is more excellent than all names and by the adoration of all creation and by the confession [of him] as God. For thereby has he taken the likeness of a servant and has given his likeness to the likeness of the servant, that it might be equal with God, and that, as he has accepted it for himself to be his own prosôpon, no one might refuse to him on account of [his] nature the adoration of the Divinity in heaven and on earth' and beneath the earth and [the confession] by every tongue, although by nature it is above all human nature. Who then would refuse him the adoration which belongs to the Lord of all and which belongs to his own prosôpon and his name? And who again refuses to prostrate himself before that before which formerly the Creator of all refused not to prostrate himself? And he prostrated himself to such a degree that his own creation in its nature was not in honour nor in glory but in contempt and in abasement and in all humiliation unto death upon the cross; he humiliated himself unto death, even death upon the cross; there is nothing more scorned than death. It was not wrought / in the same manner as in Adam, to whom he gave his image in all glory and honour; for he subjected everything under his feet. In the same way also he gave to the Second Man his image of glory both in honour and in power. But |62 all these things came to pass in the opposite way; he surely gave the image of God and he surely took the likeness of a servant in prosôpon...56
67. Wherefore, in taking the likeness of a servant, he took not that which was honourable but rather that which was contemptible.
And consequently he took the likeness of a servant, a humble likeness, a likeness which had lost the likeness of God, not for honour nor for glory nor for adoration nor again for authority, although indeed he was the Son, but for the obedience which it should observe in the prosôpon of the Son according to the purpose of God; since it had the purpose of the latter and not its own nor anything that it wished, but that which God the Word wished. For this is the likeness of God, to have neither purpose nor will of its own / but that of him whose prosôpon and likeness it has. And therefore the likeness of God took the likeness of a servant, without concealing aught of the humiliation of the likeness of a servant; but all these things it took, in order that the likeness might be in all of them in such wise that it might do so without diminution in its own likeness.
68. Why he took voluntary obedience in the likeness of a servant and did not exhibit a mechanical [obedience] without volition.
Because in fact he took this [likeness] in order to abolish the guilt of the first man and in order to give to his nature the former image which he had lost through his guilt, rightly he took that which had proved itself guilty and had been made captive and had been subjected to servitude, with all the bonds of scorn and contempt. Apart from his own prosôpon there was nothing divine or appertaining to honour or to authority. As a son, as long as he is young, possesses not the authority to inherit or be master of anything, except by obedience, so also the likeness of a servant which he took for his own prosôpon he accepted as the |63 likeness of a servant, not for authority but for obedience, even all that obedience from which especially is born the obedience which is sinless, and he appeared / truly sinless. When then anyone is freed from all the causes from which disobedience comes into being, then obviously and without doubt it appears that he is sinless. For this [cause] also he took a nature which had sinned, lest in taking a nature which was not subject unto sins he should be supposed not to have sinned on account of the nature and not on account of his obedience. But, although he had all those things which appertain unto our nature, anger and concupiscence and thoughts, and although also they increased with the progress and increase of every age [in his life], he stood firm in thoughts of obedience.
69. Wherefore he accepted not obedience in some commandments, as Adam, but accepted all the commandments and not single ones.
Now in all the primary commandments his inclination [was] towards obedience, but not in the others, in order that it might not be supposed that he was able to conquer on account of their easiness; nor again in obedience made he use of those wherein there was attraction in honour and power and glory, but of those which in misery and poverty and contempt and weakness could offend the thoughts of obedience, those also wherein there was no attraction to obedience but rather to remissness and to negligence, / and in nothing was he helped; but for this only was he anxious, to obey God, and he loved that which God willed.
70. Wherefore in the moral life there was no occupation in human affairs on the part of the divinity.
And therefore, while he was poor in everything and was violently drawn away by the opposite, he in nothing deviated from the purpose of God, although indeed Satan made use of all these things to remove him far from the purpose of God. And Satan sought much after this because he saw that none was occupied with him. For also it did not appear |64 that from the beginning he wrought signs nor again that he had authority to teach, but only to obey and to keep all the commandments. As he moved among all men, where all the commandments surrounded him on all sides and showed him the strength of disobedience, he comported himself valiantly in the midst of them all, in that he used nothing special or extraordinary for his support, but he made use, as all men, of those very things which are common so that it should not be supposed that through observance of these things he was preserved from sin and that without them he could not be preserved. Consequently in eating and drinking he observed all the commandments and, in whatsoever there was pain and vexation, he was firm / in his thoughts, because his will was bound to the will of God and there was nothing to draw him away and make him distinct from him. For he was living not for himself but for him whose prosôpon he was, and he kept the prosôpon without blemish and without scar and thereby gave victory to the nature.
71. Wherefore he accepted the baptism of John after he had shown himself sinless.
Because he had fulfilled obedience in every thing, he accepted the baptism of John as [some thing] supreme, after the likeness of all men; and although indeed he had no need, since he was sinless, by reason of the greatness of his obedience he accepted it as one in need. For it belonged to supreme obedience that he should be not as befitted his honour and his glory but as owing obedience to a commander; and, more than this, not only that he should allow him to baptize [him] but also that he should be baptized by him as one who is guilty and requiring to be justified and in need of absolution. For this was universal obedience, to ask for and exact nothing in his own prosôpon but in that of him whose was the prosôpon, and to prepare his will; for the prosôpon was properly his own and he considered his prosôpon as his own prosôpon; and the prosôpon is one.57 |65 Therefore the Father has declared it from on high, saying: / Thou art my beloved Son; in Thee I am well-pleased; and the Holy Spirit came down in the likeness of a dove and remained upon him, and he says not that the Son came down, because it was the Son who possessed his prosôpon and made the things which were his his own prosôpon without becoming distinguished from him. Therefore he is one even in the birth of the flesh. The Holy Spirit shall come and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; therefore also the Holy One who shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God; and he said not at all that the Son should come, because he who has taken him in his prosôpon is no other, but the same as he who has given him the dispensation which is on behalf of all of us, for those reasons which we have said before.
72. Wherefore he made his manner of life with all men and afterwards was led to the wilderness.
Because it was thought that he was more than all an observer of the commandments, on account of his manner of life among all men, and because if in many things he was left alone, [it might have been] easy [to fight] against him, where there was nothing whereby he could be helped, he went forth alone into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, while poor in all the things of the world, even in that which is considered a burden and a distress. And [because of this] removal far from every thing / he attained to the utmost supremacy to which bodily power could be raised, and instead of vehement assaults from the concupiscence of the soul, he was bound by the things of God as though without bodily frame, since he was not busied with his body as though it were his own but [as if he were] apart from it. For this appertains only to the image of God and to him who preserves the image |66 of God, to will the same as God the Father; and because there was nothing else in all that the devil said, he put him to shame as one who stood apart from the will of God. He raised up his very soul unto God, conforming that which was according to his will to the will of God in order that he might be the image only of the Archetype, and not of his being; for the image according to its [own] being is without likeness and its own proper likeness is that of the Archetype, and they are indeed two, but it is one and the same appearance. Since in actions in bodily things he has preserved the likeness of God from all the sufferings of the body, it was preferable to him that the will of God should be done and not that of the flesh; and in actions he made himself a likeness to will that which he wills, that there might be one and the same will in both of them, and one prosôpon without division; the one is the other and the other is the one, while the other and the one remain. As he remained firm in all things, / in temptations of body and soul, in cities and in the wilderness, there was no distinction in his observance and in his obedience.
73. Concerning this: that, when he preached unto us the kingdom of heaven, he received [this] honour, victory 58 without sin.
As then to him who has conquered and been victorious in all things there has been given in return for the honour of his victory authority to preach and to announce the hope of the kingdom of heaven, saying: Be of good cheer; I have conquered the world; now is the judgement of this world, now is the prince of this world condemned, and I, when I shall be raised up from the earth, shall draw all men toward me; and whatsoever the Son is, by fear and the suffering which he has borne he has learnt obedience and has been perfected and has become unto all those who obey him a cause of life in the world to come. And he was sent to teach all men and to work signs and wonders and healings with all other things. Not to delight himself in and be zealous for obedience, but |67 with a view to the faith of those who were being taught, he made use of all these things with a view to the obedience of the disciples; for until the time of his victory he was striving to make firm in God the image which had been given unto him. But because he stablished his own image in all temptations perfectly and without failing / and without falling short in anything, he comported himself on our behalf, being zealous to rescue us captives from the violence of the tyrant and to draw us towards him and to make all of us the sons of his own kingdom, the associates and the heirs and the sons of God. For the defeat of the tyrant was being [accomplished] without pity, when he threw him down openly from his primacy and, after he had thrown him down, he took from him also his might; and when he had taken it from him, his own victory sufficed him not, but it must henceforth be also ours for which sake he strove; and those who are obedient unto him he then brings unto him voluntarily and not by force, and those who come he persuades of their own will to part from him 59 and not of their own will to become his....60 disciples----and what shall I say? enemy? well then, of the enemy.
74. Concerning this: that, after the victory and after it was said of him: 'He is my Son', he began other hard battles on our behalf.
Therefore, after his victory in every thing and [after] it was said from heaven: This is my beloved Son, he again began other battles....60 the supremacy and the teaching and the working of miracles with authority. Further he comported himself with sublime obedience / in our things, that is, in things human and weak, in such wise that he possessed not any authority or superiority; he was persecuted and beaten and fearful [with] the fear that terrifies all men; and he had not as the birds and as the beasts a place to lay his head. He went from place to place and was bruised and constrained in every way, for the sake of our obedience. He was not constrained by any one, but he fulfilled [everything] |68 and taught with all zeal, and he endured all temptations for the sake of instruction; and from wheresoever he was driven out, he was driven toward those to whom his gospel was not yet preached, so that that for which he was zealous was accomplished by the zeal of his enemies, who foresaw not the issue of their work but who looked to hinder him by opposition and works full of contempt and scorn and fear unto death. And after his victory and after the choice of God that this is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased, after he had received the authority of the Gospel, after it was revealed that by his authority he was working the divine works, after he had said I and my Father are one, he was with all this weakness and contempt in human things, whose burden he could not endure / by reason of their weight but which on the contrary were a grief unto him and a negation of grace. And so then there were many things also which hindered him from preaching the Gospel; and hence also there arose, [claiming to speak] on behalf of God, accusers of him as one who was a cause of disobedience,61 and they brought him into contempt and weakness.
75. Concerning this: that he made use of supreme obedience itself as of a supreme honour so that Christ became also truly man and rejected it not as contemptible.
For for all men contempt which comes after honour is accounted contemptible; but for Christ, who was in the flesh, it is the contrary. And he possessed as a supreme honour obedience unto death, even death upon the cross, and he showed unto Satan and unto every principality and unto every authority that the cause of honour is rather obedience abounding and not disobedience unto God, whereby Satan suffered, when he was equal in nature and in honour but endured not the obedience of men, in that he was judging honour and contempt by the distinction between his own nature and |69 [that] of men and thought that this obedience was not due unto God. On account of this love of glory he cast down Adam also into suffering in persuading him not / to obey God. And Adam chose not to show gratitude [unto God] nor to be obedient in any thing; but, because he was made like unto his own image, when he was forbidden to eat of one tree, he suffered in that which was not worthy to be called a suffering and acted against the commandment of God and regarded God as jealous. On account of all these things God made the second Adam worthy of all this honour for having practised all obedience; he granted him an honour above which there was nothing, even as there was nothing surpassing [his] obedience; he accounted himself as nothing, except to become conformed to the will of God, to become as God willed that he should become.
76. Wherefore he wrought the incarnation through his own prosôpon so that he also became incarnate.
Consequently also God became incarnate in the man through his own prosôpon and made his prosôpon his own prosôpon. And there is no condescension comparable unto this, that the prosôpon of the man should become his own and that he should give him his prosôpon. And therefore he made use of his prosôpon, in that he took it for him[self]; but he took it in order to make it not honourable but contemptible, that he might show to whoever wished to serve [God] that all / greatness grows great by condescension and not in exalting itself, [that] in that he took the likeness of a servant, he has been found in schema as a man. The likeness of this servant served him altogether as he wished; but he wished [it to be] according to what appertained to the nature, not only that he should obey his own prosôpon for himself,'so that there might be no doubt concerning him, that he is the Son of God, but also that he might comport himself on our behalf and die for our salvation: on our behalf, then, not as though we were just or good----for therein there would have been an attraction for anyone to die for those who are so----but for the unjust: for |70 hardly would anyone die for the impious, but for the good someone perhaps would dare to die. Because then he condescended in everything inscrutably with an incomparable condescension, there was further demonstrated one purpose, one will, one intelligence, indistinguishable and indivisible as in one. So also in manliness and in authority and in ordering of life and in judgement, as in all things, he was associated with God indivisibly as if each thing were in one by the distinguishing and by the choice of them both, so that he possessed nothing human of his own in human things, but the will of God became his own will, when he was made firm in the actions and sufferings of the nature. Thus also, in things divine, nothing is his own apart from the human humiliation; but, while remaining God in all things, [he is] that which the man was by his nature in sufferings, even in impassibility. In the same way as he made use of the likeness of a servant in the kenosis, so in exaltation he participated in the likeness of God, since he is in them both, in the likeness of the servant and in the likeness of God, and possesses the same prosôpon of humiliation and of exaltation.62
77. Concerning this: that the incarnation has been for the education of the whole nature of rational beings.
For this reason it was necessary that the incarnation of God the Word should take place for the whole nature of rational beings, that we might learn to participate in his grace, in virtue of which, in that he was lacking in nothing, he wrought everything and abhorred not to do aught, even what is contemptible, and moreover that he might make man participate in his image, in such wise that every man who is beneath him might not make use of the likeness for pride but for participation in the likeness, and that he might do everything according to his might in the sight of God. |71
78. Concerning this: that Satan, in jealousy 63 towards man, wrought everything with a view to misleading.
/ Because then Satan for opposition made use of that which was given unto him by God and because he had fallen away from the purpose of God, he made use of the image of God not as a model and an example befitting God but, through jealousy towards man, for misleading away from God, and he deceived man and made him fall from his image, since he observed not the will of God, and he raised him up as an enemy and an adversary against God that thereby he might reprimand God as unjust for showing toward man a good purpose such as this----reprimanding him in that he took vengeance on man for his shame and punished him with such punishment as was right for what he had done towards him. Satan, in fact, because he acted in anger and without reflection, forgot that God acts in contrary wise to that which he wishes.
79. Concerning this: that God has shown the height of his bounty and has laid bare the height of the wickedness of Satan.
For by death God wrought not the destruction of man but his consolation and his succour that he might not sin nor any more consent to the counsels of the evil one which lead to destruction; for also it was not [an occasion] to slander God but for the increase of his grace. He who accounted man worthy of such honour, when he was nothing, reprimanded the tyrant for his cunning in planning the overthrow of man, / and he shows that he in no wise plans his overthrow but to preserve him by his grace and to care for him, in order that he may be restored again to that which he was. For Satan hoped that after all this love of God towards man, if again he should make him transgress the commandment of God, God would be angered by all means to destroy him and that he would have no cause to turn and be healed. But against those who have sinned and have been accounted worthy of salvation and yet have continued in the same sins, |72 as though they had not hitherto been liberated from the former punishment, wrath without remission is stirred up without there being therefore any cause for salvation. Satan then first meditated of himself the things which he planned for the destruction of man and he persuaded himself and he condemned man to vengeance without leaving him any cause for pardon. And, since he 64 was envenomed by his 65 anger and his jealousy, he 64 understood not by himself the grace of God, and as a result, being so [placed]..., he destroyed not Satan himself, who was the deceiver, but endured his wickedness; and by reason of this also God is long-suffering as touching men who sin and act impiously against him, as though it were another who deceives them; and he is long-suffering as touching men's being void of understanding and as touching / the boundless wickedness of the devil against them, of him whose whole motive was to mislead all and set all against God, that all our race may be blotted out by him, without any one remaining unto it to become an intercessor for it. And because Satan showed all this supreme wickedness, though he had not any cause of wickedness, even amid all this wickedness the grace of God appeared, and he showed his ineffable grace in doing his good works universally unto all men. Because of the height of his condescension to him who has been altogether sinful, he came in contempt and in scorn and in lowliness and he was not ashamed of the scorn for the sake of the advantage. And by means of his own prosôpon he became the prosôpon of the other and that of God in fulfilling all that appertains unto God, that is, the instruction of an instructive condescension. For the supreme condescension consisting in a humanity, which seeks not its own but the things of God, has taken place for the teaching of humiliation. And he was united in one purpose, so that there was not the least room for Satan to introduce disobedience;66 and because there remained |73 only death to be [endured] for defeat and victory, he endured this also after every thing so as to have won the victory even over it, utterly annihilating it. And two things he wrought / thereby: he defeated Satan and he took away from him all hope of disobedience.
80. Concerning this: that when Christ conquered, his victory sufficed him not, but he was also pleased to be oppressed for us that he might obtain the exaction [of ransom] for the oppression which was for us.
And since many are brought low by the fear of death, he endured unto death and gave a just compensation for us in that he exchanged for our death the death which came unjustly upon him.67 Therefore, after he had observed all the commandments in such wise as to be exempt from death and to receive the choice of victory for us, he yet took upon himself this manner of life for the instruction of those who were deceived and he died on our behalf as on the behalf of the deceived. And he brought death into the arena,68 since it was necessary that it should be abolished; for he hesitated not that his own being should be cast down in death since he had the hope of its abolition. So also therefore he suffered in advance other trials, but not so as to die unjustly without exacting [the ransom]. In this very hope he obtained also obedience and immeasurable love, not that he might obtain victory for himself but that he might secure the exaction of our own [ransom] and conquer not only for himself but also for all men. In the same way as the defeat / of Adam caused the defeat of all men, so also the victory of the former made all victorious.
81. Concerning this: that God has shown to all by very deeds, that there is no acceptance of persons as touching humanity, in that it has suffered in all things. |74
And through these two all rational powers have learnt that there is no acceptance of persons with God, but the love of a just judge. For that reason humanity has conquered and Satan has been defeated. And God has magnified his victory and given unto him an honour which is more excellent than all names; and so all rational powers together have wondered even at his victory, kneeling and adoring the very name which has been given, which has been justly given unto him, and every tongue confesses the just dispensation which has taken place on behalf of all, whereby he has made peace and concord to reign over the earth, even he who in all his actions brings them nigh [unto himself] by persuasion and not by force.
82. Wherefore he accepted for himself to become incarnate. Now God indeed perfected the dispensation, nor came it about by means of any other lest, when he fell into such contempt and weakness, his commandment should be considered worthy of scorn and further lest jealousy should straightway be aroused against man. But he received in his being him / who could endure every thing, and he raised up as witnesses of the humiliation of his humanity angels who should strengthen him, that none might say that it was suffering without suffering, since he strengthened it that it might not suffer, and therefore it had no reason not to obey. For everything whatsoever could without doubt be conceived or said concerning him and what he knew that people said concerning him----though they could not say it either because they feared or because they were obedient----that he did that he might leave no single cause of doubt; for they were not convinced of this mystery, but it was hidden even from principalities and authorities and from all powers and it was revealed unto them as a matter of knowledge and all of them confessed, after this explanation, the design which has done away with all designs and conquered them. And he has shown that his incarnation was a universal dispensation for all those who have been accounted equal with him in one |75 purpose and in one persuasion, to stand against the enemy of them all, whom he has driven out and whose authority he has suppressed, so that there is no more place for his deception and for his jealousy.
83 For what cause, when he defeated and convicted Satan, who is the enemy of all, he did not destroy him but allowed him again to act.69
/ And he continues to deceive that it may be made manifest for his own condemnation and that of those who are persuaded by him, though he has no more such strength for his deception; and for the sake of the victory of those who are not persuaded by him; for none will be crowned unless he strives lawfully. Therefore after the victory and after the bringing to nought of death Christ has remained [sharing] in the [same] state of life----a state of life which was brought to nought in Christ----in order that those who are in Christ might comport themselves after the likeness of Christ, not only by the grace of the Resurrection but also by the works and manner of life of each one of them; for the former is universal but the latter individual. And, that it might not be thought that the construction of the nature of Christ was unique and distinct, that it was constructed to be without sin and for that reason conquered, he brought it about that he should be conquered by many myriads, in our own nature in the state of life in which Christ [conquered], by those who keep the exact commandments in such wise that according to the law they comport themselves in the body almost after a manner of life without bodily frame; and in times of distress and afflictions and in all frailty they endure the provocations and the excitements of nature together with violent assaults from without. And thus they have conquered in all things, so that the increase of the defeat of Satan |76 becomes an increase [in the observance] of the commandments, while the latter thought that the fall of men would become much easier by an identical manner of life.
/ 84. For what reason Satan attained unto all this exaltation so as to rise up openly against God and make himself equal with God.
And therefore, as he ran to and fro, his defeat became great; and then in consequence of this he increases his wickedness and reveals it and displays an unbounded audacity in rising up openly against God and making himself comparable with God and likening himself unto his incarnation, deceiving not through anything else nor by anything else than by his own prosôpon and by a sublime deception. And because Christ had done away with the deception as touching their gods and their incantations, the former also did away with the things of the latter by deceiving. He put under his own prosôpon all things appertaining to gods and sects and incantations and other such things, of which he is the controller, for the sake of making himself great, so that he alone might be considered God. For he makes use of man as an instrument which he has drawn away and led up to boundless evil, making man even to participate in the privation of Divine knowledge, as enemies are wont to act; and of necessity and out of rage he does these things which shall be utterly undone and abolished together with all his primacy. And when it has come to an end and he has nothing else to do, it will remain / for him to pour forth all his wickedness and to be revealed to all as having fought against his Creator, in return for having made him and having given him such might and having allowed him to make use of his might, and having endured him when he fought with all these things. [But] God gathers together all those who would blot out and bring to nought his tyranny. For he has then no device which can be devised against the elect of God, since all things have been in all things fulfilled, both his deception and his evasion of the commandments, and he has been conquered in every thing, in secret and openly, |77 both as to his persuasiveness and as to all his force of which he has made use in the weakening and humiliation of the body. And he acted also in regard to the saints in like manner as he acted in regard to Christ, in order by all means to cast them into cruel distresses, but they were not conquered thereby. But in that he ceased not of himself after he was conquered by Christ nor again after he was defeated by the saints, Christ brought his primacy to an end by the death which unjustly came upon him, and it was utterly brought to nought by the death of the saints, which by audacity and improperly he brought upon them. And [God] made him submit to a just judgement for the sake of us whom unjustly he distressed and with whom he combated for our destruction, and because of all his devices and his deceptions and every kind of his ingratitude and his arrogance and his tyranny in opposition to God and to his saints. For all the time / of the long-suffering of God was given for repentance and that he might come to himself and know his folly and his boldness in things impossible.
85. What thoughts Satan thought against God, Though he was able to afflict him passibly and to win him over to the exaction of the ransom, he did this not, but let him make use of his anger as he willed; for long-suffering toward those who are envenomed by wickedness works an increase of their wickedness, so that, when they see it and are accurately convinced of it, they do the opposite to those who see it not; for there is no repressing the increase of what is wicked in those who carry out their wishes in opposition to God; for either they think concerning the long-suffering of God that, because he is unable to cast them down into sufferings, in that they possess an immortal nature, he will on this account be long-suffering with them, and for this reason they do those things which are contrary to God, or else, although they grant that he is able to do everything, they do those things which are contrary to his will, because, when he wishes it, he will of his long-suffering cause them to change from their wickedness. Since he wills this, they rise up against his will, doing this or |78 that which is contrary / to what he wills. They do not ask to have redemption by him on account of their enmity and their infinite boldness, but they embitter him exceedingly so that he destroys them, in that they ask neither to be under God nor to live. And we shall see [Satan] condemned by a condemnation apart from men in a just judgement, when he shall have neither defence nor [counter-]accusation. For God let him do everything that he willed in such wise that there is not any cause at all to rescue him; for he destroyed him not indeed in a single moment by caprice nor further did he let him go without condemnation. Since in fact God left him no single cause of deliverance, for this he prepared himself to be by all means beyond repression; as one then who is the prey of jealousy and ambition, he desists not from his jealousy till the object of his jealousy [is attained] according to his will, and he is an example to all who are ungrateful. For him and all those who after his likeness have fallen into this sickness God judges justly and examines them and condemns them in the sight of all; and they are hated by common consent, and in him [men] see all ingratitude and all boldness and arrogance and all wiles and all falsehood and all impiety which springs up and grows great and is brought to fulness, so that it cannot even receive any increase.
86. Concerning this: that at the time of condemnation Satan will be hated by all / and even by his own, in so much as he has been unto them a cause of punishment.70
For this reason all this time of long-suffering has been given unto him, and it is given unto him until the day of judgement to do whatever he will, lest there should be left unto him any cause for being able to do anything in it; but a time of long-suffering and of authority has been given unto him; and after that he will be fully judged and distinguished from the righteous together with all those who have participated with him in tyranny; by them also will he be hated and accused as having been the cause of their condemnation. As in purity of love, in word and in deeds each will love God as good and |79 just, as wise and as mighty, and as the Maker and as God, and, since they will obtain an example of just judgement without respect of persons, of the good and of the wicked, all classes of rational beings will duly learn the examination of the arguments for good and for evil, and for what reason God allows each man to choose it according to his will, and lets those who choose the good endure evils and is long-suffering toward those who have chosen the opposite thereof and who fight against his will, that they may do whatsoever they choose. And in this wise / the administration of this world is carried on: thus will it be administered by God until the end.
87. The Consummation.
And after this, seeing that everything has been well [done], we shall be in the joy of the world to come, having no cause [to fear] deprivation thereof nor that we shall have further need of instruction.
88. Concerning this: that it was needful that there should be a union of two natures, and that it was not right that it should take place otherwise.
For these reasons, then, and for similar causes, the incarnation of God took place justly: true God by nature and true man by nature. For there would not have been any [union] of these, if one of these natures had been left out. If God became not incarnate, and if he became not [incarnate] in a man [formed] of the nature of men, [it is] in fact as if it took place in deception and the truth [would be] what the words of Satan would have been, that Christ surely rejected as contemptible his [physical] formation after his image. Therefore there would have been no teaching of humility and of obedience and of condescension: that he, who when he had not taken the likeness of a servant was the similitude and the likeness of God, should be found in the likeness as a man. But there would rather be a justification of the words of Satan, who had contemned [him], because / he had seen him inferior in his nature to the image and the likeness of the honour of God. And as for all the angels, though they were |80 convinced of him as of God and were not able to dare to speak against him, this reason forced them not to blame Satan in anything [but to treat him] as one who had been cast down into sufferings which were not right for him, for the sake of the boundless honour of human nature, though he was blamed for this that he ought to have obeyed any commandment whatsoever of God. And since there was this suffering in their soul, they served him for the sake of him who commanded them, though not with a good will.
89. Concerning this: that, even if he were in the schema of a man but not in the nature of a man, the doctrine of an incarnation would not become established.
Although a man were to grant that he became incarnate, yet [in placing the Incarnation] in the schema of a man but not in the nature of a man, he would predicate the same repudiation of human nature.
90. Concerning this: that, even if he were to change his own nature into the nature of a man, the doctrine of the Incarnation would not have been established.
And even if he changed his own ousia for the ousia of a man, it seems that he would have surely repudiated the nature of a man, since he would have been in his own ousia and not in the ousia of man; for this ousia is his, not of the earth but of the nature of God the Word, and therefore / God the Word appears to have grown in wisdom in a human manner of life, so as to remain without sin as one who is a man while he is God the Word by his own ousia. Thus also he comported himself as a man though he was not man by nature but God the Word; both when he had combated and conquered the adversary and when he suffered, he who was impassible by his nature suffered, and similarly also in these other things. And even if we say that he took a man and that he changed the nature of the man into his own ousia, did he not set aside the victory of the things which are rejected, which constitute man? And for this reason he changed the nature of the flesh which was rejected for him, lest God should be abased in his |81 being in the nature of a man; and in this way neither were his manner of life and sufferings and death those of a man, nor again were they for the sake of men. And so it was no more through the death of God, nay rather, if God had been condemned to death, if he had willed to avoid it he would have set it aside without his own death rather than through a schema of death. But. since he was God and immortal, in his prosôpon which was not guilty he accepted death, that is, [accepted] the mortal and changeable [prosôpon], [so] that he was able to fight against defeat through the commandments and the observances, so that victory might fall to his image and to his likeness, that it might / be the same who accepted death as defeat and to whom [God] gave immortality as a release from guilt, in that he was preserved without stain in his own image. And as he condemned him when guilty, so also when he conquered he exalted the name which is above all names; and he obtained it not by commandments and through ordinances but by victory in his own right not to be taken away from him, just as a son, who was formerly under authority, on growing up and becoming adult, has authority to become a son, although he was already such as a son is.
91. Concerning this: that, even if any one were to grant that the union was by natural composition, or by mixture, or by confusion, or by intermingling of the natures, the doctrine of an incarnation would not have been established.
On account of this very thing, even if any one were to grant that God the Word accepted humanity in his own nature, either by mixture, or by confusion, or by participation of ousia, and sets at nought this nature of man, he shows that this human nature is to be rejected and that it could not be preserved without sin, since his nature conquered not,but he who came into being from both of them; and he shows that Satan, since he was incapable, was defeated, and [that] in having defeated at the beginning man who sinned, he defeated him who could not be without sin because he was not of the sinless nature of |82 God the Word / but of the nature of sinful man. And Satan appeared to speak with man in judgement but was surely defeated by God, of whose nature it is to be defeated of nothing. And both of these [theories] are absurd, in that he commanded Satan and man to do impossibilities. But if the things which were commanded had been possible to do and had not been observed, justly would Satan have been condemned; for, when he could obey, he obeyed not but rose up against God by means of the schema of a man and slandered God before man as jealous, and man before God as ungrateful; and he is the enemy of all and has received a just judgement and has been openly convicted. He has in fact been conquered by Christ through his humanity and by the saints, for openly he rose up and still is risen up against God, and he has shown that, if he had not been able to deceive the first man, he afterward would have fought against God openly and not in the schema of this man or that, and although he could do nothing, he had it in his intention to do whatever he desired like the Lord, as one who was in everything able to act and to persuade and to fight. And he was able to destroy him in that moment, since he was worthy of destruction. But others would not have learnt / that wickedness is powerful and extinguishes itself, unless they had by all means known that they received subjection [to God] as a grace and from this subjection obtained grace not to show themselves bold against God and thereby themselves also to be parted from God with the former. How then would he have made the Incarnation a stumbling-block by mixture, or by confusion, or by natural participation, so that he might not be supposed [to be] God nor even man, but one who is of them both and is neither simple nor undivided? So therefore he is [combined] with humanity, as a judge in a judgement and in a true trial, possessing it in his own prosôpon and [having it] obedient unto himself in everything. And it is not he who combats and is judged, but to the extent of appropriation he has |83 brought it 71 nigh unto his own image and not to the nature of the invincible and impassible ousia of the divinity. For Satan had no commission from God to make him 72 disobedient to him, but to convince God that his own man was disobedient to him. He, who in everything accepted obedience with a good intention, exalted his honour in his own image to show that he is a just judge.
92. Concerning this: that, even if one were to grant one nature by natural composition, either with flesh without soul or [in flesh] animated by an animal / soul or by a rational soul according to a natural union, the doctrine of an incarnation would not have been established.
But in this way neither those who say, as the Arians, that the flesh was united to God by a natural composition and that it suffered by natural sufferings, nor again those who say that the union took place with the rational soul and the flesh in such wise that it suffered by a natural sensibility the sufferings of the body and of the unreasonable and irrational soul, establish in truth the doctrine of the incarnation. Do they not say this, that by a deception Satan was conquered by him who had been conquered, and that the latter conquered not by his own might but had need of a champion, that is of God who created him, who fought either openly or in secret? For in that Satan, having held no contest with God, was conquered by God, he conquered by having shown unto all that the love of God toward man was unjust and that the exaltation of humanity resulted as it were in the scorn of all and the subjection and the prostration of all supremacy and all authority. Now if he sought to do that for man, he could do it even without this deception and cunning, for that which he says he also does. Nor further indeed hid he himself when he made use of this schema; for he who seeks to hide himself, so long as it escapes him not that, if discovered, he will surely be confuted, is himself / his own accuser. So they are |84 constrained to say the contrary of what they seek to say, so that they accuse God and make excuse for the evil one, and they put forth all [their] might in vain and reason contrary to the incarnation of God.73
93. Concerning this: that things which are composed in one nature [are so] either that they may be supreme or that they may be under supremacy and especially wider the soul, which is supreme in the composite nature, if God the Word is naturally composed.
Those things indeed which are composed and brought to fullness to [form] a nature [are so] either that they may be constituted chief and in control or that they may be under a chief and a controller. If then, because the rational soul is in need of being controlled, it is in need of participation in God the Word that he may be controller either of the body or of the rational or of the animal soul, then by him 74 he 75 obtained the victory, if it is fair to call victory that of another nature which is distinct and unlike and unequal to men, its companions. It seems that he acts in schema and forcibly subjects all to him[self] and brings [them] under his authority by force like God, so that he4 who was defeated by his very own choice could not escape owing to his defeat nor observe the commandments in his own nature, except by God the Word who is the conqueror for all time. It is not, in fact, / wonderful and worthy of praise that God the Word became in the body and observed all the observances of the soul and of the body. For |85 if he had not remained in his nature above the nature of the body or of the soul or of the intelligence, he would surely have been required [to do so], since the rational soul also sufficed to observe the commandments; but if the latter had not sufficed and for this reason there had been need of the incarnation of God the Word that for all he might support the sufferings of the body and of the soul and of the intelligence in a natural union which would have united the nature, he would have suffered as the body, as the soul [and] as the intelligence in the mixture. But since he was not conquered as one of them, it appears that he was outside their nature and therefore was not caught by those things whereby each one of them was caught. Together with this [there is] another absurdity which they predicate in limiting God himself by the necessity of nature and ascribing, as the Manichaeans, to hylê such might that it drags after it by authority and its own force whosoever receives it, and that he suffers in all ways the actual bodily sufferings [namely] whatever God the Word suffered when he condescended to the body and supported these bodily sufferings in his own nature when he was scourged by hunger and thirst, by the natural bonds of the body, though in his own nature he was exempt from these things; he desired and he was angered / and was fearful and was suffering, and suffered naturally all these sufferings of the body and the soul, because he was composed of [one] nature. For he, who is composed of [one] nature, of necessity adheres in the nature to all the nature's own properties, whether of a man or of God or of any other nature to which he is naturally united and combined. And however one would be willing to say that he is in nothing distinct from me, yet those who are composed of [one] nature support of necessity that nature's own proper qualities which are naturally and not voluntarily theirs. But that God ihe Word is so voluntarily and not by force: I have authority over my life, that I should lay it down and I have authority to take it again. Therefore the words of the Divine Scriptures befit not Christ in any other manner than this; but as we have |86 examined and found, all refer not to the union of the nature but to the natural and hypostatic prosôpon.76
[A selection of the footnotes has been transcribed]
1. 1 Viz. the Syriac Translator: this title is added by Bedjan.
2. 2 These lines are only fragmentarily preserved.
3. 3 Nau conjectures: [dans sa carriere] apostolique.
4. 4 Nau conjectures: dans les travaux de l'esprit; see crit. n., p. 398.
5. 5 See crit. n., p. 398.
6. 6 Literally: 'by the precedence of the parsopha (= πρόσωπον) '.
7. 7 Syr. parsopha'.
8. 8 There is a lacuna here in the text.
9. 9 Isa. v. 20 (P).
10. 2 Added by Bedjan.
11. 3 Several lines are here missing.
12. 1 There is a lacuna here in the text.
13. 2 See crit. n., p. 398.
14. 1 Syr. ' Dissertation I'.
15. 1 Literally: 'expect to accept'.
16. 2 Viz. the followers of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch in a. d. 260, condemned at the Council of Antioch, a. d. 268 (or 269). Among them, the semi-Arian Photinus was condemned in 351.
17. 4 This passage illustrates Nestorius' use of the phrase 'natural union', and explains his refusal to use that phrase to describe the relation of the two natures in Christ. A natural union comes into being where elements are combined into a whole by some external force. (This is the meaning of 'in virtue of a command'.) But the incarnation of the Word was not imposed on him from without; it was due to his own free choice, and his godhead remained a free co-operator throughout. See below, pp. 36-43, 84-86, 161, 179, 300-1, 303-4, 314.
18. 1 Nestorius' argument seems to be as follows: to speak of the Incarnation as a 'natural union' implies that union with the manhood was imposed on Christ's godhead from without, so that the godhead was imprisoned in the manhood like a criminal in gaol. This involves two impossible positions, (1) the denial of the freedom of Christ's godhead (hence the language about 'punishment'), and (a) the ascription of passibility to his godhead.
19. 1 Marginal Gloss. There was not an answer to the seventh question in the original, nor was there even a place for it.
20. 2 Sophronius. In the text Sofronyos; in the margin Sofrinos. Sophronius was a common name in the time of Nestorius; but he seems here to be simply a rhetorical figure devised by Nestorius to enable him to cast his argument in the form of a dialogue. He is used indifferently to represent any heresy. Nan (in loc.) suggests a Nestorian Bishop of Telia and a Nestorian layman of that name as possible references. Cp. Bedjan, op. cit., pp. ix, x. Cp. p. 378.
21. 3 See crit. n., p. 398,
22. 1 This passage is translated in Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching, p. 45, and referred to on p. 78 of that work.
23. 1 The importance of this point is discussed by Loofs in Nestorius and his place in the History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 126 sqq.; see also below, pp. 22-26.
24. 2 The non-possession of body or flesh (the two words seem to be interchangeable) is for Nestorius a distinctive characteristic of godhead, while the possession of body or flesh is essential to manhood. This antithesis was, of course, common to him and to his opponents, but he seems to have developed his doctrine by the strictly logical working out of such principles. They seem to be the leaven which leavens the whole lump of his thought. Cp. pp. 22, n. 2, 48.
25. 1 i. e. running water and water frozen.
26. 2 This must surely mean: 'is a change from one schema to another schema while the hypostasis remains unchanged.' The word schema seems to mean the form or appearance of a thing at any given moment, e.g. water has one schema when running and another when frozen. But prosôpon, whatever it is, must be a permanent element in the being of a thing, without which, or if it were other than it is, the thing would not be what it is. Might it be that the prosôpon is the unity of the successive schemata of a thing?
27. 2 I.e. an ousia of dust and ashes.
28. 2 Nestorius is here accused of Nestorianism, His reply is a somewhat ambiguous reference to Scripture, after which he confines himself to attacking Sophronius' position, leaving till later the task of making clear his own views. Cp. p. 47, n. 3.
29. 2 See p. 15, n. 2. Nestorius is here developing further the argument on p. 15. He has there denied that the Incarnation means merely the taking of the schema of humanity by God the Word; he now shows that it involves the taking of that schema and more. But the most important point seems to be the establishing of the fact that ousias are mutually exclusive. Henceforward this must be assumed as one of the presuppositions of Nestorius' thought. If Godhead and manhood are to be united neither of them can be the basis of the union. They must be united in some tertium quid. Cp. pp. 14, n. 2, 48, 298.
30. 1 Nau points out that the emphasis is on the otherness, not on the equality, of the added ousia. The Syriac phrase is equivalent to the Greek ισουσία.
31. 3 Nau suggests, probably rightly, that the human prosôpon is here meant.
32. 4 This heading refers to the sect mentioned at the beginning of p. 24, and should probably be transposed to the top of that page.
33. 1 Nestorius seems here to be dealing with the position afterwards held by Eutyches.
34. 1 Altering the punctuation of the Syriac text, which puts the stop after 'Manichaeans'.
35. 3 V reads: 'that which is made from that which is unmade '.
36. 2 Viz. the human ousia.
37. 1 Viz. St. Peter.
38. 6 Viz. the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
39. 3 §§ 37-41. Nestorius' argument seems to be: In whatever sense the bread becomes the Body of Christ, in that same sense we become the Body of Christ by participating in the Sacrament. Since we can only participate in a human body, the Body of Christ must have been (and be) human.
In view of the charge commonly brought against Nestorianism that it destroys the universal significance for all men of the Incarnation of Christ, it is interesting to find that he defends his own view as alone safeguarding this significance.
40. 1 The Syriac text reads 'revelation ', for which Nau suggests 'will'; but in view of later passages this seems unnecessary. Cp. e.g. pp. 60-69, 200 n. 1.
41. 2 Sc. God the Word and the Man Christ.
42. 5 If the text of this passage is right, the last words 'from no nature' must be the apodosis to the conditional clause beginning ' But if, since he wished....' The sense must be that out of something which, being incomplete, is no real nature the human nature was made by the addition of the Logos.
43. 1 The word 'soul' seems to have dropped out of the Syriac text.
44. 1 This seems to mean: If the divine nature is found in Christ in a natural union, it can only be so in virtue of having been reduced to the level of human nature. If it were remaining itself and freely co-operating of its own will, the union would be another kind of union.
45. 2 Viz. the Son.
46. 3 Viz. the Father.
47. 4 Literally: 'for you the word "union" necessarily takes the meaning of the Arians.'
48. 3 See p. 19, n. 2. Sophronius again accuses Nestorius of Nestorianism, and this time he defends himself against the charges by directly denying what is alleged against him. See especially pp. 49-50.
49. 1 Sophronius here seems to identify himself with Nestorius' point of view, but to deduce from it that he must go on to conclude that God was in Christ in the same way as in the saints. He is thus used to represent an accusation commonly brought against Nestorius by the orthodox, which Nestorius proceeds to rebut.
50. 2 This presumably means that each nature has its own hypostasis and prosôpon, (So Nau.)
51. 1 In this section Nestorius shows clearly that he is aware that in using words like 'adoption' and 'indwelling' he is in danger of being taken to teach psilanthropism, from which he is careful to distinguish his own doctrine.
52. 1 Viz. the humanity.
53. 4 If this were a definition of what it is to have the prosôpon of God, it would lay Nestorius open to the charge of being a Nestorian. But that it is not is made clear by p. 62, ll. 14-16. This sentence therefore merely states that willing the same things as God is implied in having the prosôpon of God. Cp. pp. 70, 163.
54. 1 Sc. the man Jesus.
55. 5 In this section Nestorius develops the idea that the Incarnation took place for the purpose of revelation, an idea very prominent in his thought. Cp. p. 34, n. 1, and references there. The section is also an important one for the determination of the meaning of prosôpon.
56. 1 Only isolated words and letters have been preserved in the next five lines of the Syriac text.
57. 2 Bethune-Baker discusses the references of the pronouns in this passage in Nestorius and his Teaching, p. 126.
58. 1 From the next section it is clear that the victory was that of the Temptation.
59. 1 Viz. the devil.
60. 2 There is here a short lacuna in the text.
61. 4 This passage is obscure, but possibly refers to such charges as casting out devils through Beelzebub; threatening the Temple; and blasphemy. Cp. Mark iii. 22; xiv. 56-64.
62. 3 At the end of his work Nestorius claims that the Church finally approved a doctrine which was what he had always taught: cp. p. 378. It is in passages such as this that his orthodox intention is most clear. Though he never speaks totidem verbis of one persona or one u9po/stasij in Christ, he seems to be asserting what that terminology was meant to express. Cp. further pp. 246-9, 312-5.
63. 1 Nestorius apparently follows the legend that when the angels were ordered to serve the later creation, man, some of them fell into jealousy and became his enemies. Nau refers to the version in the seventh century Nestorian Patriarch George, in Chabot. Synodes Nestoriens (Notices et Extraits xxxvii. 495).
64. 1 Viz. man.
65. 2 Viz. Satan's.
66. 6 Nestorius here seems to teach that the union in the Incarnation was so close as to exclude the possibility of sin. Cp. p. 63.
67. 1 Literally: 'he changed our death into the death which....' Nestorius' theology of the Atonement is somewhat obscure. He seems here to teach in accordance with the line of thought which looks on the death of Christ as a ransom paid to the devil. Cp. p. 173. But see pp. 45 (propitiation), 63-3, 183, 205, 212 ff. (renewing of fallen human nature), 66-7 (conquest of Satan). And cp. pp. 75, n. 1, 84, n. 2.
68. 2 Literally: ' into the midst'.
69. 1 Three points of importance in Nestorius' theology of the Atonement seem here to emerge: (i) the universality of God's grace in atonement, (ii) the need of its individual appropriation by men, and (iii) the reality of Christ's moral struggle as man.
70. 1 This and the next two sections show clearly Nestorius' thought on the problem of reconciling God's omnipotence with the existence of evil.
71. 1 Viz. the humanity.
72. 2 Viz. Christ incarnate.
73. 2 Cp. p. 73, n. 1. Here we seem to find that although Nestorius looks on the death of Christ as ransoming mankind from the devil, yet he rejects certain ways of explaining that theory of the Atonement. Is it not possible that he is denying such a doctrine as is found extant in Gregory the Great (Moralia xxxii. 12-xxxiii. 6), where the devil is cheated through ignorance of the Crucified being divine and therefore immortal? Nestorius argues that the Cross must be a real moral victory by the Man, not an unexpected triumph by a concealed deus ex machina. Such a triumph would really mean the defeat of mankind. The individual humanity of Christ might have been exalted, but the devil's fetters would be rivetted on the rest of mankind. It is interesting that according to the traditional account of Nestorius' teaching he is himself open to precisely this charge.
74. 3 Viz. God the Word.
75. 4 Viz. The Man Christ.
76. 1 This must surely mean that in considering each passage of Scripture we have to ask to which of the two natures in Christ it is appropriate; then the passage is to be referred to the prosôpon which belongs to that nature and hypo-stasis. Each passage thus refers to a ' natural and hypostatic prosôpon '. (Cp. pp. 54, 316 sqq.) The two 'natural and hypostatic prosôpa' then somehow combine to form the one prosôpon of the union.
Professor Bethune-Baker's interpretation of this passage in Nestorius and his Teaching, p. 99, seems to require an unjustified identification of prosôpon in Nestorius with 'person' in the modern sense of the word, and does not seem to be borne out by Nestorius' usage and argument in other passages.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_2_book _part .htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.87-95. Book 1 Part 2.
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.87-95. Book 1 Part 2.
BOOK I. PART II.
Concerning the Faith.
Sophronius says: Because then many accept the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen which was laid down at Nicaea, both persons who believe in various ways and those who understand the Divine Scriptures some in one way and some in another and in various ways He was made flesh and was made man may it please thy Reverence to pass [in review] their intentions and their opinions; and do thou write and make known unto me how it appears unto thee and what thou dost approve as well-pleasing, and give no cause to them that seek cause to calumniate thee.
Nestorius. 1. [Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men. And, as he appeared unto each one of the saints, so in the last times he appeared unto all men.
2. But others say that the divine ousia became flesh, so that it should become in its own ousia the ousia of the flesh for the nature of men, and that he should comport himself and suffer and set our nature free. For he who became man not in his own ousia but in schema, has surely not set us free but has surely deceived us, since he appeared in schema and to suffer for our sakes without having suffered.
/ 3. Others again confess that God was made flesh in the flesh as a complement of nature instead of the soul. He was made flesh naturally in the flesh to work and to suffer, and he naturally endured all the natural sufferings of the body, being by his nature impassible but by a natural incarnation passible, |88 even as the soul, which by its nature suffers not the sufferings of the body nor is pained nor hungers, through a natural economy suffers naturally the sufferings of the body, being united with it naturally, that he may naturally comport himself and suffer on our behalf. And not in fiction and in schema or by any other nature but by his own nature he has set us free from death and corruption.
4. But others confess that in body and in soul he was made flesh for the completion of the nature and that God the Word was instead of an intelligence, so as to be instead of an intelligence in the nature in the body and in the soul, and to comport himself in the nature of men and to suffer on our behalf. For he came to suppress that intelligence which transgressed the commandment and obeyed not God and to be instead of intelligence in the soul and in the body, and not in a schema without hypostasis nor in another nature nor again in a bodily frame without a soul.
5. But others [confess] as touching that flesh wherein God the Word was made flesh that he was made flesh, animate flesh, that felt not in its nature / and understood not through the soul but understood and felt by the activity of God the Word. In God the Word this soul felt and also understood, and the body was a natural instrument; and they divide not Christ into instrument and workman, since the instrument and the workman act together.
6. But others confess two natures in Christ before the union and that each of the natures should be conceived in its own nature: God the Word on the one hand in the Father and in the Holy Spirit and men in the flesh; but after the union [they are] not conceived as two natures in virtue of being united in ousia; and one [ousia] results from the two of them. They change them from nature to nature in such wise that the same is literally man and God, so that God comports himself as a man and dies for us as God and rises by his own might.
7. But others say of the incarnation of our Lord [that it |89 was in] an animate flesh in a rational and intelligent soul, complete in its nature and in its might and in its natural activities, and not in schema nor in a change of ousia nor again for the natural completion of the nature of the body and of the soul, or of the intelligence, or [that it was] mingled into one nature out of two of them or that they were changed from the one into the other, or / that [it took place] for the completion of the natural activities in such wise that the flesh should not act in its own nature; but [it was in] one prosôpon of both natures, both of them maintaining the properties of their own natures; and the ousia of the divinity remains and suffers not when it is in the ousia of the flesh, and the flesh again remains in the ousia of the flesh when it is in the nature and in the prosôpon of the divinity; for the body is one and both of them [are] one Son. For no other is called God the Word in the flesh apart from him who is in our own flesh; nor again [is anything else called] the flesh, but it is in the Son, in God the Word: that he should comport himself completely in the nature of men being man, and that he should rise as God being God by nature, that he in consequence of sinlessness and of having observed [the commandments] should be delivered to death for our salvation, that he might preserve the likeness of his own image. In order then to become so, he took not for [his] likeness a name which is more excellent than all names that the nature of men might be exalted; for the honour and exaltation has not been given to an ousia which henceforward is not of man but of God the Word. Our own nature has been honoured in another nature and not in our own nature; for the exaltation of our own nature to a name which is more excellent than all names belongs generally to that nature which is the |90 exaltation of one who remains in his own ousia and can be that which / is in the ousia of God the Word; this in fact is properly the exaltation, like which there is not [any other]. For the change of ousia into ousia is the suppression of that ousia which ought to be exalted, and also of its own, of the exaltation; 1 and there has been no more condescension of God the Word when once he is changed into the ousia of the flesh, because he is not the nature which is capable of condescending but is that which has condescended. As a king, if he becomes one of the subjects, is said to condescend though he is truly king, and on account of the clothes of subjects which he has put on is said to have surely condescended; in place of his own he has made use of those of the latter in schema, in such wise that, as those who are under the law of administrators, so will he be voluntarily under the law though he is their own king, [and king] of the administrators and of their lords. For there is no more an exaltation in being exalted to his own nature, but in giving him what he had not, not in taking away from him what he had. For if exaltation and humiliation belong to that which was and which originally was, humiliation belongs to this nature which was and which originally was. Of whom is the exaltation? First he said the ousia which was exalted and afterwards that name wherein it is exalted, / which is above all names. For if thou takest away the ousias which accept humiliation and exaltation, there is no ousia which has been humiliated. Therefore he said he humiliated himself in reference to a voluntary union, the incarnation and the kind of humiliation which he showed when he took the likeness of a servant, and again that which took place resulted in a voluntary and not a natural [union]; in schema he was found as a man, not in ousia; for in the likeness of God [was] the likeness of the servant. The likeness of God was in schema as a man, for God was in his own ousia, in such wise that it was conceived also as an humiliation in him that he took the likeness of a servant, and as an exaltation in the likeness of the |91 servant that it took a name which is more excellent than all names, and [so that] it was not conceived as a change of ousia either into an ousia or into a natural composition of one nature, but as being a voluntary [union], as [being] one in humiliation and in exaltation; for that of nature is passible and changeable, since it is a nature created and made, not uncreated nor unmade nor unchangeable nor immutable.
Consequently this man 2 has attributed nothing in the Incarnation to the conduct of the man but [all] to God the Word, in such wise that he made use of the nature of humanity for his own conduct. So Arius and Eunomius and Apollinarius say therefore that Christ is God in name but in reality deprive him / of being God, in ascribing those things in him which are human in nature to his own ousia, and suppress the genealogy of the family of Christ and the promises made to the patriarchs, of whose seed arose the Christ after the flesh. Therefore the Evangelists record all those things which in truth show the nature of man, lest on account of the divinity it should not be believed that he was also man nor be believed together with this that it was he who was affirmed by the promises. Therefore the Blessed Mary was recorded as a woman who was betrothed to a man, of whom he 3 has written both his name and his race and his trade and his place, in order that there might be nothing to raise a doubt leading to disbelief that she was a woman. Therefore also [he wrote] of his low estate and with all these things also of the annunciation of his conception and of his birth and of the manger, to make known him who was born together with her who bore him, that it might be affirmed that he is truly man, of [his] sleeping in the manger, of the swathing in swaddling bands such as are natural to infants, of the offerings which were offered for him for his progress, of his increase in stature and in wisdom with God and with men, of his manner of life in the world, of his observances, of his submission, of the prayers which he prayed, of all his fulfilment of the law, of the baptism and of the saying which was |92 said of him, that he / who from the womb was son by union was the Son, of the witness to the observance of the customs, of the word of the Father, of the appearance of the Holy Spirit, of his dispensation with all zeal on our behalf, not in illusion nor in the schema of a man but in the human nature [formed] of the body of a man and a rational soul which thinks and reflects in the nature of men, that it may have everything which is in the nature of man without being deprived of the union with God the Word. For the union of the natures resulted not in [one] nature or in a confusion or in a change or in a change of ousia, either of divinity into humanity or of humanity into divinity, or in a mixture of natures or in the composition of one nature, being mixed and suffering together with one another in the natural activities of natures which are naturally constituted.4
For they suppress all these things through the natural and hypostatic union and they take everything which is in his nature and attribute them naturally unto God the Word: the human fear and the betrayal, the interrogation, the answer, the smiting upon the cheeks, the sentence of the cross, the way thereto, the setting of the cross upon his shoulder, the bearing of his cross, the removal [of it] from him that it might be set on another, the crown of thorns, the robes of purple, / the raising up of the cross, the crucifixion, the fixing of the nails, the gall which was offered unto him, the other distresses, the surrender of his spirit to the Father, the bowing down of his head, the descent of his body from the cross, the embalming thereof, his burial, the resurrection on the third day, his appearance in his body, his speaking and his teaching that they should not suppose him to be an illusion of the body but truly body which had also flesh. Because he was not by illusion and by deception a body and a soul but in truth all that by nature, there was nothing that was hid.
All the human things, which now men are ashamed to predicate of him, the Evangelists were not ashamed to predicate, those which without being ashamed they 5 make over to |93 the divine nature through the union of the natural hypostasis: God suffering the sufferings of the body because he is naturally united in nature, thirsting, hungering, in poverty, in anxiety, meditating, praying so as both to conquer human things wherein he was naturally suffering and to fight against the nature of men, [they / claim this] so as to bring to nought our glory and to bring to nought our salvation. And the properties of God the Word they set at nought and make them human; he would have acted naturally in nature and suffered in the sensibility of nature, accepting sufferings in his own ousia naturally, as the body [accepts those] of the soul and the soul [those] of the body. / Surely it is an awful and dreadful thing to conceive this and to tell men what and what sort of thoughts they have concerning the Son, that he is both made and created and that he has been changed from impassible to passible and from immortal to mortal and from unchangeable to changeable. Although one would make him the ousia of the angels and without suffering and say that he operated not by his nature nor by his activity nor by his might, but by that which he became, would he escape withal from suffering sufferings? But it is not possible for one who is naturally united to escape; for if he were not naturally to suffer the sufferings of the body, he would suffer them as the soul instead of the soul, because he is instead of the soul which reflected not as intelligence and whose in its reflection he was instead of intelligence. And he was in schema and by means of the schema of a man he deceived, as though he had the things of the soul and of the body and of the intelligence and these were void of operation by their nature.
But by those who pass for orthodox these things are said, that he is of the very nature of the Father, impassible and without needs and unchangeable and immutable, and then, as the Jews mocked, calling him Christ, and surely crucified him, / so also the former attribute unto him in word a nature unchangeable, impassible and without needs, and they ascribe unto him all sufferings and every need of the body and make over all the things of the soul and the intelligence to God the Word in |94 virtue of an hypostatic union. And, like those who change him from his nature, at one time they call him now impassible and immortal and unchangeable, and afterwards they prohibit him from being then called immortal and impassible and unchangeable, being angry against any one who repeatedly calls God the Word impassible. Once thou hast heard; it is then enough for thee. And they predicate two whole natures of the divinity and of the humanity and they predicate a change of natures by union, attributing nothing either to the humanity or to the divinity in making over the things of humanity to the nature and those of the divinity to the nature. And they preserve not even the things which belong to the divinity by nature, in making God the Word of two ousias in nature; and they dissemble the man and all that is his own, on whose account the Incarnation took place and in whom it took place and through whom we have been released from the captivity of death. And they make use indeed of the name of orthodox, but in fact they are Arians. And thereby they misrepresent the fullness of God the Word, by all the human things of nature which they predicate of him as the result of the union of the natural hypostasis, that he might comport himself and suffer naturally in all / human things. He made use of humanity not that it might comport itself and suffer for our sakes, but that God the Word might comport himself not in the prosopon but in the nature, for the union in prosôpon is impassible; and this is [the opinion] of the orthodox; but one which is passible is the fabrication of heretics against the nature of the only Son. Each man comes with whatever he will; for unavoidably one arrives at the opinion of the orthodox and not at the blasphemy of heretics. He 6 has irreverently written all those things that he has wished in favour of the hypostatic union in his own Articles 7 and much has been written thereon by many. We too ought not to make our book endless in busying ourselves with things that are evident, but above all we ought to reveal unto all men such increase little by little of impiety. Because I have shown |95 this beforehand, I have not renounced the just course of the orthodox nor shall I renounce it until death; and although they all, even the orthodox, fight with me through ignorance and are unwilling to hear and to learn from me, yet the times will come upon them when they will learn from those who are heretics while fighting against them how they have fought against him who fought on their behalf. 8
1. 1 Perhaps an accidental transposition in the order of the words, for which 'of its own exaltation' should be read.
2. 3 Viz. Cyril.
3. 5 Viz. the Evangelist.
4. 1 According to the Syriac punctuation the full stop and new paragraph come at 'God the Word' above.
5. 2 Viz. the opponents of Nestorius.
6. 2 Viz. Cyril.
7. 3 The twelve anathematisms attached to the third letter to Nestorius.
8. 1 There is here a lacuna in the Syriac text, followed by a fragment (Syr., pp. 137-46), which seems to be misplaced, being apparently the beginning of Bk. II, Sect. 1. The present editors have therefore followed Nau in continuing here from p. 146 of the Syriac text and in placing pp. 137-46 after p. 270.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_3_book _part .htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 96-130. Book 1. Part 3.
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 96-130. Book 1. Part 3.
BOOK I. PART III.
WICKEDLY thou hast separated off a party and there was not any one to contend / against me; on my account thou hast obtained by [thine] authority the documents from a number of bishops, every one [of whom] was as one dumb and deaf. Thou hast assembled a company of monks and of those who are named bishops for the chastisement and disturbance of the church, and there is none of the chiefs who has hindered [it] that it might be prevented. An assembly such as this which was sent came and appeared as a guard against me in the Imperial Palace. Thou hast all the support of the Empire, whereas I [have] only the name of the Emperor, not [indeed] to overpower [you] nor to guard [me] nor for my own help, but rather as if to [ensure] my obedience. Because indeed I made not use of the support of the church nor of the support of the chief men nor of the support of the Empire, I am come to this extremity. But I, who had the chief men and the Emperor and the episcopate of Constantinople, I, who had been long-suffering unto heretics, was harassed by thee so as to be driven out; and thou wast bishop of Alexandria and thou didst get hold of the church of Constantinople----a thing which the bishop of no other city whatsoever would have suffered, though one wished to judge him in judgement and not with violence. But I have endured all things while making use of persuasion and not of violence / to persuade the ignorant; and I looked for helpers, not for those who contend in fight and cannot be persuaded.
You have further with you against me a contentious woman, a princess, a young maiden, a virgin,1 who fought against me |97 because I was not willing to be persuaded by her demand that I should compare a woman corrupted of men to the bride of Christ. This I have done because I had pity on her soul and that I might not be the chief celebrant of the sacrifice among those whom she had unrighteously chosen. Of her I have spoken only to mention [her], for she was my friend;2 and therefore I keep silence about 3 and hide everything else about her own little self, seeing that [she was but] a young maiden; and for that reason she fought against me. And here she has prevailed over my might but not before the tribunal of Christ where all [will be] laid bare and revealed before the eyes of him in whose presence our judgement and theirs will come in the days that have been appointed by him. But I return again to that point to....4 I shall meet Apollinarius and his dogma. What he holds thou knowest not. However to those who know not I say: Him 5 he confesses consubstantial with the Father and thereby he obtains the impression that he agrees with the Divine Scriptures. It is not possible to see his [views] exactly. In that, in fact, the Son is consubstantial with God the Father, he disputes / against the Anomoeans and is ignorant that he initiates a dispute against the orthodox on [the point] that he is not consubstantial. But he distorts it, [as may be seen] from this, since he says that there is a union of the nature of God the Word and of the flesh, as he has learned from the Arians, he agrees with that which the Arians say, that the Son is not like the Father in nature, in that he confesses that he suffered the sufferings of the body by natural sensibility; for the same could not be by nature impassible and passible, even though he were to unite a soul without intelligence to the body, for he is united to the nature in the body as well as in the soul and he suffers in very |98 nature his own natural sufferings of the nature. Although they speak of mixture and change and composition and the completion of the nature, in every case they bring it to this very thing: for he who suffers in the natural union is not the same in ousia as he who accepts not sufferings; but, in consequence of the natural union, he also falls under sufferings, for he is the nature in which he has become through natural union. But he disputes against Paul 6 and Photinus, in that he is the Word in nature and in hypostasis and is eternal; but he erred in referring the things of the body to God the Word by a natural union. For in that he disputed against the Anomoeans, [saying] that the Son is consubstantial with God the Father, and against Photinus and Paul,6 / [saying] that he is by nature and hypostasis homoousian with the Father, unwittingly he was accounted as [one of] the orthodox; nevertheless by not having applied that which was befitting but, like an enemy, having brought to naught even that which was well said, he pulled down that which he was supposed to be building upon the faith.
And further he disputes on these two points with those who confess rightly, as though he was in charge of the company of the orthodox, and he exerted himself to bring his error into the church, and he has introduced controversy. Now this question came not about in the East and had long since vanished from the church which I found in Constantinople; and it began not in my days either in Constantinople or in the East, for I had not yet been born when the question arose concerning these things and was settled; and again the inquiry received not [its origin] in Constantinople from my words but in the time of my predecessors. Why then dost thou calumniate me, saying 'He has posed this inquiry', and call me an inventor of novelties and a cause of disturbance and war, me who have posed absolutely no such inquiry but, to be sure, found it in Antioch? And there I taught and spoke concerning these things and no man blamed me, / and I supposed that this dogma had long been repudiated.7 But |99 in Constantinople, when I found that men were inquiring and in need of being taught, I yielded to their persuasion as the truth required. For factions of the people who were questioning this came together to the bishop's palace, having need of a solution of their question and of arriving at unanimity. Those on the one hand who called the blessed Mary the mother of God they called Manichaeans, but those who named the blessed Mary the mother of a man Photinians....8 But when they were questioned by me, the former denied not the humanity nor the latter the divinity, but they confessed them both alike, while they were distinct only in name: they of the party of Apollinarius accepted 'Mother of God' and they of the party of Photinus 'Mother of man'. But after I knew that they disputed not in the spirit of heretics, I said that neither the latter nor the former were heretics, [the former] because they knew not Apollinarius and his dogma, while similarly the latter [knew] the dogma neither of Photinus nor of Paul.9 And I brought them back from this inquiry and from this dispute, saying that: 'If indistinguishably and without extrusion or denial of the divinity and of the humanity we accept what is said by them, / we sin not; but if not, let us make use of that which is very plainly [affirmed], that is, of the Word of the Gospel: Christ was born and the Book of the generation of Jesus Christ. And by things such as these we confess that Christ is God and man, for of them 10 was born in flesh Christ, who is God above all. 'When you call her the Mother of Christ, [Christ] by union and inseparate, you speak of the one and of the other in the sonship. But make use of that against which there is no accusation in the Gospel and settle this dispute among you, making use of a word which is useful toward agreement.' When they heard these things, they said: 'Before God has our inquiry been solved.' And many praised and gave glory and went away from me and remained in agreement until |100 they fell into the snare of those who were seeking for the episcopate.
Now the clergy of Alexandria, who were in favour of his 11 deeds, persuaded them [of Constantinople] as persons deceived that they should not accept the word 'Mother of Christ', and they were stirring up and making trouble and going around in every place and making use of everything as a help therein; for his clergy were sending word unto him, so that he also became their helper in / everything, because long since he had been wounded by me; and he was in need of an excuse, because he had not been helped with what are called 'benevolences ': and he was frightened of me because I had not helped his clergy. For report went out concerning me and grew strong, that I was neglecting----which I was not----him who was being injured. If the report is true or if it is false is clear unto God. It stirred up, however, the accusers of this man 1 and made them take heart to utter against him before the Emperor charges that should and that should not be said, uttering [them] and asking for me to be judge. But because they were sent unto me and I had no cause to decline, I sent for his clergy, demanding to be informed what the matter was. But they grew angry, saying: 'Thou admittest every accusation against the patriarch and punishest not forthwith without examination the accusers as calumniators. Knowest thou also surely all these things, that it is easy for them in this way to accuse....12 of Alexandria; not without constraint have we taken away from thee such authority, for it would be nothing else than an incitement to bitterness in accusation, so long as it were advantageous unto thee to keep him as thy good [and] loving friend and not to have him as thine / enemy, [even] him who is renowned for greatness and who is among the great.' Then I said unto them: 'I have not any need of affection which would make me guilty of injustice, but [only] of that which works the things of God without acceptance of persons.' This I said, and they said unto me: |101 'We will make this known then unto the patriarch'; and since then he has been mine enemy without reconciliation and has been ready for anything. And first he brought about a cause of enmity that he might renounce me as an enemy and, according to his custom, make use of fraud against his accusers and draw a veil over the accusations against him; and thus he, who had preferred a request that the judgement should be entrusted to others, did this. And you have learnt from this that the things which I have said unto you are true and not trifles. What he sent to his clergy who were meddling in my affairs in Constantinople is clear unto all men.
The letter of Cyril to his clergy in Constantinople.13
I have received and read the copy of the request which has been sent by you, as one which ought to be given to the Emperor and which you did not want to forward / without my consent. But since there are therein many accusations against one who is there, if he is a brother and if it is right that we ought to call him such, forward it not at the present time, lest he rise up against you and state before the Emperor my accusation [of him] as an heretic.14 But otherwise at the same time as you renounce his judgement, you shall state also the nature of his enmity, and, if they are utterly roused up [to proceed] to judgement, you shall forward it to other chief men.
Nestorius. On account of these things this man became my enemy. But hear thou also the rest of the letter that you may see that he was acting not for God nor for the fear of God nor for the faith, but on the contrary, although he knew the faith, he passed over it because of his enmity |102 toward me; and he disturbed and troubled everything in order that....15 these things of his might vanish and be dispersed.
The rest of the letter of Cyril.16
Read then the copy, and its return......17 use; and if you see that he continues to wrong us, truly stirring up every kind [of trouble] against us, zealously inform us, that I may choose some pious bishops / and monks and send them in good time. For I shall not give sleep unto mine eyes, as it is written, nor slumber unto mine eyelids nor rest unto my temples so long as I strive in the contest which is for the salvation of all.
Nestorius. You have heard clearly how he has confessed, even without any schema; he supposes it in fact a wrong that there is any investigation against him; if I stir not up trouble against him to do him wrong, he also will not stir up trouble against me and he is striving in a contest for the salvation of all. But I am friendly and pious and blameless towards him in everything; but if for the sake of a just judgement I disregard thy 18 blaming thou then becomest embittered and callest me impious and an heretic. And thou callest up bands of monks and bishops and sendest [them] against me to the Emperor, and they accuse me, while thou art striving for thine own salvation and not for the contest of all, but rather in a contest against the salvation of all. And thou hast troubled and confounded and deceived all; and thus hast thou persuaded them to become thine instrument[s] of wrong, in |103 order that they may neither see nor hear nor be convinced, although one should tell them myriads of times that thou busiest thyself to do these things not for the salvation of all but that thou mayest escape from thine accusers. For what enmity have I with thee, that thou dost suppose / that I do these things to wrong thee? For I have had no word with thee concerning anything, neither concerning things nor concerning possessions nor concerning judgement nor concerning [any] comparison nor about any other cause, neither before I became nor after I became bishop of Constantinople; but in all things were we distinct from one another, as Alexandria is distant from Constantinople, and the interests of the latter are distinct from those of the former. But there was one cause, which even he himself has clearly proclaimed: that I have not helped thee to rise up against thine accusers, whether they be truthful or not. Seeing then that thou art thus perplexed and hast thus made thyself ready, it is known that they are right. For thereby alone is this to be known, [and so] thou 19 mayest know that the enmity is his who is prepared for all these things; but also [thou mayest know it] from his letter unto me.
The letter of Cyril unto Nestorius.20
Our colleague, Nestorius, the reverend and godly, Cyril greets in our Lord. Some men, beloved and worthy of belief, have come unto Alexandria and have made known that your Holiness has been much angered against us and has stirred up all that was fair 21 in order to afflict us. / When I wished to learn the affliction of your Piety, they said |104 that a letter had come to some holy monks, and men from Alexandria were carrying it around, and that it was the cause of this hatred and affliction. I then was astonished that your Piety had not considered further; for no letter had formerly been written by us before the disturbance which took place concerning the faith. But whether things were said or were not said by your Piety we are not persuaded. There are in any case pamphlets on doctrine which certain men carry round, and we are wearied with making inquiry with a view to setting right those things which are distorted.
Nestorius. This is the first letter of friendship which was written to me; and learn therefrom whatsoever had been previously deposed against me. Tell the cause for which thou hast spoken: 'this disturbance arose concerning my teaching, so that our works when read stirred up all Alexandria as well as all the monks of Egypt.' But I leave out both Rome and the cities which are under her; 'and I stirred up all the rest of the East,' so that thou wast constrained to compose the letter to the monks so that from there thy letter was dispatched also unto me in order that I might be afflicted thereby; thou knewest indeed that I was afflicted. Wherefore didst thou not write first unto me a letter of friendship, / which would have instructed me concerning the disturbance and concerning the cause of the disturbance and concerning its cessation, as a friend unto a friend, or as unto a bishop or as unto a brother, or as on account of a stumbling-block in the church, or as though thou wert convinced that the teachings were mine own, or as though thou hadst not known and hadst required to be instructed and wouldest have parted company with blasphemy and impiety or wouldest have counselled me what ought to be done? But thy letters against us [were conveyed] to Alexandria and disturbed the monks, and they reached also Constantinople, and thou hast filled all the churches and all the monasteries with disturbance against me, so that even the unfeeling have been roused to feeling; but wouldest thou have wished that I should not be stirred? For what reason were these things, unless thou wert working and |105 making ready with all zeal to bring about enmity? For thou wrotest unto me a hostile letter which testified unto me that thou wast mine enemy, and not mine alone, since also thou hast divided and removed far from me whosoever rejoiced in disturbance; and others also there are whom thou hast withdrawn from me, either because of their lack of feeling or because of their ignorance or because of their simplicity without discernment; thou hast stirred them up / in order that under pretext of their souls thou mightest show thyself zealous to set them aright, because thou hadst pleasure in them, or that either I might desist from listening to thine accusers and those who were ready to accuse thee, who were already armed against thee, since, if that were to come about, it would then be easy for thee to do whatsoever thou wouldest in regard to the possessions, or otherwise in oppressing me thou wouldest make believe that for the sake of the fear of1 God I was thine enemy and that for this cause I had declined mine office as judge. And this is not hidden but is evident unto all men and is spread abroad unto every place in consequence of that enmity which thou hast brought about, because thou didst want all men as witnesses; though indeed I say not anything nor blame any of the things that thou hast prepared. Every man is entitled to receive instruction. For also thou art risen against me as against an impious man and thou art bringing about every disturbance and every stumbling-block; yet thou dost consider all this as nothing and makest ready easy solutions, saying 'let us show kindliness and say this word whereat the Church has stumbled, that is, call the blessed Mary the mother of God'. For he says not 'thou art obliged' but 'thou wilt show kindliness': not on account of that very thing but on account of those who because of their weakness were not able to examine those things which were said by thee and who stumbled................... /........... saying....................... 22 |106
Sophronius. But we became worn out with waiting, since many were dead or sick and in want of many things, and thus we were constrained to assemble together and to lay down conclusions.
Nestorius. How long? say I. Until you had done those things wherewith you were engaged and labouring and [concerning which] you were afraid lest all the Council should be [assembled] and your judgement should be seen? Until then you were sick and dying and you were unable to take nourishment; but afterwards how remained you a long while without enduring any of these things, unless because you were free from the care of these things? For this reason you have disregarded and disdained Candidianus who would have hindered an incomplete Council from being [held]. For you had the strength to do these things, without having convinced by those means whereby you might have succeeded in convincing those who are not believers; and you have accounted as nothing the testimony and the oaths before God and before the Emperor whereby you have sworn to do nothing but to wait for the Eastern Council / which was nigh at hand. For there were some who were persuading the Emperor, and you did not keep the word of God. And then before the command of Candidianus you heard the testimony which the bishops who were not assembled in your incomplete Council addressed to you; they were sixty-eight in number, nor were any of them contemptible nor unknown,23 but [they were] metropolitans; and Candidianus also came with them and had testified beforehand unto them concerning the things which had lately been done.
Testimony of the bishops who did not associate themselves with Cyril.24
The faith indeed of the true religion is known first from the preaching of many holy books and [then] by the |107 assembly at Nicaea of the holy fathers, on whose limbs were the scars of sufferings according to their number. But by reason of diverse inquiries and disputes the faithful and very Christian 25 Emperor has summoned by his letters the priesthood of the orthodox from every place unto Ephesus, being zealous in this also, according to his custom, out of enthusiasm for the truth's sake, and we are all assembled by the grace of God, except that there is lacking unto our assembly the holy and godly John, bishop of Antioch, / whose coming also is close at hand, as his letters, which have just been written unto us, and the governor [and] the prefects, who have been sent by us unto him, have made known unto us, and other godly bishops from the West. But your Reverence has made known unto us that it is burdensome unto you to attend here and that you are anxious to hold any examination which the Emperor wills even before the coming of the godly bishops whom we have mentioned. For this reason we have sent this letter unto your Reverence that you |108 should await the coming of the excellent bishops our colleagues and that you should not receive at haphazard any whose deposition has been enacted nor those who have been or are coming under sentence of suspension from their bishoprics. For it is known what the holy canons ordain on this account, and those who transgress them are condemned to no slight punishment, which cannot by any means be transgressed by the Holy Council. May your Reverence then know also this, that everything which is done in boldness by bold men will be found to recoil on your boldness through Christ the Lord of all and through the holy canons. / Signature of the bishops.
Nestorius. But read also the admonition which was given by the illustrious Candidianus, Count of the Household, that you may learn also from this the violence which they wrought irreverently and shamelessly and that he 26 may no longer deceive [you]. But after the testimony of the bishops who took as their plea the [fact that] they to be sure were in difficulties in that the bishop of Antioch together with the Eastern bishops was close upon coming at the gate as the governors who were sent to their provinces who reported these things learned from the letters of John----when they heard [the testimony] they made disturbance as with one accord, crying out and shouting and hurling insults, in order to bring forth the bishops who had been sent unto them and to cast them out, so that even the blows with which they attacked them were heard by Count Candidianus. But after they had so reverently driven them out, they returned against him that they might capture him, laying hands upon those who in consequence of hunger and sickness were not able to stand up, and they heard not the things which he spake unto them nor even the letters of the Emperor which were |109 sent unto them all! / And he commanded them that the Council should not be [held] incomplete, but [that] the things which were [done] by the Council should be settled in common by vote. But, like a wise man in the midst of fools, he seemed surely to have become a fool in saying that, for they were not willing to hear. He commanded them to read this imperial command before them, which ought not to have been read before all the bishops had been assembled. When he had done this, account was kept of nothing.27
Of the contents of the letter, which were as follows:
We have commanded Candidianus, the illustrious Count, to come unto your holy Council, without participating at all in those things concerning which inquiry takes place among you, since we have thought that he who is not accounted of the assembly of the bishops ought not to interfere in an inquiry touching ecclesiastical regulations and in an inquisition concerning the faith.
He said not, in fact, that he should not participate in the assembly but in an inquisition touching the faith, being ordered not to allow the Council to be [held] incomplete before the assembly of all the bishops took place. Because then he was constrained to read this----it ought not to have been read before the coming of all the bishops----they drove out him who came from / this side with much outcry and hisses and threats that he should be delivered unto death if he participated in the common inquisition of the Council. And they then named themselves authoritatively a general Council, for that those who were present were to be sure so many; and those who had not participated with them in the inquisition testified unto them, saying unto them: 'we ought to wait for those whose coming is close at hand'----that is, for the chief of the Council. And that the Count who had been charged with the maintenance of order among them might not participate with them, they said that he |110 should not be present at the inquiry touching the faith nor at the inquisition touching ecclesiastical things. But in everything they were acting by their own authority and were not obeying the imperial command which made known clearly unto them that he had been sent for this reason, that he might check the disturbances and the dissensions which were taking place. But hear also the letters of the Emperor which were sent by the hand of Candidianus.
From the writ 28 of the Emperor.29
Previously indeed we have written what was right, that your Piety should be assembled in the city of the Ephesians; but since it is right to provide also for the maintenance of order in the deliberation which will take place in your assembly concerning the inquiry for which you are assembled, / this also we have not overlooked but have admonished you to be in all things untroubled; and we are persuaded that your Piety is not in need of external assistance that you may be zealous for peace; but this has been our [duty], not to be neglectful in solicitude for an inquiry touching |111 the truth, that is to send Count Candidianus to your Council, without participating at all in those things concerning which inquiry takes place among you; since we have thought that he who is not accounted of the assembly of the bishops ought not to interfere in an inquiry touching ecclesiastical ordinances and in an inquisition concerning the faith; but he will expel from the city those seculars and monks who are there assembled for this purpose and are with you, because such men ought not to be found in your assembly, lest they excite disturbance and thereby make void whatsoever you duly examine and rightly do. He will be careful too that no one shall introduce division so as to cause dispute, lest from this cause your inquiry and the sincerity of true deliberation among you be delayed. But with patience each shall hear whatsoever is said and each shall be ready to reply or for reply to be made to him and thus by questions and by replies and by solution the inquiry touching the true faith shall be judged without any dispute and by the common examination of your Saintliness it will reach a happy agreement without dispute.
/ Nestorius. They did not press for this to be read nor yet were they willing to hear him who was telling them that 'they should be careful that no one should introduce division so as to cause dispute, lest from that cause the inquiry concerning the true faith and the true deliberation among you should be delayed, but that with patience each should hear whatsoever was said and that each should be ready to reply or for reply to be made unto him, and thus by questions and by replies and by solution the inquiry touching the true faith should be 'judged without any dispute, and the common scrutiny of your Saintliness should attain a happy agreement without any dispute'. Because they knew these things, they allowed them not to be read, for they hid this word, which, as a divine prophecy, showed clearly the things which were being done by them. Or was it that the Emperor, owing to a sign of the things which had been done by him, divined what he 30 was ready to do and set it down beforehand in his letters? For even slight symptoms suffice to give a small indication of the habits of the soul, although things like these have not yet already been [done] |112 by him, while those from which it could have been known have not yet already been brought to light. God however has brought to light all that concerns him for that to become the judge of them for the things which / were about to take place, that they might not suppose that because they had done this in ignorance and were ignorant of the manner of the inquiry and of the inquisition, [therefore] they said incidentally the things which were [proved] false by what had been said. Will then a sincere inquiry be settled [even] by sincere inquirers through division and through that which causes dispute, or through impartiality and patience on the part of the hearers towards what is said? And [will a sincere inquiry be settled] by merely laying down the subject of inquiry, or by the giving and receiving of replies on either side, and their being examined by questioning and unravelling, until the inquiry which is being examined is [settled] without dispute? Shall we with haste or without haste find a solution and an answer in harmony therewith when we are asked a question? Which of these things has been said untruly? But this command was not pleasing unto thee 31 because thou didst wish to conquer and not to discover the truth.
But what shall I do now? Shall I accuse Candidianus of not having observed the imperial letters and of having caused such a disturbance of bishops against bishops their colleagues as well as against him who was charged with keeping watch over them and with the maintenance of order? But he strained himself to persuade with words those who were not inclined to hearken unto words, who were in need of some one who would control them against their will according to the imperial command, which was acknowledged by all men to be just; and otherwise it was not seemly more should be [done] than that he should / carry out his message, speaking and having answer made to him by question and answer. However that which was done with intent to deceive was considered by them as a sport. I have not anything more to say; for he called them to witness by his commands that they should do nothing before they were all assembled together according to the |113 imperial command, but they were not willing to hearken even unto the command of the Emperor. Hear then also his own admonition.
The admonition which was uttered by the illustrious Count Candidianus that they should not assemble before all the bishops were assembled.32
To the holy Cyril, bishop of Alexandria and Metropolitan, and to the bishops who have assembled together with him, |114 Flavius Candidianus, the great and illustrious Count of the most religious Household. Since I reached the city of Ephesus, nothing else have I demanded of the congregation of the holy Council except that the [questions] of the orthodox faith should be settled in peace and unity as the faithful, the victorious [Emperor] also has commanded: of this your Piety is aware. And it suffices me to bear witness to the truth that I am not more desirous of anything else than of this. But when I learned that you were ready to assemble together in the holy church without the will of the other bishops, when John, bishop of Antioch, had not yet come nor / the bishops who were with him, since one day before that whereon you were prepared to do this, I rested not from persuading and invoking each one of you not to think of holding a Council incomplete; and again on the next day, after you had assembled together in the holy church, I hesitated not in [my] desire to come unto you and I testified unto you what the faithful Emperor willed, although that was superfluous since you were already acquainted therewith from the letters which had been written unto you by his Highness. But although it was indeed so, I instructed you in our pious Emperor's own will, saying his will was this, that your faith should be defined without delay and confusion by all and in unity, and that he willed not that the Council should be held incomplete, because our orthodox |115 faith would be turned thereby to discord and dissension. And further, when your Reverence demanded that the faithful and godly Emperor's own writ, which had been sent unto the holy Council, should be read, at first I was opposed to doing so----and I decline not to say [so]----because those who had been commanded to be at the holy Council had not yet come and [were not yet] assembled. But when your Piety said that you were not persuaded of any of the things which the Emperor willed and had commanded to take place, it seemed / unto me that it was needful, although the presence of all the bishops was not [complete], to present unto you the august and illustrious letter. And further indeed, after the will of his Lordship was made known to you, I neglected not to exercise the same persuasion with you demanding of your excellency and testifying unto you that you should introduce no innovations before all the holy bishops were gathered together unto the Council, but that you should wait four days only for the holy John, bishop of Antioch, Metropolitan, and those who were with him, and those again who were with the holy and pious Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in order that, when you were together and all the holy Council was assembled together, if there were anything of which there was inquiry or anything else of which there was dispute, for which we were superfluous, you, when assembled, together might investigate it. And then, by the consent of you all, it would be known who was found to believe improperly and outside the canons, [and] if you all rightly confessed and if you revered the faith of the holy fathers. Not only then have I surely counselled [you] but I have also persuaded [you] concerning these things. But because you have not accepted aught of what has been said, while I also have surely been driven out by you, / I have considered it needful by means of this testimony to make known unto you and by this charge to testify unto you that you should make no innovations, but that you should wait for the coming of all the holy fathers, the bishops, and that, when you were of the same opinion, that which concerned the holy Catholic Church should be judged. If any one, by the impulse of his own authority, should will to change anything of that which had seemed [good] to the pure and imperishable Principate, let him know that it is in his own self that he will be blamed and that he will prove no one guilty in aught. But I shrink not from saying these same things: that your Holiness is persuaded of and knows |116 whatsoever the pious Emperor wills: that in the presence of all the holy bishops who have been summoned by his authority everything whereof there has been controversy should be settled and the true faith revealed. But for this reason I have set at the head of this protest both the writ which has been sent to your holy Council and the letters which have been written to me by his Lordship in order that by means of all this, when you have learned his will, you may desist from those things which you have been zealous to do. / And know also that a copy of this letter has been sent unto our pious lord the Emperor.
Nestorius. When these things were set forth and read before them, did not their fury wherewith they were maddened deprive [every] man of his reason? Or had they reverence for anything? Or feared they the blame and the testimony? Or respected they their chiefs who were over them and the Emperor himself and those who were ready to judge them by the divine laws and by the definitions of the fathers? Nay, they disdained them all; for they had the things which had been made known unto them by [his] Majesty and all those things which [they were doing] against me were regarded by them as a sport. And, as I suppose, Candidianus knew them and was frightened by them; and by words alone would he have hindered them, but he dared not proceed to deeds and to afflict those who did such things. Whereon hast thou 33 trusted to do what even the barbarians dared not do of old? For suppose that it was [the case] that thou wast not my enemy nor my accuser; thou wast at any rate my judge, as thou hast made thyself with the rest of the others; I say that thou wast even more. And the time of judgement also drew nigh, wherein it was right that we should be judged; but those who were judges with thee came not, and you / were constrained to summon them. Thou wast willing to bring over to thine opinion all who were present; but I, who was demanding that the judgement should take place, I was testifying unto them all that they ought not to judge me before those who were summoned to the judgement had been gathered together. |117 There would have been every ground even for thy judgement if thou hadst not judged on the ground that thou wast summoned [as a party to the case]; 34 but, [thou wilt say], it would have been difficult for thee.----Thou hadst authority to go away and to do this, on the ground that thou wert not able to judge in thine own cause.----And '[it was] not that I came not' [you will say], 'but I was not able to go away'.----Thou oughtest to have instructed in this him who had the authority, and the office of judge would have been conferred by him; for no one believed that thou wouldst have conferred the office of judge on thyself. And so these things were done. Has not God constrained you to write those things when you excused yourself and accused Candidianus himself and John and Irenaeus,35 a man who lived in God and served him with his possessions and with his soul and with his body. And because the things that he did were not pleasing, they set themselves to accuse him----that you might learn from them their barbarous and savage and unrighteous boldness. When indeed those who had acted boldly against the law which Candidianus set forth unto them and the things which they had done against them had been referred to the Emperor, he made answer openly unto them all. It is / fair that you should hear it, in order that you all may learn therefrom at the same time how God has condemned them all for me out of their [own] mouth in the place of judgement.
Of the imperial letters which were sent by the hand of the governor Palladius.36
Our Majesty has learned from what the illustrious Count |118 of the most religious Household, Candidianus, has written unto us what has taken place in the midst of disturbance and improperly in the metropolis of Ephesus. when all the pious bishops unto whom I had sent [word] to assemble together had not yet assembled and the coming of the holy John, bishop of Antioch, with other metropolitans was very near; and,' further, when even those who were present had not deliberated with them nor come to agreement with one another; and, further, when there had not even been inquiry concerning the faith as there ought to have been or according to the letters which have always been sent by us. But the enmity of certain persons for certain others is well known, and for this reason they were zealous to act according to their opinions, without being able even to make use of a veil, or that they might be thought by people to have done what they did after reflection. Consequently it has seemed [good] / unto our Majesty that there should be no place for boldness and that whatsoever has been [done] by them improperly should be void. And first let the words touching the faith be examined that they may henceforth prevail, as it has seemed [good] unto us and as it has been decided and has been pleasing unto the congregation of the Council, since our Majesty accepts not those things which have been cunningly brought about by a preliminary finding. These [are the words] of the Emperor.
But hear also the report which they sent unto the Emperor, wherein they accused Candidianus of having misinformed them out of friendship for me and of not having made the truth known unto the Emperor and maintained that which they have done against me. For thereby you will know full well their audacity at the same time as their puerility; they played as with a child and disdained to excuse themselves before him. For they were rebuked [and asked]: 'for what |119 reason have you held a. Council incomplete before all the Council was assembled, inasmuch as you have shown thereby that not out of the fear of God but out of human enmity you did all this and you were not observant with a pure conscience that all the Council should be assembled.' And they made no answer whatsoever to these things, but the accusation stands as it was.
/ Of the report of Cyril which was sent unto the Emperor against the report which Candidianus sent.37
Hereby it is proved of us that no enmity whatsoever has stirred us up against Nestorius; but we have laid down the doctrine of the fear of God. After we have compared it with that of Nestorius, the latter seems to have met with refutation. And after the letters which have been written by Nestorius and after the interpretations which have been put forward by him, we have openly published the decision of the judgement, the holy Gospel having been placed in the midst, and we declare that Christ Himself, the Lord of all, was present.
Nestorius. [This is] like those who, being rebuked for the violation of oaths, would convince by oaths that they have not violated oaths and make no convincing reply concerning their acts. For they were rebuked [and asked]: 'For what reason have you transgressed the general rule and not waited for all the Council, as also you were summoned all together?' And they returned not any answer to this; and: 'for what reason, in addition thereto, have not the bishops who were present taken counsel in common with their colleagues / who were with them as to whether you ought all to have waited?' To this also they answered nothing. 'For what reason have you not done this by common agreement, but |120 have divided and separated in one Council of bishops those who were present from those who were about to come, so that through examination with them 38 the judgement touching the faith might be defined?' Nor to this returned they answer, but by anticipation without discretion and by agreeing to that which was pleasing unto them, being unwilling that they 39 should be judges with them, they made them for themselves adversaries of the faith. For thou hast not refrained from thy boldness wherewith thou hast been occupied from the beginning and on account of which thou hast drawn also the bishop of Rome into the rebellion and hast made void the oecumenical Council. In the face of all these things they were deaf and speechless. For what reason heard you not this; that 'you shall not hold a Council incomplete before all the bishops are assembled '? For what reason did you not wait for them, [when] the Count who was sent was restraining you and persuading you to wait for the bishops who were near and not far off? And you made no answer unto any one of these things. If Christ had been sitting [there] and if you had been persuaded that he was sitting with you, would you have done these things, and would you have made a participation in your impiety----Christ on whom you thus / trample, as if he, who would have exposed you so openly, could not confute you? For how [in that case] would you have supposed that your unrighteous and hidden purpose would be surely revealed, you who were the first to testify unto the bishops of your impiety and also unto the Count who had charge over you of the things which he has in truth forwarded in the report for the instruction of the Emperor?
But for all those who want to learn your reputation through the letters of [his] Majesty or through your own reports, all these things will confirm them as being without doubt true: that you participated not in the opinion of those who were present and that you detached yourselves from the bishops |121 who were absent and from those who were present, in that you were not willing to wait fourteen days more. And I sat neither saying nor doing aught, and 'in your midst sat Christ', who compelled you all so to speak and to act in my presence. 'No enmity at all against Nestorius has stirred us up.' When I was not present, my own enemy judged my words and compared them with those that he wanted and as he wanted, and I should have accepted from them that they preserved no enmity at all against me! Who will dare to say / this when he sees all the impious and bold acts wherewith I have been oppressed by them? And will it not rather seem a sport? For do you say these things to him who would have convicted you for them and for having acted in enmity toward me? Nay, [you speak] after the likeness of those who smite a man and strip him and say unto him who would rebuke them to be sure for their sport: 'Surely we were making sport, and did this not in enmity but in friendship'; but they cast him out wounded and naked. Thus also have they done unto me, being reproached and reproaching; but the judge of all will not so make sport. For although in all this I have no human tribunal, I have that of Christ.
But we demand of your Highness that none of those who value the love of man above the fear of God should be accounted worthy to be received. For we have perceived that the reverend John, bishop of Antioch, has some such a wish as this, seeking rather to gratify friendship than to consider aught that is advantageous unto the faith; and that, in addition to this, not fearing the threat of your Highness and not being stirred by enthusiasm for the faith which has been delivered unto us from above, he has delayed the holy Council twenty-one days / beyond the appointed time which has been granted to us by your Highness, and we have been constrained, we of the orthodox party of the holy Council, who love only the faith, to inquire into those things which appertain unto the fear of God.40 |122
Nestorius. Have they not openly made known their will without keeping [it] dark, [showing] that not because they were wearied and worn with sickness and with death and with the poverty of their lives did they not come for the judgement, but, because they feared judgement by all men and before all men, they made a judgement, before the bishop of Antioch came? For what advantage unto me was a delay of twenty days or what gain would it have brought unto you? For that which would have been done after twenty days could also have been done as well before as after them all. All the more, in fact, if he had entertained friendship toward me, he ought surely to have been the first to rejoin me, and he would have persuaded many of those who were turned away from me and he would not have let you do that which you have done, because you would have been restrained by him. But, in order that there might not be an examination, thou hast made use of all means that judgement might be corrupted. So let it be. You ought then rather to have waited for it, so that there might be an examination and that you might not give me a cause of escape; but not one whit of this is true. Suppose then that I concede / unto you that you waited for the judgement to take place, for what reason did you not act according to the command of the Emperor? For you would have shown that you did not wait for this reason;41 but you waited not. Therefore your anxiety from the beginning is evident from all these things; since he acted so because he feared to come to examination and to judgement, and, because he was grieved thereat, he was devising means to arrange all these things. If then thou hadst been confident in what thou wrotest, and if those who would have testified for thee had been on thy side, that is, the Father and the Divine Scriptures, thou wouldest have rebuked me for having done |123 that which I have done in enmity and not in truth, and thou wouldest have blamed me for having disturbed the world for nothing, when I raised the inquiry of the heretics and of the orthodox. Thou oughtest to have written these things unto the Emperor and all the other things, if it is on account of this that thou dost suppose that the things which thou hast done have taken place, as well as that I fled from judgement because I was not confident in what I had written. But they have done this as things done in enmity and not in truth; they have fled from judgement, and fabricated a story, that 42 judgement and examination took place, when none of these things occurred. Let him come; let him be judged; let him make answer to the things wherewith he is rebuked and let him hear the answer to the things wherewith he rebukes, and let the judgement of both of them take place without hindrance. / Yea, before the Trinity, on whose behalf I have shown all zeal, for what reason indeed do others stumble at the things wherein I am confident? These things brought low thy might, for thou knewest that they were true and convincing; but thou spakest not and thou hadst not confidence nor didst thou feign to quote the fearful and terrible saying that 'there will be a judgement and account will be given and answer will be made by question and answer', for thy voice was enslaved to thy conscience. But what then?
We entreat and we beg of your Highness, in order that the weight of the burden of the Council, which is [filled] with enthusiasm for God, may be known, to send for the most noble Candidianus and five of the holy Council, that they may vouch for what has been done before your Piety. For those who imagine other things apart from the correct faith are clever at veiling the planning of their deception, so that certain even of the holy bishops, in that Nestorius has dissembled his deception, have been cajoled and made participators with him and have given their signature. But when they had asked exactly and had found that his blasphemy was evident, they withdrew from him and were present at the holy Council.43 |124
Nestorius. Because he 44 fled from the Council, lo! were you not evidently in need that the Emperor should send for five of / the bishops to expound that which was done? But you said 'with Candidianus' and not 'with the bishops their colleagues' who would have rebuked you on equal terms; and [you demand] five against one, and that one a secular, in order that they may bring forth the holy Gospel and swear by it----they who are five and bishops----and that they may be accepted as truthful against one secular, for much has been made void by you in the examination of this problem. When, in fact, Candidianus has come, what more or less will he have to say than that to which you have previously testified and that which he has referred to the Emperor? Or what more have those five [to say] than that which you have written concerning him----that he entertained friendship toward him 45 and that for this reason he has referred false reports to you? But what need was there for you to swear to your opinion? Was it for this reason that you wrote concerning Candidianus and the five bishops and demanded that neither Nestorius nor Cyril should come? These were the very causes of the disturbance; and they ought to have answered one another, but thou wast not confident because there was no basis of truth in thy discourse. The fear of my words, in fact, was not due to anything else more than to the truth. Suppose indeed that Candidianus had come and had said that you waited not for all the Council, though you / knew that they were near, and that he had testified unto you beforehand and that he had read out before you the letters from the Emperor and that he had made a request of you but that you were not |125 persuaded: what else would he have said? Wherein then would you have refuted him? Would you have refuted him for this, that he spoke a falsehood concerning you that he might entertain friendship toward me? It was not so.46 You did not do so.1 But if you have done so, let them come and let judgement take place, although Candidianus would have lied. But in your own Records you have stated that the cause wherefore you waited not for all the Council to be assembled was that 'we were constrained',47 as if you were there alone; but in the report which you sent unto the Emperor you said that 'we have perceived that the reverend John, bishop of Antioch, has this wish, to seek to entertain closer friendship' and on this account you were constrained not to wait; so that, if you had known that he agreed with you, you would have waited for him, and there would have been no constraint [laid] upon you because of the place. And in your Records, which you drew up against me, you said that I stood by those very things which I had written and said from the beginning and had also written openly unto thee;48 but in that report which you wrote unto the Emperor, you wrote on the contrary that 'he is indeed surely hiding under a shadow the impiety that he has', 'for those who imagine other things apart from / the correct faith are clever at veiling their plans, so that certain even of the holy bishops, in that Nestorius has dissembled his deception, have been cajoled and made participators with him and have given their signatures to the things which have been done by him'. How then was that which concerns me to be veiled? |126 And again you have openly said 49 that 'Nestorius has disputed; when we found that he manifestly imagined otherwise [than in accordance with the correct faith], we deprived him. For also even in Ephesus the metropolis he has not dissembled his purpose, so that he has no need of other accusers, but daily 'he proclaimed, in preaching the doctrine before many, that which was alien to the faith. And every one of these things we have entered in the Records which have been drawn up in order, that they might be made known unto your Piety.'
Nestorius. In the same [place] they say the contrary. He then who received all these things, that is, the Emperor, knew that they had acted contrary to his command, while that also which they said against me was a foolish and base mockery, for they have not returned answer unto that wherewith he blamed them: 'For what reason have you dared to hold a Council incomplete, contrary to what you were commanded, before the bishops of the whole Council were gathered together?' They say / nothing else than that 'it was pleasing unto us', though they say it not openly because of the outcry [which would arise] against the word among those who chanced to hear of it. 'For what reason did you not wait for the coming of John, bishop of Antioch, when you knew that his advent was nigh?' They had nothing else to say than that 'we were unwilling to hold the examination with him'; but [it was] rather because they knew that he agreed not with them. But suppose that John ought to have been judged because he delayed and came not in time; he ought not to have been judged by thee but by the Emperor who had jurisdiction over him. And first the bishops from Rome ought to have been punished for not having come when they were summoned: how then dost thou adhere unto them? In the same way as thou hast treated the latter so also thou shouldest have treated John. But thou demandest of John that he should do possibilities and impossibilities, when there |127 was one cause for which he delayed which was accepted from him by all men, except by thee thyself, who art far from all affection for mankind and from all the sufferings of human nature. Thou blamest not thyself, not even when thou art rebuked by the Emperor, and dost thou feel no scruples that, when thou neededst to have waited four days at the most for them, in order that the Council might take place without dispute, thou didst not hear but didst rather choose of thyself to cause trouble? As the kind / of fishes which are called cuttlefish, which go from clear waters into troubled waters that they may not be caught, so hast thou also acted. [These methods] are laughable, when one gives any thought to them, and men are surely not deceived when they demand [satisfaction] from thee because of them, as when men, playing with little children who struggle with them, seem indeed to be surely struggling and yet let themselves be conquered by them. For these are not the words of one who excuses himself but rather of one who is surely playing; [yet] the Emperor is not one who would surely play with thee, and thou dost not persuade him who justly rebukes thee nor [reply] to the things wherefore he rebukes thee. His power is relaxed because there has been bribery.
But they say: 50 'We, who have assembled and have canonically issued in agreement a sentence of deposition against the heretic Nestorius, are more than two hundred bishops who have assembled from the whole world, the whole West being in agreement with us.' And what does that mean? You were, in fact, more than two hundred bishops who were in agreement with thee in all things whereof thou wast making inquiry; thou didst, in fact, demand of them by no means to tell the truth. For to the report of the bishops who are with me are affixed the signatures of bishops whose cities are known beyond doubt; how many of these / hast thou verified? For suppose that we were, as thou dost say, thirty bishops or, if thou wilt, ten or as many as thou dost wish; does the number establish the truth of the orthodox and a true Council, |128 or [ensure] its enacting and maintaining what is right? What then has the Emperor censured in thee and blamed in thee? 'We have assembled an oecumenical Council in order that generally and by general consent the inquiry concerning the faith may be confirmed before all men. And thou hast known our project and hast willed to divide the Council that there might not be a general examination, and that the faith might not be confirmed before all men clearly and accurately by the general consent of all men. But now all the pious bishops, to whom I have sent [word] to assemble, have not assembled, while the coming of John, bishop of the great city 'of Antioch, together with the other metropolitans, is very nigh. Further, even those who were present have not deliberated with them nor have agreed with one another; nor further has there been [held] the inquiry concerning the faith as it ought to have taken place or according to the letters which have been at all times sent by us.' 51
You have written unto him either as unto one who has surely erred or as those who play or as unto one who was playing with you, since in whatsoever you have said unto him you have said nothing else unto him / than whatsoever he said ot his own purpose: that you have done all things without waiting for those who were far off and without having deliberated with those who were present, but [that] you have separated yourselves from those who were with you, and by yourselves you have made examination. You have, indeed, separated yourselves from those who were ready to come for a general examination, and you have not examined the things which concerned the faith in the right manner, those things concerning which there was inquiry being brought forward by question and being solved; and so you would have exculpated yourselves in the eyes of all men. If then you had not done this, you would justly have made excuses in the report to the Emperor; but if you deny not the things which the Emperor has accused you of having unrighteously done, and if you put them in your defence, what else rather is to be conceived than |129 that which men think of an idle talker, or as if men told tales in play to their playmates and had the assurance to write them down? You call that an oecumenical Council which was separated from the bishops who were waiting until the whole Council should assemble, in defiance of him who has rebuked you because of it, and thou wouldest have persuaded them that all authority should be given unto those who by reason of their great numbers transgressed justice against those who observed / the [commands] of the Emperor and of the truth and of the whole Council, for no other reason than that owing to their great number they surpassed those who observed the commands. But you would not have dared to say this except to those who were your playmates for whatever reason it might be.
So I come to speak of the present. But perhaps some one will say: 'Busy not thyself much with that, but inform us how they deprived thee not justly, after what has been written by thee and by Cyril?' 'For if all those things which ought to be examined are examined, what art thou advantaged? For thou art rebuked even by these men, yea, even by all men. In this let us rather investigate above all what we ought properly to imagine, and let us not be turned aside from orthodoxy either by the premature decision of this man or by reason of thine own sufferings.' But I was not willing to recount and to tell my own concerns nor again to accuse others, and especially when the Council is named; but the faith also was corrupted and calumniated on account of mine own self in such wise that that of the heretics was confirmed by the judgement and examination of the Council.
Constraint therefore is upon us to prove how their assembly and their judgement were carried out, and to prove unto all men from those things which all men confess to have been written that there was neither judgement nor examination, that we may not / be bound as by the judgement of a Council. The things which God has not allowed to be hidden but has laid bare by their own hand, by those who have done and have written down the things which happened----these [are the |130 things] which we also are writing down and are explaining unto those who rise up and dispute with us whether these things are so; so that, if one lights upon the documents of the Council which have been drawn up by them, one learns that they are so and not otherwise, and one knows the calumny which was [uttered] by the Council against the orthodox and [the things] which were repudiated by those who were in truth orthodox as [were] those which were [directed] against Athanasius and Eustathius and ten thousand others. Let us see then in order how the Records have been drawn up by them against me.
[Selected footnotes]
1. 3 Viz. Pulcheria. Suidas, under Pulcheria, says... This passage is discussed by Neander, Church History (Eng. Trans. 1855), vol. iv, p. 160. See too the references to Pulcheria in the Letter to Cosmos of Antioch, in Nau, Appendix I.
2. 1 Pulcheria was famous for her orthodoxy, and in particular for her anti-Nestorian zeal. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), vi. 590 d. Presumably Nestorius is here thinking of her later support of Flavian against Eutyches, for he claims Flavian as the exponent of his own views. Cp. pp. 342, 353-5, 362.
3. 2 Literally: 'I keep in silence'.
4. 3 There is a lacuna in the Syriac text.
5. 4 Viz. the Son.
6. 1 I. e. Paul of Samosata.
7. 3 Apollinarianism had been condemned at the Council of Alexandria in 362.
8. 2 Bedjan here marks a lacuna in the text.
9. 3 Sc. of Samosata.
10. 6 Viz. the Jews.
11. 1 Viz. Cyril.
12. 2 There is here a lacuna in the Syriac text.
13. 1 Nestorius quotes only the end of the letter, which is given in full in Labbe (Mansi), vol. iv, col. 1003 sq. [Greek omitted from online text]
14. 2 V reads: 'my accusation [of them] as heretics'.
15. 1 A lacuna is here marked by Bedjan.
16. 2 Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1008 c, d: The last eight lines of the letter are not quoted.
17. 3 Two words are illegible in the Syriac text; V reads: and he advised the return [of the letter], which is clearly incorrect. See the Greek text above.
18. 5 This rapid change of person is common when Nestorius is referring to Cyril.
19. 1 Here clearly not Cyril but Nestorius' reader.
20. 2 Labbe (Mansi), iv. 884 b, c. Nestorius quotes the first quarter of the letter: This was sent in June 429.
21. 3 See introd. p. xiii.
22. 2 The Syriac scribe has here inserted a note: 'From here one page has been torn out from the original.' It is clear from what follows that the missing passage must have contained a summary account of the injustice done to Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus through Cyril's refusal to wait until the whole Council was assembled before proceeding. This grievance of Nestorius is treated in detail further on.
23. 3 Literally: 'from unknown [ones]'.
24. 4 Latin version in Labbe (Mansi), v. 765: Dominis nostris fratribus & comministratoribus Cyrillo & Juvenali Episcopis Tranquillinus & Alexander & Helladius & reliqui Episcopi qui cum eis, in Domino gaudere. Nota quidem rectae glorificationis est fides quae a divinis & adorabilibus scripturis ab olim nobis est praedicata. Nihilominus haec ipsa nobis a sanctis patribus tradita est qui in Nicaena synodo congregati sunt, quorum tot passiones erant pro pietate quot membra. Quia vero propter nonnulla certamina piissimus & amicus Christi Imperator literis suis orthodoxos sacerdotes undique ad Ephesum convocavit, in hoc quoque imitatus proprium circa fidem zelum, & sumus pene omnes per divinam gratiam congregati, deest autem praesentiae sanctae synodi religiosissimus Joannes Antiochenus Episcopus, qui & ipse jam in januis est juxta quae nuper suis literis intimavit, & per eos quos praemisit praefectianos atque magistrianos nuntiata sunt. Similiter etiam nonnulli ex occidentalibus Episcopis synodo adfuturi, mandarunt autem vestrae reverentiae, tamquam qui graviter habent sustinere usque ad ejus adventum, & urgent de his quae visa sunt piissimo Imperatori, (ne audientia celebretur antequam praedicti Deo amicissimi Episcopi sint praesentes,) hujus (rei) gratia has ad reverentiam vestram direximus literas, ut sustineatis Deo amicissimorum comministrorum praesentiam, & nec eos qui depositi sunt suscipiatis quoquo modo, neque illos qui ab Episcopis suis vel olim sunt excommunicati vel nuper. Manifesta enim sunt quae de his definiunt regulae; & praevaricantibus se defixere increpationes non modicas, quae nullo modo queunt despici a sancta synodo. Et illud vero reverentia vestra cognoscat, quia omnia quae ab audacibus abrupte fuerint perpetrata, contra praesumentium retorqueantur audaciam & a Christo Domino & a divinis canonibus. ("There follow the signatures of sixty-eight bishops.) Compare the Letter to Theodosius, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1232-6.
25. 1 Literally: 'Christ-fearing'.
26. 3 Viz. Cyril.
27. 1 Cp. the two Contestationes of Candidianus and his Edictum printed in Lupus, Var. Pat. Epist., p. 33 sq., and Labbe (Mansi), v. 770 sq.
28. 1 Syr. saqra, a transliteration of Lat. sacra [epistola], a translation of θεῖον γράμμα.
29. 2 Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1117E.
30. 2 Viz. Cyril.
31. 1 Viz. Cyril.
32. 1 Labbe (Mansi), v. 770; Lupus, Var. Pat. Epist. p. 33: Coniestatio Candidiam Comitis, quam publice, mane audiens synodum celebrari, in Epheso proposuit: Sanctissimo Episcopo metropolis Alexandriae Cyrillo, et reverentissimis Episcopis qui cum eo sunt congregati, Flavius Candidianus magnificentissimus Comes devotissimorum Domesticorum. Quoniam ex quo in Ephesinam civitatem veni, nihil aliud deprecatus sum communem sanctamque synodum vestram nisi ut cum pace atque concordia quae ad fidem rectamque glorificationem nostram exponerentur (v. l. disponerent), sicut et Dominus noster jussit et piissimus Imperator, scit religiositas vestra; et sufficit mihi testimonium quod ipsa veritas praebet, quia nihil aliud egerimus praeter haec. Quoniam vero et dum congregandos vos esse in sanctissimam Ecclesiam praeter aliorum Episcoporum cognoscerem voluntatem, nondum veniente sanctissimo Episcopo Antiochenae metropolis Joanne vel his qui cum ipso sunt, non cessavi rogans ut id fieret quod dixi superius; et unumquemque sum contestatus ob hoc, ne forte parlicularis fieri synodus videretur. Extremo (v. l. externo) vero nihilominus, cum congregati essetis in sanctissima Ecclesia, occurrere festinavi, et ea quae visa sunt Domino nostro et piissimo Principi, licet videam (v. l. id jam) ex superfluo facere, dum semel nosceretis haec eadem ex literis divinitatis cjus directis ad vos. Verumtamen edocui dispositionem ejusdem Domini nostri et piissimi Principis hanc esse. Velle namque eum dixi fidem nostram absque ulla discordia ab omnibus idem sapientibus roborari, et nolle particulares quasdam synodos fieri, quod maxime in haereses et schismata convertere novit religionem nostram fidemque orthodoxam. Insuper dum reverentia vestra exigeret sacram Domini nostri et piissimi Principis, quae directa est ad sanctam synodum, relegi, prius quidem id facere non annuebam (nec enim dicere refutabo) eo quod non adessent omnes qui ad sanctissimam synodum jussi fuerant convenire; sed quia vestra religiositas inquit ignorare se quae praecepta sint a Domino nostro et optimo Principe, necessarium mihi visum est apparere, ut etiam non praesentibus aliis reverentissimis Episcopis omnibus relegerentur divinae atque adorabiles literae. Nihilominus vero et postquam vobis manifestavi quae sunt decreta divinitus, in eadem supplicatione permansi, deprecans reverentiam vestram et poscens nihil novum fieri priusquam cuncti sanctissimi patres atque Episcopi ad synodum convenirent, sed sustineretis quatuor tantummodo dies sanctissimum Episcopum Antiochenorum metropoleos cum aliis qui pariter sunt, necnon et illos qui cum sanctissimo Nestorio sunt; ut vestra religiositate pariter congregata, et omni sancta synodo collecta simul in uniim, si qua essent quae forsan in dubitationem venirent, a quibus nos sumus extranei, cunctis vobis praesentibus judicarentur, et tunc cum consensu omnium vestrum ostenderetur quis prave ac praeter regulas ecclesiasticas credere videretur an certe recte omnes pariter confiteri, sicut sanctorum patrum religio habet. Hacc igitur non semel sed etiam saepius admonens, et suppliciter postulans, nihil profeci. Verum quia nihil eorum quae a me sunt dicta servatum est, sed a vobis injuriose ac violenter expulsus sum, necessarium duxi hoc mea contestatione vobis constituere manifestum, et per hoc edictum clare dicere nullum vestrum novi aliquid facere, sed omnium sanctorum Episcoporum sustinere praesentiam, et sic communi consilio quae ad catholicam sanctamque fidem pertinent judicari. Si quis vero ex propria voluntate ductus ea quae ab immortali et optimo vertice jussa sunt commovere voluerit, sciat se sibi ipsi reputaturum quicquid evenerit, praejudicium vero se alii (v. l. ab alio) non inferre. Non enim pigebit me haec eadem denuo iterare. Quoniam vero, sicut vestra sanctitas novit, hoc placuit Domino nostro et piissimo Principi, ut sub praesentia simul omnium sanctorum Episcoporum quac ab ejus divinitate sunt convocati ea quae in dubitationem veniunt dissolvantur, propterea et sacra quae ad sanctissimum synodum vestram directa sunt, et quae ad me ipsum ab eorum divinitate sunt scripta, huic edicto praeposui; ut per omnia cognoscentes quae a Domino nostro et optimo Imperatore praecepta sunt, a tali praesumptione cessetis. Cognoscite igitur quod scripti hujus exemplar etiam domino nostro piissimo Imperatori transmissum est.
33. 2 Viz. Cyril.
34. 1 I.e. 'There would have been every reason for thee not to have accepted the post of judge which had been offered unto thee.' Perhaps the text is out of order.
35. 2 Count Irenaeus, afterwards Bishop of Tyre. See Introd. pp.xxiv, xxv.
36. 4 Nestorius quotes about the first half of the letter; see Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1377.
37. 2 The Report is given in full in Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1421. Nestorius gives only a short extract. According to Labbe the Report was dispatched on July 1, 431.
38. 1 Viz. the former alone.
39. 2 Viz. Nestorius and the bishops who had demanded that the Council should not be held before the arrival of John, bishop of Antioch, and his companions.
40. 1 Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1424 a.
41. 1 I.e. through fear of the discussion.
42. 1 Literally: 'they have fabricated, saying that...'
43. 2 Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1424 d. There are about ten lines omitted between the passage on p. 121 and this passage.
44. 1 Viz. Cyril.
45. 2 Viz. Nestorius.
46. 1 Nau treats these two clauses as interrogative, though they are not so marked by Bedjan in the Syriac text.
47. 3 Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1237 a.
48. 5 Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1240 a.
49. 1 Nestorius only gives a free paraphrase of the letter.
50. 1 Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1425 c:.
51. 1 Nestorius is here paraphrasing the document given on p. 117. No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac text.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_4_book _part .htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 131-335. Book 2 part 1.
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 131-335. Book 2 part 1.
BOOK II. PART I
From the Records of the things which were done against me at Ephesus.
Peter, priest of Alexandria and chief of the secretaries says: 'When formerly the reverend Nestorius received consecration to become bishop of the holy church of Constantinople, and a few days were passed by, his homilies which disturbed those who read them were brought by certain men from Constantinople, so / that there arose on that account much disturbance in the holy church. When then the reverend bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, learned this, he wrote one letter and a second unto his reverence, full of counsels and warning; and in reply to these he wrote that he listened not, hardening himself and resisting the things which were written. And withal again, when the reverend bishop, Cyril, learned that letters and books of his homilies had been sent by him to Rome, he also wrote to the pious bishop of the church of Rome, Celestinus, by the hand of the deacon Poseidonius, whom he commanded, [saying], "if thou findest that the books and the homilies and the letters have been delivered, give also these things |132 which have been written by me; but if not, bring them back hither without now delivering them." But when he found that his letter and his homilies had been delivered, necessarily also he delivered [those of Cyril]. And those things which were proper, containing a well-known rule, were written by the pious [and] saintly bishop of the church of Rome, Celestinus. Because then, by the injunction of the godly Emperor, your holy Council has met here, we necessarily inform you that we have in our hands the papers concerning these things, with a view to [doing] whatever is pleasing unto your Piety.'
/ Nestorius. Cyril then is the persecutor and the accuser, while I am the persecuted; but it was the Council which heard and judged my words and the emperor who assembled [it]. If then he 1 was on the bench of judges, what indeed shall I say of the bench of judges? He was the whole tribunal, for everything which he said they all said together, and without doubt it is certain that he in person took the place of a tribunal for them. For if all the judges had been assembled and the accusers had risen in their place and the accused also likewise, all of them would equally have had freedom of speech, instead of his being in everything both accuser and emperor and judge. He did all things with authority, after excluding from authority him 2 who had been charged by the emperor, and he exalted himself; and he assembled all those whom he wanted, both those who were far off and those who were near, and he constituted himself the tribunal. And I was summoned by Cyril who had assembled the Council, even by Cyril who was the chief thereof. Who was judge? Cyril. And who was the accuser? Cyril. Who was bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was everything. Cyril was the bishop of Alexandria and took the place of the holy and saintly bishop of Rome, Celestinus.
/ Who would have believed that these things happened so, if God had not obliged them to tell [them] and to write [them] down and to send [them] unto all the world? For all those |133 who were his [followers] read them and believe not that they happened so, and they doubt even about themselves, since they would rather trust things which happened in dreams than these, if they were thus as they did happen. What need was there for a Council, when this man was everything? That these things then were so you will learn from what happened at Ephesus; for Memnon says that: 'since the period which was fixed in the letters of the pious and most Christian Emperor, sixteen days have passed.' And he, in that he was lord of the Council, made use precisely of [these words]: Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says: This great and holy Council has been patient enough, waiting for the coming of the godly bishops, who are expected to come.'
Nestorius. Is it not evident even to the unintelligent that he was in everything? By him then, who was busied in everything, I was summoned. And before what tribunal? To what judgement? To what inquiry? Tell me. 'This great and holy Council has been patient enough, having waited ' / sixteen days.' Thou sayest that it has waited enough; and you were not ashamed to have written this as an excellent reason whereby you were constrained not to wait for the bishops who were far off who were constrained to come, and who had been delayed in coming by an important reason and besought you to wait for them----those also who were near and whose coming was by no means unimportant. They were unavoidably delayed these days, if not more, in order that they might rest from their hardship in journeying by road and by ship, both for rest and for needful purposes and for the sake of visiting one another and those who were sick and were in need thereof, and especially because of those persons who were taking the place of those who were absent from the Council, in those things wherein constraint had been laid upon |134 them. Although it were indeed the day which was fixed and [on which] the convocation ought to have taken place, if anything were to happen so that it should be delayed, another additional day would rightly be granted, even as among men there are many causes which come upon them of necessity, so that things are not done in accordance with the strict provisions of the appointed period. But it was not the day of the convocation, but that of the coming; for the day of the convocation had been decreed by the authority of the Count. Thou didst thyself usurp [that authority], in that in thy senseless boldness thou hadst confidence in those who would justify thee perversely. For thou / lovest to persuade and thou art such that thou dost disregard those who are present and dost require those who are far off and dismissest those who are present at the Council and lookest for those who are far off; and thou holdest the Council without those who are far off having arrived. And he held a Council by himself, before the general Council and summoned those who participated not with him, that there might be a Council before the Council of all the bishops. And they testified unto him that he should put no confidence in this Council, to which he summoned me also, even making use of violence, and of such violence and force that it would not be believed, were any one to recount [it]; but it has been revealed by those who have written. Seditious persons indeed filled the city with idle and turbulent men, who were assembled together by Memnon, bishop of Ephesus; and he was at their head and was making them run about armed in the city, in such wise that every one of us fled and hid himself and had resort to caution and saved himself in great fear, as it is also easy to learn from the language of those who were sent. The latter came under the pretence indeed of summoning me unto the Council in order that it might be testified that we were not amongst those who recognized not the Council before the coming of all the bishops; but in reality they came to carry me off by assault and by violence and to spread the rumour about me that 'he has surely perished, / and his mouth has been closed over his blasphemies'; or to deprive me after I had been questioned. |135
Hear now from the language of Juvenalius that these things were said.3
Juvenalius, bishop of Jerusalem, says:3 'But because a crowd of Romans surrounded his house, and since the pious bishops came and said: 'Let none come nigh there'; it is known that with no good conscience did he decline to come unto the holy Council.'
Nestorius. You see of how much tyranny I made use and how far I was liable to accusation, because, for the purpose of rescuing myself from the conspirators who rose up against me, I had need to post soldiers around my house to guard me, that they might not come against me with violence and destroy me! Thou accusest me of posting soldiers around my house: [it was] not that they might do any wrong unto you but that they might hinder you from doing wrong unto me. From the fact that you reproach us with posting soldiers, it is clear that if they had not first been posted around me and been a wall for me, I should have been destroyed by violent men. What indeed would you have called / those who adjured you beforehand that there should not be an unrighteous Council? Were you assembled for the [end] for which you were summoned? You made the Council for yourselves and not for us; you expelled those men from the Council and of yourselves you acted for yourselves just as you wished, and you listened not unto those who called upon you not to hold a Council but to wait for the bishops who had been summoned with you and who were nigh unto coming. Now therefore for what purpose did you summon us after all this violence? Who will hold out and not weep when he remembers the wrongs which were [done] in Ephesus? It is well [that] they were against me and against my life and not for the sake of impiety! For I should not have had need of these words as touching a man who was capable of retribution but only as touching our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is a just judge and for |136 whose sake I have been content even to endure patiently that the whole bodily frame of Christ may not be accused. But now they invent [stories] concerning me, because I have not been able to be silent when I am accused on the subject of the dispensation on our behalf, so that of necessity I am excusing myself and am persuading all men who say: 'he has been the cause of this disturbance and disorder'; and I prove myself sincere, because I have been vexed by him1 and because of those who have written against me. But thou indeed / wast the first to sit in the midst of our judges, and because there were no accusers, in that they were judges, they put up to accuse me Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Acacius, bishop of Melitene, who was the interrogator.
Theodotus. But Theodotus first replied that he had indeed had some conversation with me but had not told him 4 the conversation, and the latter asked him not concerning what his speech was, in order that he might judge both conversations as a judge and accept the one and reject the other as having evidently fallen into impiety; but it was enough for him only that [there should be] an accusation.
Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra, says: 'I am grieved indeed for a friend, but verily I value the fear of God more than all love, and consequently it is a necessity for me, although with great sorrow, to speak the truth regarding those things of which there is question; I think not, however, that our own testimony is required, since his opinion has been made known in the letters unto thy Godliness; for those things which he there said are not to be said of God, that is, of the Only-begotten, counting human qualities a degradation unto him, he says also in conversation here that it is not right to say of God that he has been suckled nor that he was born / of a virgin; thus here also he has many times said "I say not that God was two or three months old "'. |137
Nestorius. They have not examined these things as judges, nor further has he spoken as before examiners and judges, but he stood forth as the witness of a judge-accuser.
Theodotus. 'The things indeed which he there rejected as not to be said of God, that is, of the Only-begotten, counting human qualities a dishonour unto him, he says also in conversation here----that it is not right that one should say of God that he has been suckled nor that he was born of a virgin; thus here also he has said that "I say not that God was two or three months old ".'
Nestorius. And he 5 accepted it without examination as a judge-accuser, without asking him anything, either: 'What said he unto thee when he said these things here?' or 'what didst thou say in reply to these things whereinsoever he seemed against thee? Wait; speak before us that we may know in what sense he has rejected these very things, in order that we may not accept without reason an accusation against him while he is far off and pass sentence against him without examination and without inquisition before those who need to learn exactly for what reason he has been condemned. Thus also the accused will not be able to deny and he will have no cause / to accuse me of respect for persons. Therefore, O Theodotus,----thou hast conversed with him----if then thou art accurately acquainted with his opinion, since thou hast questioned him and he has returned answer unto thee, [thou knowest that] he says: "I do not say that God is two or three months old ". Does he say [this] unto thee, as one who says that Christ is not God, that he was two or three months old, or does he confess that Christ is God but was not as God born nor [as God] became two or three months old?' 6
Thou 7 then, [dost thou confess] that God was born of a woman and that he was two or three months old, as though |138 his own ousia were changed into the ousia of a man and he was born and became two or three months old, or [was he as] one who was changed in his likeness and in his schema into the likeness and into the schema of a man by means of the ousia and that Christ is to be conceived in the one ousia of God and not in two ousias; and if in two, [canst thou explain] in what way two [issued] from the owe ousia of God the Word? Or [was he formed] of two distinct and unlike ousias and was he born with both of them? Or was he born one of these and did it become two or three months old, as though it had not existed before it was born and became two or three months old? Or did the ousia exist eternally and not have a beginning in being born and becoming two or three months old, whereas he had not in ousia that / which those who are born have of necessity? Or was he born by adoption of the ousia in the birth of the flesh? For if he 8 had thus been questioned, he would have confessed of necessity what he said before the Eastern bishops, when he was questioned in writing----that the Only-begotten Son of God created and was created, the same but not in the same [ousia]; the Son of God suffered and suffered not, the same but not in the same [ousia]; for [some] of these things are in the nature of the divinity and [others] of them in the nature of the humanity. He suffered all human things in the humanity and all divine things in the divinity; for birth from a woman is human but birth from the Father is without beginning, whereas the former [is] in the beginning, and the one is eternal while the other is temporal.9 Since he 8 was suffocated by the truth, he was not able to dissemble his opinion----he who was constrained by the result of the examination to set these things down in writing; and as is the manner of a dog which, being tied up by force, dissembles its bad habits and, as soon as it has escaped from its leash, flees to its hole with its companions and barks at those who caught hold of it and dares not come out and fight in the open but, remaining within, lays back its cars and puts its tail between its legs, thus also he dared not promise them that he would speak and conquer by reprimanding nor [do] any such |139 thing as those would normally do who were confident in their own cause, I mean [as any one] of them who should take his stand upon the Divine / Scriptures and the traditions and the instructions of the holy fathers, and win the victory.
But hear these things, howbeit not as though I were speaking. He dares not speak openly of what he says nor establish from the Divine Scriptures nor from the fathers what they have spoken nor how they have spoken. Nor again was he constrained to agree to what he had said nor to set it down in writing. But it is right to tell what I consider to be the truth. He 10 was the first to withhold it in order that they 11 might not know all the conversation and all the inquiry which was [held] by us, recounting those things against which they could not say aught. For this reason they wrote them not down, not even in the Records, except only 'it was not right to say of God that he was suckled nor that he was merely born of a virgin'. They made examination [only] as far as was pleasing unto them; but we will indeed speak of these things presently.
After him came Acacius and recounted unto them the conversation which he had with me and which was considered by them [to contain] impossible things. But he recounted his question, accusing me and not by way of reprimand nor sincerely by means of those things wherein he was confident; but they accepted his questions as accusations. And lest / you should suppose that I am creating these things, hear from them their own Records.
The Conversation of Acacius, Bishop of Melitene.
'As soon as I came to the city of Ephesus, I held [a conversation] with this man, who has been mentioned shortly before, and when I knew that he thought not |140 correctly, in every way the weight of the burden was upon me to set him correct and to lead him away from his opinion, and I saw that he confessed with his lips that he was abandoning any such opinion. But when I had delayed ten or twelve days, when again some discussion had been raised between us, I began to speak on behalf of the correct faith and I saw that he held what was contrary to this, and I perceived that he had fallen into two wrongs simultaneously. First indeed [in] his own question which was improper; he imposed on those who returned answer the necessity of either denying entirely that the divinity of the Only-begotten became incarnate or of confessing what is an impiety----that both the divinity of the Father and that of the Holy Spirit were found in body with the Word.'
Nestorius. Some questioned [and] others answered that these things consisted in absurdities and impiety; they confess and agree to the word / for which I have reprimanded them and, after what they have confessed, they will be condemned as impious. Would any one suppose that it was an [act of] oppression, when they have written down these things in their Records and make all the world testify against themselves? For suppose that my question was absurd: thou oughtest not to have accepted it but to have proved the absurdity of the question, in order that, as a result of correcting the question, thou mightest not fall into passing over impiety and absurdity; but, in accepting a question absurd for religion, thou hast therefrom in the next place conic to the impiety of confessing either that God the Word, the Son of God, was not made man or that the Father and the Spirit also were made man; that then to which thou didst agree when thou wast questioned thou oughtest to have made void.12
Yet although, like the other, thou hast not corrected me, let us grant that thou hast not fallen into this absurdity voluntarily or involuntarily: for what reason dost thou not utter this |141 absurd question whereby you wish to condemn me? But thou dost not utter it nor do the judges even require it. And if it is so absurd, how has it been left unconfuted, in such wise as not to be confuted by all your Council? And if you all leave it unconfuted and if there was none among you capable of confuting it, utter [this] absurd question, examine it, although you are judges [only] in schema, and write down this question in schema for those / who have intelligence and are ready to examine your judgement. But on account of your incapacity you remained in darkness, so that you were not even able to see things which were evident. But God rather helped you in your interrogation to write down these things that it might be evident unto all men that the enmity was without cause.
But from what can this be proved? From those things which they have set down in [their] cunning writings, in the judgement without condemnation. From now hear those things wherein they have placed the deposit of the faith of our fathers who were assembled at Nicaca, on two of which we shall rely as on testimonies which will not be declined by him; and we shall make use of them both against them, whether they act by examination, or in the likeness of those who accept them without examination, because they are the judges and they are the judged, like those who account themselves judges in fables and stories.
The faith which was laid down by the fathers at Nicaea.
'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things which are visible and which are invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten of the Father, / that is, of the essence of the Father... ' 13
.... and first laying down the names of the two natures which indicate that these are common, without the Sonship |142 or the Lordship being separated and without the natures, in the union of the Sonship, coming into danger of corruption and of confusion.14
Observe then first who reduces and takes away from the deposit which has been laid down by the fathers, but lets not [anyone else] steal aught therefrom. This man 15 [it is] who has made no mention of the beginning and avoided the beginning and made a beginning which they laid not down but in this wise passed over the beginning and wished not to make a beginning therefrom, whereas [it is] I who have established the things which the fathers rightly said, and I said that we would make a beginning from here showing also the cause wherefore they first laid down the names which are common to the divinity and the humanity and then built up thereon the tradition of the Incarnation and of the Sufferings and of the Resurrection, 'first laying down the names of the two natures which indicate that these are common, without the Sonship or the Lordship being separated and without the natures, in the union of the Sonship, coming into danger of corruption and of confusion.' Why then / hast thou passed by these things as superfluous, as things which ought not to be said? Was it because thou didst suppose that it was the same and people ought not to speak thus, but that it was enough for them to begin thence whence thou didst begin and didst make a beginning and correct them? But those [fathers] anathematize those who make additions or diminutions, but they have done improperly and not according to the opinion of the fathers. But he gave a contrary explanation when I said unto |143 him that 'this is the beginning and thence rather ought we to begin whence I have admonished thee'. But he was disputing against me as though in his wisdom he were teaching all men lest through their ignorance they should fall short of this impiety. For what reason then, when thou didst lay down the faith, didst thou also not begin from here whence they began as touching that which was under inquiry? For we were searching how we ought naturally to understand and to speak of these properties of the flesh and of the rational soul and of the properties of God the Word, seeing that [either] they both belonged by nature to God the Word, or to Christ, so that both natures were united by the very union of one prosôpon. But I said and affirmed that the union is in the one prosôpon of the Messiah, and I made known in every way that God the Word was made man and that God the Word was at the same time in the humanity, / in that Christ was made man in it. And for this reason the fathers, in teaching us what Christ is, about whom they used to dispute, laid down first those things which constitute Christ; but thou [actest] in the reverse way, because thou wishest that in the two natures God the Word should be the prosôpon of union. Thou allowest these things [to pass] as superfluous and thou makest a beginning after them, as they do; and thou transferrest from the one unto the other all those things of which Christ is naturally [formed] and said. And since the Christ of the fathers is the opposite of thine, thou hast declined to acknowledge him and thou sayest with me, though thou wishest not, that Christ is in two natures but that God the Word is not in two natures.
But hear [an extract] from what he has written unto me, that you may know that there is nothing just in him but that he is arranging in everything that there may not be a judgement and an examination, which would make known his enmity toward me, which was not on account of the faith.
Diverse are the natures which have come unto a true union; but from them both [there has resulted] one Christ and Son, not because the diversity in the natures has been |144 abolished by reason of the union, but because they have perfected for us rather one Lord and Messiah and Son.16
Not indeed as though the ousia of God the Word who remains eternally as he is and receives neither addition nor diminution, was perfected in a change of natures; / but owing to the concourse of the union of the divinity and of the humanity there came into being one Christ and not God the Word; for he exists eternally. Christ therefore is the prosôpon of the union, whereas God the Word is not of the union but in his own nature, and it is not the same thing to say and to understand [the one for the other]. And for this reason, O admirable man, the fathers also, adhering to the Divine Scriptures, have said 'One Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son', on account of the prosôpon of the union, and then teach what those who are united are, and in whom. Who is he who was born of the Father only-begotten? Our Lord Jesus Christ. 'The only-begotten Son of God, that is, from the ousia of God the Father. God from God and Light of Light, Very God of Very God, born and not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all that is in heaven and in earth was [made].' Of whom have you spoken, O fathers? Of something else or him [of] whom you have written before, 'One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God'? Who is this and of whom? Of the Father, 'Very God of Very God, born and not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all was [made], who on account of us men and on account of our salvation came down.1 Who is this? Tell me and him and all men, O fathers. What is he? Another / or the Only-begotten? Him we teach you and none other, who 'on account of us men and on account of our salvation came down and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, who also was made man'. Thus far, then, that 'He came down, was made flesh and was made |145 man', they have taught us about those things which concern the divinity of Christ: and in 'He was made flesh' about his union with the flesh; but for the rest, about the flesh wherein he was made flesh: 'One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.' For does not 'of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary' teach us concerning the birth of the flesh? 'One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.' What is his nature? That which his Mother also was, of whom the passible flesh was born. And 'He suffered and rose on the third day and ascended into heaven and will come to judge the living and the dead'. Who is this? 'One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father.' They call him both things: 'consubstantial with the Father' and 'consubstantial with the mother, one Lord Jesus Christ', [speaking not of] God the Word as in both [ousias] by nature, but of 'one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God'. For the union is in the prosôpon and not in the nature nor in the ousia, but a union indeed of ousias, namely, the ousia of God the Word and the ousia of the flesh; and they were united not in the ousia----for God the Word and the flesh became not one ousia and the two ousias became not flesh----[but] God the Word and the flesh [were so united]. And thou dost confess all these things with me / when thou sayest that the natures of the divinity and of the humanity are diverse and that the two natures remain in their own ousia and that their diversities are not made void by the union of the natures; for the two natures complete one Christ and not one God.
Of what then dost thou accuse me? Speak before all those who read our words. For I say this, and when thou hast spoken and confessed [this], thee too I have praised for what thou hast said, in that in thy discourse thou hast made a distinction between the divinity and the humanity and [hast united] them in the conjunction of one prosôpon; and [I have praised] thy saying that God the Word had not need of a second birth from a woman and that the divinity admits not of sufferings; faithfully hast thou spoken; and these [are the words] of those who are correct in their faith and are opposed to the wrong faith of all the heresies concerning |146 the Lord's nature. Where then have I said that Christ was a mere man or two Christs and that there was not one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, of the union of the two natures one prosôpon? And even unto thee thyself I have said, as brother unto brother, that we should not distinguish the union nor the prosôpon which [results] from the union. Nor again do we begin from God the Word, as from a prosôpon of union, but from him from whom the fathers began, who were wiser than thou and who were excellently acquainted with the Divine Scriptures. And see how / they tear up as from the foundation and destroy all those things which effect a change. For if thou referrest all the properties of the flesh to God the Word, see that, after stealing, as thou hast said, the properties of the natures, thou dost not say those things which the three hundred and eighteen fathers have with one voice and with one mouth and with one conscience rejected: that there was when God the Word was not, that is, [that] when his flesh was not, then God the Word was not; that is, that, before his flesh was born, he was not. In that thou hast said that he made for himself all the properties, so then God the Word was born of things which were not, because his flesh was [formed] of things which were not, unless thou darest to say that the flesh itself has eternally existed and sayest that God the Word was of another hypostasis and another ousia, and not of that of the Father but of that of which the flesh was, and [that] God the Word is changeable and corruptible on account of his flesh which is therein.17 For the fathers anathematize those who predicate these of God the Father.
Now God the Word is not of them both in ousia, nor again is God the Word in flesh, nor is God the Word of two nor is God the Word two natures. / For herein only, in his being co-essential with the Father, is God the Word conceived. For he was made flesh and was revealed in flesh; but if he was made flesh in the flesh, it is evident that [it was] in that flesh which had been made, and he who was made flesh in |147 that which was made made not his own ousia the flesh, so as to make the properties of the nature of the ousia of the flesh his own properties, but with a view to the revelation he carried out all the operations of his prosôpon. For he made use of the likeness and of the prosôpon of a servant, not the ousia nor the nature, in such wise that he was by nature in them both, as being Christ. What therefore has carried him 18 away to find another way and a beginning apart from that which the fathers had made, so that he came to anathematize all those things which had been said by them and of necessity to say all those things which had been anathematized by them? But he first laid down the [words] of the fathers, as though he wished to convince them, and to say 'I have said the same things as they', and then to accuse me as though I spoke not in the same way as they. But after he found that I said the same as they and that I maintained their own [views], he began to lay down laws and to substitute those terms which they had not said, and to introduce them into the faith, persuading [every one] that he ought to embrace the latter instead of the former. For thus it was said of God the Word, when he 19 said that he / existed before the worlds and was born of the Father and was born in flesh of a woman. But where have the fathers said that God the Word was born in flesh of a woman? Require him to state the deposit of the fathers which they have laid down for all men and to which also, thou hast well said, we ought to adhere in words and in faith. If then thou keepest thy promise in deeds, it is right; for he who has not spoken as the fathers have spoken is guilty. Prove then that the fathers have spoken this word, then condemn me with an anathema in the manner of one who has transgressed the books and the deposit of the fathers, although ten thousand times I have excused myself and said that I imagined not otherwise in mine imagination. Or if not, let not alone whosoever has defiled aught that the fathers have said in the terms which have been fixed by them. For those terms which |148 have been fixed by them ought by all means to be observed, although we have often neglected to explain them; for if any one otherwise makes use of them, such as they are, [he ought to do so,] not as with a view to suppression nor as with a view to change nor as with a view to transformation, but that he may preserve therein with me such an opinion as is correct, I mean, that of the fathers.
What then hast thou to prove concerning this? Did I make wrong use of the word which is in the deposit of the fathers and ought I to beg for an explanation? Prove unto me that God the Word was born / in flesh of a woman and then explain how thou understandest that he was born. For if thou presupposest it and if thou explainest what has been laid down by thee, thou art not accepted by those who accept the [words] of the fathers; they are without diminution and for this reason they admit neither addition nor diminution nor change. For he who explains also establishes those things which have been written and surely does not suppress them. And if I have made wrong use of the words of the fathers----I who would have persuaded [every one] by words not to call the holy virgin the mother of God nor would have called Christ God 20 and thou hast been constrained to come against me----prove unto me first that I said these things before certain men who duly examined us and not before those who inclined unto thy side; for thou hast conquered before the latter and thou hast made use of them as though they had neither reason nor soul; and thou hast not presented mine own letter, wherein I disputed against thee, as before men. lest thou shouldest confuse the words of the fathers; but that thou mightest confess one Lord Jesus Christ consubstantial with the Father, none other but one and the same who is one prosôpon of the two natures: of the divinity and of the humanity, Lord and Christ; and this also hast thou confessed. It was not therefore because I confessed not that Christ himself----who is also God, and none other than God the Word, consubstantial / ----is God, but because I confess that he is also |149 man. If it were that this is so and I had not thus confessed, in teaching I should have added that Christ is God and consubstantial with the Father and at the same time also man consubstantial with us. I should not have cursorily passed over the prosôpon of the union and the ousia of the divinity,21 as if I were to begin from the common prosôpon of the divinity and of the humanity as if from one ousia of God the Word, which they both were; but I should have referred to him naturally all the things which concern him and which concern his flesh, since he is both of them by ousia.
Why then dost thou falsely charge the fathers with that which they say not? And why again dost thou persuade those who are unwilling to accept anything apart from the deposit of the fathers to accept thine own rather than that of the fathers? But recollect thyself and read and know and see that they have not said this and that we have not transgressed them as ignorant or as wicked men; but thou findest not that those who have written for thee have said that he who was born of the Father was born in flesh of a woman, if they have mentioned at all the birth from a woman. How then sayest thou, O calumniator, that 'we have found that the holy fathers thought thus and that they thus were confident in calling the holy virgin the mother of God. Thus we say that he both / suffered and rose'? 22 First prove unto us that the fathers called her the mother of God or that God the Word was born in flesh or that he was born at all and at the same time both suffered and died and rose, and explain unto us how they say that God suffered and rose. But if it has surely been fabricated by thee, and thou art calumniating [the fathers], how can anyone without doubt admit the rest of thesethings? Forthou hast made them all doubtful, because thou hast not said those things which the fathers have said but hast changed even the very term. For although thou hast supposed the same thing that they make known and there is no single distinction between 'the Lord and Jesus Christ' and 'God the Word', and though thou |150 makest known the same thing by this term or by that, thou oughtest not to have made changes but to have explained and made clear and to have made use of terms which have been laid down by the fathers. But thou couldest not by those terms prove God the Word passible and mortal, and for this reason thou makest use of this term whereby thou canst carry away those who know not what each one of them signifies.
Thus also we understand 'He died'; for God the Word is immortal indeed in his nature and incorruptible and quick and quickening; but, further, because his body by the grace of God, as Paul has said, has tasted death for every man, it is said that he bore death for us.
By / whom [is this said]? By thee or by the fathers? Speak, deceive not the hearers by means of the fathers, by thy statements that thou agreest with their words and their teaching. Read therefore: where have they said that God the Word suffered? But thou sayest that Divine Scripture has said that God the Word suffered; read and dissemble not. But it exists not for thee to read. For what purpose then dost thou calumniate the fathers? Or why dost thou take the faith of the fathers as a means for deceiving and forestalling those who believe simply and without investigating? Makest thou sport of those who read as men who reflect not? Or correctest thou the faith of the fathers, who have not written what they ought to have written? For thou first layest it down and thou sayest that we ought to agree thereto in words and in faith; but thou adherest not at all thereto and hast not even observed the order of the text nor begun whence the fathers began, and in addition to these things thou hast referred [to God the Word] all those things which have been said by them.23 And thou hast neither feigned to make use of the same terms nor hast thou adhered to their teaching. For |151 'created' and 'made' and 'passible' and 'mortal' and all such things as the fathers repudiate thou hast predicated of the ousia of God the Word, of whom are predicated all those things which belong unto the Father in his own ousia and who exists. For thou maintainest that we should so speak as those men who have not spoken, and then, to be sure, thou explainest / not, even though indeed thou wouldest preclude God the Word from being called passible and mortal, but so as to persuade men to say the things, the saying of which the fathers have refused. Thus we confess one Lord Christ who took his name at birth from the blessed Mary but is indeed man, yea even in the death, yea even in the resurrection, yea even in the ascension, yea even in his coming from Heaven; of all these things thou now strippest him. 'Thus', thou sayest, 'we confess one Christ and Lord', as thou thyself sayest. We shall then confess that which has not been confessed:
Not indeed as though we adore the man with the Word, lest thou shouldest introduce a semblance of separation in that we have said 'with', but we adore him as one and the same, because his body is not alien unto him, with which he also is seated with the Father.24
Either he has said it through the blindness of his intellect or he has been compelled by the necessity of God to fall into that whereat he is vexed in others and into [incurring] the same reprimand.
For he has used the [word] 'with' twice, in that he has said |152 'with him who is seated with the Father'. For the [word] with' is not said of one but [of one] with another, and the one, who is with the other, is seated with the Father; how will he not introduce a semblance of separation? He says 'the body' and 'his own body' and 'seated with him' and causes not the semblance of a separation! By 'one and the same God the Word' he understands also his body; and he understands / the body and again he does not understand the body; and he understands that his body is with him and he does not understand that his body is with him but understands it [to be] alone; and he understands that he is seated with it with the Father and again does not understand that it is seated with the Father, but he understands him [to be] alone. Who could tell his ineffable wisdom? But he has taken it for him, not as though again two sons were sitting but one, owing to the union with his flesh.25
And further thou hast said: 'Thou hast 26 raised the semblance of a cleavage when thou givest to imagine one with another'. But [it is] in the union. Of whom? Of Christ? Then the prosôpon of the union is Christ, but thou sayest that he has taken for him that with which he also was seated with the Father.... Thou hast put a prosôpon in it itself; why therefore dost thou make [it] void, as if it had been unrighteously said that it also is seated with him with the Father? Or as if by this [word] 'with' thou hadst been forced to understand that he is so, and it were possible that thou understandest or imaginest correctly, in confessing that not two sons were seated but one owing to the union with his flesh. And thou makest void this [word] 'with', that men may not imagine two. But if that which thou hast said be impious for thee, return again to this chapter which thou hast omitted, for it is its aim. For what hast thou written? Hast thou not clearly disproved [thy statement] that we ought not to write 'with'; and hast thou written that 'He is seated / with it with the Father '? For he who says these things says that two sons are seated, but thou disprovest that men ought |153 not to imagine that two sons are seated. And thus in the deposit which has been laid down thou allowest that which signifies two sons, but thou sayest that we ought not to conceive two sons, but two are of necessity conceived, as it is supposed according to thine own opinion. But it is otherwise deposited and to be said, and two sons are not to be conceived. Of what dost thou accuse me, who say that two are united in one Son, whereby I wished to show the inconfusion of the natures in the union, in making use of the qualities of the natures? I seek not to make as it were two sons nor again the dissolution of the union, but I make use of one prosôpon of union as [formed] of the two ousias, as also Divine Scripture signifies. But by one ousia thou signifiest two ousias. But if I were to say the things which thou sayest, it would appear to thee an impiety. But if thou didst have confidence to read the things, thou didst read them for thyself and not for them[selves], things which cannot be examined in that way, if in piety. Thou hast further shunned also an examination by the whole Council, because thou didst judge that these [views] had no accurate defence. And as I was not [there], / what thou saidest well unto them thou saidest for my sake, and what thou saidest wrongly against thyself [was] thus again also for my sake. For if this word 'with' hinders there being one Son and his being seated with his flesh with the Father, there are not two adorations of one Son because he is adored with it, since he who is seated with that which is alien is adored in one adoration; for there is a union in the natures----and thou also confessest [it] with me----but the distinction of the natures is not made void on account of the union. For it was right for me to say many times those words which have been well said; then thou art astonished, when thou hearest that which is mine in thine: that there was indeed no union which proved not a diversity, as [is shown by] the adoration of 'Him who is seated [at the right hand of the Father]'. But thou takest as the starting-point of thy narrative the Maker of the natures and not the prosôpon of union. Either then avoid saying two natures united without confusion; or confess and say these things, and it will not appear an impossibility unto thee to |154 predicate one in the union and another in that which concerns the ousia, not in that which concerns the union of the prosôpon.
But if we decline the hypostatic union as being either incomprehensible or as unseemly, we fall into predicating two sons: for it is necessary to distinguish and to say of man / alone that he is honoured with the name of son, but also of God the Word alone that he possesses the title and the functions of the sonship naturally. It is not right then to distinguish two sons in one Lord Jesus Christ.
I have said unto thee also in the letter that I do not know [the meaning of] the things which have been said by thee. And thou feignest to be repentant; thou hast not dissembled those things which thou wast fairly prepared to say afterwards. And when thou oughtest to have made answer concerning these things and to write and to persuade and to reprimand the calumniators openly, thou hast risen up against thyself and me and hast neglected the fathers and the Holy Scriptures. Why dost thou wish that there should be an hypostatic union, which makes us neither understand that there is [in the union] the ousia of man nor understand [that he is] man in nature but God the Word in nature, that is, God who is not in nature what he is in his nature through the hypostatic union, wherein there are no distinctions and definitions of the various [elements]. For this reason also this union is a union of those things which have been defined by the word ousia; and if it be void, there is no more a union; but [it is the result] of a union, yet not a union. And if every definition of the natures is made void, how will the union not make void the distinctions of the natures? And if they are conceived neither in nature nor in a union, how hast thou said that he has made / the property of the flesh his own, since thou sayest that [he is] in the one indeed by nature but in the other by union? And it is his to have suffered indeed |155 in nature and to have died, because he has made them his own. How then hast thou sought to establish the hypostatic union? What is this unintelligible hypostatic union? Or how shall we accept it, the unintelligible? Or how hast thou understood it? How is it raised up though incomprehensible? And again, unseemly? Instruct us. But thou art not willing to instruct me. Thou hast supposed to thyself that the judges speak unto thee and persuade thee to instruct us and those who are like us, because we know not; and if not, instruct the whole Council. For neither thou nor the Council are capable of [understanding] the term 'union'. Because I also say 'union', yet thou acceptest not what I say, because I distinguish the union. If I say concerning things which have been united that they are corporeal in ousia and incorporeal in ousia, then [I say that] they are divided from one another: the one indeed as created, but the other as uncreated; the one indeed mortal and the other immortal; and the one eternal with the Father and the other created in the last times, and the one consubstantial with the Father and the other consubstantial with us; for the union makes not void the ousias which have been united in such wise that they are not to be known [apart].
/ Thou sayest unto me 'Thou distinguishest'; but verily thou also [dost likewise]; even in the very words to which thou hast recourse to accuse me, thou sayest as follows: 'Diverse are the natures which have come into a true union; yet from both of them [is formed] one Christ and Son, not as though the diversity of the natures had been removed because of the union.' Dost thou give us to imagine this even concerning the hypostatic union? Or [dost thou not speak] as one who distinguishes, saying that as a result of their diversities the natures which have been united are diverse; and [then] rush headlong into thy profession that thou introducest not a semblance of separation? And what do I mean by 'thou introduces 27 a semblance of separation'? And what do I mean by 'a semblance'? Thou understandest the separation of the natures |156 as expressing the natures and not as a confusion, since there is not in thy mind any semblance of definition of the natures whereby to understand that they were united without confusion, even as the fire was united with the bush and the bush with the fire and they were not confused. Thou therefore showest them without definition and without distinction, whereas I show them defined and distinct from one another. If thou then speakest of the hypostatic union, speak clearly; for I confess to not understanding either then or now; thou needest to instruct me in such wise that I may agree with thee. Or if I accept not thy opinion, say that I accept it not, and if the judges / accept [it] of thee, let them convince me or let them condemn me as one for whom there is no getting rid of his wickedness.
Say therefore [what] the hypostatic union [is]. Dost thou wish to regard a hypostasis as a prosôpon,28 as we speak of one ousia of the divinity and three hypostases and understand prosôpa by hypostases? Thou callest therefore the prosôpic union hypostatic; yet the union was not of the prosôpa but of the natures. For 'diverse are the natures which have come into a true union, yet from both of them [is formed] 'one Christ'. Understandest thou the one prosôpon of Christ rather than the hypostasis of the ousia and of the nature, in the same way as thou speakest of the form of his hypostasis |157 and the union of the natures? But I say that; and I praised thee for having said it and having made a distinction of the natures in the doctrine of the divinity and of the humanity and coherence of these in one prosôpon. For hast thou not said 'diversities without confusion' and 'it remained without diversity whereby it would be separated'. But even if thou dost not concede a diversity and that a diversity of natures, thou dost concede a natural separation without knowing it. But it was not a diversity which became a union, since the things which are therein remain without confusion, as the bush in the fire and the fire in the bush. But it appears not that thou sayest this, and thou dost rebuke me as one who accepts not the hypostatic union. But I am not persuaded of any other / hypostatic union with other natures nor of anything else which is right for the union of diverse natures except one prosôpon, by which and in which both the natures are known, while assigning their properties to the prosôpon. It is well to confess and be conformable to the tradition of the Gospels that the bodily frame is the temple of the divinity of God the Word and that the temple has been united by the supreme adherence of the divinity in such wise as to make over to the one the things which are the other's by the appropriation of the nature of the divinity, but not that he made them [both] his own ousia. What other hypostatic union, then, dost thou wish to teach me, which consists in a supreme and divine and ineffable union? I know not unless [it be that] of one prosôpon where the one is the other and the other the one. And for this reason I proclaim eagerly in every place that the things which are said either about the divinity or about the humanity must be taken not of the nature but of the prosôpon, so that there might be no unreality about the human qualities, [as there would be] if both of them were united in the ousia. For not in all things is he to be called in |158 ousia that which was in the ousia, but all those things which indicate the prosôpon of [the ousia\ And it is known that God the Word is said to have become flesh and the Son of man after the likeness and after the prosôpon of flesh and of man whereof he made use to make himself known unto the world. For all the things which are naturally / called flesh are not to be called also God the Word: as that he should come into being when he was not or was [formed] of that which was not or whatever the flesh is said [to have been] before it came into being, when it came into being and after it came into being, in the changes of growth and corruption, and in short consubstantial with ourselves. Because he is consubstantial with ourselves in everything, the things which are said of the ousia are not said of any thing else except only of this ousia, and he is called consubstantial [with us]; for in [the saying of] the things which are said of the prosôpon and of the likeness of the nature is said that which makes him known, as the prosôpon [makes known] the ousia. But that which exists naturally is not said [of God the Word], because the union took not place according to the ousia and the nature but according to the prosôpon. Thus also the flesh is not to be said [to be] all that God the Word is by nature; for it was not without beginning nor was it unmade nor was it incorporeal nor was it invisible nor was it consubstantial with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, although that which is called Son and Lord and God is also to be called flesh in this manner through the union, because the union came into being as touching the prosôpon of the Son of God, and neither the ousia nor the nature, but by means of the natures; and all things which belong to the prosôpon are its, except the ousia of the prosôpon, not according to the nature but according to the prosôpon.
/ What other hypostatic union, then, dost thou predicate, as if saying that I accept it not, either as incomprehensible or as unseemly, and [that] for this reason I have fallen into speaking of two Christs: the one man who is honoured under the title of Son and then apart [from him] God the Word, who possesses naturally the name and function of sonship? How can he who in the union speaks of one Son, one Christ, |159 one Lord, distinctly speak apart of one Son, God, and one other, and thus of two sons? For again that would not be called a union but each one of the natures [by itself] in its own ousia. For neither is God the Word said to have become flesh in his own ousia but by union with the flesh, nor is the flesh called Son apart from the union with the Son of God. For this reason there is one flesh in them both and one Son in them both. For he whose it is by the union to exist and to be spoken of neither exists nor is spoken of in the definition and the distinction [of each] from one another. As God the Word is by his nature God incorporeal, nevertheless in the union with the flesh he is called flesh, and the flesh which is in its nature bodily frame and in its ousia also bodily frame, is yet God and Son by the union with God the Word the Son of God. There are said to be neither two fleshes nor again two sons: those which are distinct by nature and exist by the union of the natures. Among / men, in fact, many who are sons are [so] called by the distinction and by the division of the natures, those unto every one of whom [sonship] is given only by grace and adoption, as honour is given by the Emperor unto every one of the princes. For that which exists only in its own hypostasis belongs also unto many as by grace. For he exists in his hypostasis and has made it the likeness of his likeness, neither by command nor by honour nor simply by equality of grace, but he has made it his likeness in its natural likeness, in such wise that it is none other than that very [thing] which he has taken for his own prosôpon, so that the one might be the other and the other the one, one and the same in the two ousias, a prosôpon fashioned by the flesh and fashioning the flesh in the likeness of its own sonship in the two natures, and one flesh in the two natures, the one fashioned by the other and the other by the one, the same and the single likeness of the prosôpon.
I know not therefore in what sense thou predicatedst the hypostatic union in such wise that it is incomprehensible or unseemly, in order that I may admit or not admit [it]; and has he for this reason been defined and called solely man by the title or by the honour |160 of a son, and then again apart the Word which is from God, to which belongs naturally sonship and name and title?
But what meanest thou by 'uniquely'? / State clearly the deposit of the faith of the fathers and set down the things which are alike both for me and for every one to say, for thou hast not made clear the meaning which we ought to mean and to state. How sayest thou that the nature of man cannot be understood 'uniquely', especially apart from the ousia of God the Word, which is Son not by nature but by union? But also thou sayest that there are diversities in the natures which have been combined in the union of one Son; but the diversity is not voided through the union of the natures; it is not as though the diversity of the natures were made void because of the union. If then the distinctions of the natures have not been annulled, the nature of the flesh appertains solely to the nature of the humanity. But that which is Son consubstantial with God the Father and with the Holy Spirit uniquely and solely appertains to the divinity; for by the union the flesh is son and God the Word is flesh. And for this reason whoever speaks thus neither predicates two sons nor predicates two fleshes, nor predicates two fleshes in the nature nor yet of the flesh in the one and of the sonship in the other, but makes use of the same in the natural prosôpa of each of them in what is their own, as the fire was in the bush and the bush was fire and the fire bush and each of them was bush and fire and not two bushes nor two fires, since / they were both in the fire and they were both in the bush, not indeed in division but in union. From the two natures there come into being the natural prosôpa. Either then speak not of distinct natures when they remain in the distinctions of the natures and are not made void, or say that they have remained the diversity of the natures, or thou shouldest define them as a distinction of natures in an inseparable union, not indeed as diversities of nature made void by the union... 29 |161
For if then thou understandest them uniquely and not in the natures but in their mutual distinction, of what am I guilty who confess the indistinguishable union of the two natures in one prosôpon? And I am addressing my words unto thee as unto one who is in doubt concerning these things. But predicatest thou but one nature of the hypostatic union in such wise that after the union the natures preserve not their properties? And thou correctest the things which were formerly said by thee, but especially thou dost surely declare them void as a result of the examination against me, in wishing to say the contrary of the things which I say, because it has befallen thee to will to inquire into the cause of the distinction not as in sincerity but out of opposition as an enemy. For this [union] is as one that suppresses the natures, and I accept it not. / But out of opposition towards me thou hast occupied [thy mind] with definitions, with furious words, as robbers, that thou mightest conceal thy purpose and might not be discovered; and thou sayest this and that and all things, but thou speakest not of the hypostatic union for the making void of the natures but for the [establishing of] a natural union which [results] from the composition in one nature. As the soul and the body [result] in one nature of the man, so also God the Word is united with the humanity, and this thou callest the hypostatic union. But even then, though the natures were to remain, yet there would come to be a union [resulting] in a nature passible and made and created, for the natural union is a second creation. For those things which have not [a thing] in their nature receive it in their nature by the union of nature; but the things which are united in virtue of a natural union are united with the natural passibility of the other and accept not voluntarily mutual sufferings, as the body and the soul, receiving not in their nature their own mutual properties except by the union of nature, participate in one another and give and receive mutual sufferings by the necessity of nature in such wise that he suffers who would not have suffered of himself. For in the union the soul of itself neither hungers nor thirsts nor is pained by a cut or by a burn or by a blow, nor again is |162 the soulless bodily frame sensible of any of these things; but by the natural / union of diverse natures they suffer passively and participate in these mutual sufferings by the necessity of the union.
If thou thus predicatest the hypostatic union of the nature, thou sayest, as the Arians, that it is natural and not voluntary, because he suffered with a natural passibility. He suffered as a result of the natural union, for the sufferings of the soul are the sufferings of the body in the natural composition. For he who is unmade, who is by his nature uncreated, was not composed that he might suffer as though created and made. For men prove not the one nature of the union by the fact that the soul is in the body and the body in the soul, for it 30 produces not the union in every bodily frame wherein there is a soul so as also to be able always to quicken it, but [it is in the body] by such a composition as has been constructed in one nature by the Maker, both subjected and involuntarily subject unto a natural limitation, both limited and unable to escape. And again they are released or bound by the construction in the union of the nature. If therefore the union of God the Word with the humanity was in one nature, although those natures remained without confusion but in a union of the nature, the Maker and that which was made would be constructed by a change either willingly or unwillingly since they have been so styled and it 31 is made and created. And he who can create everything, that is, God, will be the nature of the union, and it is not the hypostasis of the humanity which is known [to be] animal in nature, as even the body / without the soul is not animal in its own hypostasis, but by the construction of the natural union it is its [property] to be animal. If it is so, it is also through God [the property] of man to be animal, but it is not his [property through] his own hypostasis and his nature, but through the hypostatic union which establishes one nature.
For this purpose he declines to say that the man is man and that he is animal in his hypostasis and in his nature, and that |163 God the Word is God the Word in his hypostasis, in order that he may maintain his nature in the union, and that it may not become animal as a result of the union. For he 32 received as a result of the construction of [all] creation by the Father and by the Son and by the Holy Spirit to become man, but to become the only-begotten Son he received from the union with God the Word, for it belonged not unto his own nature nor did it lie in the natural and hypostatic union. For that which it was his to become by the natural union was not his to become as a result of anything else than of the natural construction, as to become one animal results neither from the bodily frame nor from the soul nor from them both but from the natural construction. This [union] then is corruptible and passible, but the union of the prosôpa of the natures is neither passible nor corruptible as [having taken place] through a voluntary appropriation; and the union was not his involuntarily by condescension or by exaltation, by command or by subjection unto command. And such a conception as this consists neither in the making void / nor in the being made void nor in the extinction of one nature or of the properties of the two natures, but the several qualities in the natural qualities are distinct in purpose and in will, according to the distinction of the natures in the one equality, while there is the same will and purpose in the union of the natures, so that they may both will or not will the same things. 33
And because also the prosôpon of the one is the other's and that of the other the one's, and the one [comes] from the other and the other from the one, the will belongs to each one of them. When he speaks as from his own prosôpon, [he does so] by one prosôpon which appertains to the union of the natures and not to one hypostatis or [one] nature. For the divinity is not limited by the body as each one of the natures which are |164 united in the hypostatis. For they are limited by the nature in that it limits them in their being and they exist not apart from them, as the soul and the body are bound together in their being and exist not apart from themselves]. 34
If therefore thou thus sayest that God the Word and the flesh are united and thou callest this an incomprehensible and unseemly union, I decline not to say clearly: 'Those who say these things are impious, and this opinion comes not from the orthodox.' For if the Son, who is impassible, had come unto the necessity of a passible nature in order that he might sensibly suffer, it would prove that his own ousia was not impassible / but [was] a passible nature, whereof he had been constituted in the hypostatic union and wherein he suffered. For he to whose nature it appertains not to suffer, will not suffer in any way in his hypostasis, if he is impassible; for he who suffers in aught is not impassible in his hypostatis, but is impassible [only] in such manner as all those who, being passible, suffer in nature; they do not suffer in all ways, but in that way whereby it appertains to the nature itself to suffer. Everything suffers not in the same way, neither light nor air nor fire, nor the animals which are in the waters nor the animals which are on the dry land, nor birds nor bodily frames nor souls nor angels nor demons, but they are passible indeed in ousia and in hypostasis. But they suffer according to the disposition of their nature to suffer either of themselves or by another.
But thou sayest neither by confusion nor yet by change of ousia nor by corruption nor yet naturally, so that one hypostatic union takes place. Thou predicatest therefore this voluntary one wherein a union without confusion and without the suffering of the natures in one prosôpon is conceived, and not a natural union. For the prosôpon of a natural union is predicated of the two natures which have been united, as the man is neither body nor soul; for the union of these results in a nature and the prosôpon of the nature. But / God took upon himself the likeness of a servant, and that of none other, for his own prosôpon and for his sonship, as indeed are those who are |165 united in nature. 35 He took the likeness of a servant: and the likeness of the servant was not the ousia of a man, but he who took it made it [his] likeness and his prosôpon. And he became the likeness of men, but he became not the nature of men, although it was the nature of a man which he took; he who took it came to be in the likeness of man, whilst he who took and not that which was taken was found in schema as man; for that which was taken was the ousia and nature of man, whereas he who took was found in schema as man without being the nature of man. For the nature he took not for himself but the likeness, the likeness and schema of man, in all things which indicate the prosôpon: as touching the poverty of the schema, he 36 relates: He condescended unto death, even the death upon the cross whereby he emptied himself, in order to show in nature the humiliation of the likeness of a servant and to endure scorn among men; for they shamefully entreated him, even him who displayed infinite condescension. He made known also the cause wherefore he took the likeness of a servant when He was found in the likeness of men in schema as a man and humiliated himself unto death, even the death upon the cross. But he suffered not these things in his / nature but made use therein of him who suffers naturally in his schema and in his prosôpon in order that he might give him by grace in his prosôpon a name which is more excellent than all names, before which every knee which is in heaven and on the earth and beneath the earth shall bow; and every tongue shall confess him, in order that by his similitude with God and according to the greatness of God he may be conceived as Son who took the likeness of a servant and was in the likeness of a man and was found in schema as a man and humiliated himself unto death, even the death upon the cross, and was exalted in that there was given unto him a name which is more excellent than all names in the schema of the likeness of a servant |166 which was taken with a view to the union. But he was the likeness of a servant not in schema but in ousia, and it was taken for the likeness and for the schema and for the humiliation unto death upon the cross. For this reason it was exalted so as to take a name which is more excellent than all names.
But to understand 'the likeness of a servant as ousia' he appointed Christ for the understanding; for Christ is both of them by nature. For this reason the properties of the two natures befit also one prosôpon, not [that] of the ousia of God the Word. And the prosôpon is not in the ousia, for it is not in the ousia of God the Word, nor is it the prosôpon of the union of the natures which have been united in such wise as to make two ousias befit the one prosôpon / of God the Word, for he is not both of them in ousia. God the Christ is not indeed as it were another apart from God the Word, but he is indicative of the union of the two ousias of God the Word and of man. But God and man----of them is Christ [constituted], as thou also hast said. The diversities of the natures are not destroyed because of the union, but they have rather perfected for us one Lord and Christ and Son, by an ineffable and incomprehensible concurrence of the divinity and of the humanity in the union. Although in the things which thou hast said well, where thou seemest to repent.... For the ousia of God the Word was not made perfect by the divinity and by the humanity, because it is not its [property] in virtue of the union to become God the Word, as Christ is [constituted] of the divinity and of the humanity. For the incarnation is indicative of the humanity, for He was made man is all conceived not only of the divinity but also of the incarnation which makes man.
For this reason the Apostle lays down the prosôpon of the union and next the things wherefrom the union results. He says first the likeness of God, which is the similitude of God and next it took the likeness of a servant, not the ousia nor the nature but the schema and the prosôpon, in order that he might participate in the likeness of a servant, and that the |167 likeness of the servant might participate in the likeness of God, so that of / necessity there might be one prosôpon from the two natures. For the likeness is the prosôpon, so that it is the one by ousia and the other by union in respect to the humiliation and to the exaltation. How then dost thou bid us understand these diversities of the natures in the union? For the union has not removed the diversities of the natures, so that we should again understand these diversities anew. For he who took the likeness of a servant is the property solely of the likeness of God, whereas that which was taken concerns uniquely the likeness of the servant; but the one belongs to the other and the other to the one through the union of the prosôpon and not through the ousia, in such wise that, where the one is in ousia, the other is in union, and not another. That which is in ousia the likeness of God is consubstantial with this ousia, in that it is a natural likeness; but by union the likeness of God took the likeness of a servant and the likeness of God, which is naturally God's, became in schema the likeness of a servant. But the likeness of the servant, which is naturally the likeness of a servant and in the union the likeness of God, is not naturally God's, so that we understand severally in nature the several qualities of each one of the natures and the natural distinctions of each single one of the natures; and the [properties] of the union we understand [as belonging] uniquely to the union and not to the ousia. How therefore dost thou bid us not to conceive any of these things apart in view of / the distinctions of the natures, things which thou hast said are not destroyed because of the union? But thou canst neither reply unto me nor convict me of the things whereof thou accusest me; but thou accusest thyself in the things whereof thou wouldest accuse me and thou speakest against thyself.
But you, O just judges, what have you examined of these things? Either concerning the things which we have subjected to inquiry or of the things which we have said and of the things which I have confessed and of the things which I have denied that I have imagined, convict him who has erred or instruct him who is ignorant. For not because of the things |168 that a man denies is he condemned as an heretic, but because of the things that he confesses. Thus Arius, thus Eunomius, thus Macedonius, thus each of the heretics was condemned by the fathers because of the things which they confessed in opposition [to the faith] and discussed and [which] were subjected to scrutiny. What is there of that which I have confessed and discussed against them for which they have condemned me as an heretic? What have you found in my letter that is contrary to the deposit of the fathers? Whether I have said or have not said [it], speak. Thus he 37 has said that all the things which are referred to Christ by the Divine Scripture ought to be referred to God the Word: the birth from a woman, the cross, the death, the burial, the resurrection, the ascension, and the second coming when he shall come again. It was not / from these things that the fathers began.... But in regard to these things, I have stated why the fathers have not said them; and for this reason also we ought not to begin from here. I have also stated the argument, for they purposed not to prove that God the Word is passible, mortal, and made, and created, nor that he came into being from things which were not----these [are the doctrines] which those who began from there are constrained to state----but the opposite of the things which Arius said and taught. For this reason they placed the beginning of their teaching in the union of the prosôpon of Christ in order that they might duly accept in order the things appertaining to the divinity and those appertaining to the humanity, so that there comes about neither confusion nor making void of the natures. But they combated against all the heresies and were firmly confirmed in orthodoxy when they answered and spoke these words: 'I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son.'
Examine, I said unto him, how they have placed first 'Lord' and 'Jesus Christ', and 'only-begotten' and 'Son', common names of the divinity and of the humanity, as the foundation, and next build thereon the tradition of the Incarnation and the sufferings and the resurrection, in order that, placing first the names of the two natures which are |169 indicative of the common [properties], the sonship and Lordship might not be separated and the natures in the union of the sonship / might not come into danger of corruption and of confusion... 38
How then does it appear unto you, O just judges? Because he has written the opinion which was pleasing unto him, and I also have written my opinion likewise, and further we have chosen you as judges, what think you of these things? What opinion have you of them? Who is just or who is unrighteous? And with what thought have you made examination? Tell us your opinion; write unto us as just judges. Have I lied and transgressed the faith of the fathers, because I have said unto him 39 that they began from here, and not with God the Word, but with one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God? You condemn me as one who has added thereto and you acquit him who has not entirely preserved their faith but has thought that they have made use of these terms fortuitously and without distinction. But I have said that they began from here not fortuitously but by the divine purpose. If I have done impiously therein, show me, and, if not, why do you repudiate as though the argument which I have made unto him were an impiety, [when I said] that they began from here because the [properties] of the divinity and of the humanity are common, as the names indicate, and that they wished to begin with these names / for the sake of complete and lucid instruction, as if the name of Christ existed truly in the two natures, man and God? But if for this reason, then you ought to condemn him also, for he has said that the natures which are combined to come together in union are diverse, but one Christ [is formed] of them both. There |170 resulted not one God the Word from them both, for the diversity of the natures is not removed because of the union. Therefore the two natures belong unto Christ and not unto God the Word. Either therefore condemn my words and his or, in accordance with his, consider me also innocent, since I confess all things. But if not, prove, either you or he, how he confesses that God the Word is in two ousias: of what divinity and humanity has God the Word been perfected by combination? For he has spoken of one Christ who is [formed] of diverse natures, of the divinity and of the humanity, and was perfected ineffably by the combination of the natures. And of what ousias? Of what divinity, of what humanity was God the Word perfected that God the Word should be in two natures? Either you or he, say unto us now also, although you have not said [it] before, say: God the Word is by ousia in them both, as you confess that Christ is in ousia in them both, [formed] from diverse natures. The union has not made void / the diversity of the natures. But you have said that God the Word is diverse natures. For if of one ousia there result two ousias, of the divinity and of the humanity, there has been a separation and not a union; but he says that Christ was in the union and existed in two natures. God the Word became flesh by union and not by ousia; how then does he indicate that the same is one, he who is two in the union and who is the nature? Or are nature and union the same thing, and 'in nature' and 'in union', and prosôpon and ousia? For although the prosôpon exists not without ousia, the ousia and the prosôpon are not the same.
How then have you judged, O wise judges? How then have you considered these [sayings] of the fathers? Do they agree with the Divine Scriptures in the terms and in the signification of the terms and have they made use of these terms zealously and clearly? And from here and from no other point have they been able lucidly to begin their teaching. But if [they began] from where the Holy Spirit guided them, that nothing might be abridged and that nothing might be superfluous and that they might do nothing in vain and by hazard, but everything with examination, [they acted] in such |171 wise that the things which appear in Christ----all the [properties] of God the Word whose nature is impassible and is immortal and eternal, and all the [properties] of the humanity, which are / a nature mortal and passible and created, and those of the union and of the incarnation since the womb and since the incarnation----are referred to one prosôpon, to that common prosôpon of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, whence the fathers began. And so by the distinction of language they have taught us 'The divinity is from God the Father, consubstantial with the Father, light from light, through whom everything was [made] which is on the earth and which is in heaven'. And then the incarnation of God the Word and of the humanity----they have said 'He came down and was made flesh for the sake of us men and for the sake of our salvation'. And then they have said in regard to the things of the flesh, concerning the generation and concerning the formation, that he was made flesh; in teaching they have said 'He was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary'; they have made known this union whereby he was made flesh and was made man. For until his incarnation, they taught us everything in terms of God the Word and after he was made flesh they speak of this union which [proceeded] from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, of the birth and the flesh which was made flesh, the sufferings and the death and the resurrection and the ascension and the operations which made known that the body was united unto him as being animate and intelligent in order that we might suppose that the union was without confusion and further without change of ousia and of nature, or mixture or / natural composition, so as to result in the coming into being of one animal, yet in one prosôpon in accordance with the dispensation on our behalf, in such wise as to participate in us through humiliation unto death, even death upon the cross. But we shall participate in him in the name which is more excellent than all names, before which every knee shall bow which is in heaven and in the earth and beneath the earth and which every tongue shall confess. |172
The soul was not without will nor without reflection in the nature of the humanity, nor was the soul without perception as regards the animal perception of its being, as a result of the natural union of the body and of the soul. All the natural things, both active and passive, are in the work of nature and of the unfailing might [of God]. For the union of God the Word with the humanity took place not in nature, in such wise that the intelligence of the humanity was without activity and that it reflected with the intelligence of God the Word, not with the intelligence of the humanity, and that it perceived not in the union of the living soul, but in the union of the divinity, and that it lived [its] life and that it perceived, not by the activity of the perception of the soul but by the might of the divinity; for such a union as this is passible; as the soul naturally gives perception unto the body, so by means of this perception is given unto it the perception of the sufferings of the body, / so that the perception of the sufferings of the body is given by the soul and unto the soul; for it is passible. For this reason the union is in the prosôpon and not in the nature, and we say not 'the union of the prosopa' but 'of the natures'. But [there is only] one prosôpon in the union but in the natures the one and the other, as from the common prosôpon it is known that he took the flesh, the likeness of a servant, for his own prosôpon, and thereby he spoke in teaching and working and acting; and he gave his own likeness to the likeness of a servant and thereby he speaks as by his own prosôpon and by the divinity. For the prosôpon is common, one and the same. The likeness of the servant belongs unto the divinity and the likeness of the divinity unto the humanity. One and the same is the prosôpon but not the ousia. For the ousia of the likeness of God and the ousia of the likeness of the servant remain in their hypostases.
The union of the natures, in fact, was neither without will nor without imagination, as Arius and Apollinarius have said, but [it resulted] in the prosôpon and in the dispensation on our behalf and in the union of his image and of his likeness which is in our nature of soul and body, falling short of nothing except of sin alone. He comported himself [so] |173 not for the sake of the divinity, but that thereby it might make him combat against guilt by fulfilling all the commandments of the law / and the chief observances, in order that he might appear without rebuke in the choice and in the observances of the commandments, and that he who was without sins might be given unto death because of us, the righteous for the impious. What indeed is this defeat? And what is this victory? What is this equality of recompense for the conduct of God and of man? For it is the controller who is united in the hypostasis in such wise that he participates in the life and conduct and is overcome by death; the conduct also and the death and the resurrection are those of one who controls and who is controlled. For either God remains in his nature, as he was in nature, without sin, or those things which constituted the manner of life of Christ took place in deception since God the Word comported himself as a man. They both in fact were attracted and torn apart by one another, by the nature and by the will, and he also was torn apart. For the conduct [of his life] was by command: he was not of a nature unchangeable, unique and without master, which is not torn to and fro according to the will and plan of another; but, if there was in truth human manner of life and conduct, the conduct of God the Word was in nature, and in those [qualities] of the nature wherein he comported himself he indeed abode, in that he accepted the very nature and became changeable and variable. Therefore he comported not himself [after] the conduct of God but of that nature wherein he comported himself.
What then have you found in my letter, wherein I am impious / and [for which] you have condemned me and have regarded this man as one who fears God? First, then, I convicted him as one who lied concerning the fathers and abolished all the first principles of the faith, and of himself made a beginning whence of constraint he made even God the Word passible. Now 'God the Word' and 'Christ' do not indicate the same thing, either in the Divine Scriptures or |174 as he has said, although Christ exists not apart from God the Word. And I have neither instructed him in the custom of the Divine Scriptures nor shown him the things which happen from such and such terms. And I have praised him for the things which he has well said: that he has preserved without confusion the natures and their properties in such wise that God the Word was impassible even in the very union; and he makes his the properties of the flesh. I have proved unto him that they refer not unto his ousia but unto his prosôpon, so that his prosôpon is his own and so that all things indicate his prosôpon. All the things which [constitute] the prosôpon [constitute] not the ousia, for neither does God the Word exist in all the things of the ousia of the flesh, nor again also is the flesh said [to be] in all the things which belong by ousia unto God the Word, but in all the things which indicate the prosôpon and which are [therein], in such wise that the union without confusion is preserved also in the diversity of the natures / and the prosôpon of the union of the natures is undivided. And I have said unto him and have not dissembled that which I have not understood and about which I have disputed, and I have propounded the cause and the doubt which has been born in me, that I might not permit him to say aught of those things which he has formerly said.
For what then have you condemned me? Because I have convicted him of not having adhered to the words of the Fathers and of having, in opposition to their intention, made God the Word passible and created and made, and of having caused him [to issue] from things which existed not, having begun with him and having referred unto him all the properties ----and I taught him all things. For this reason do you deal harshly [with me]? Or because I have convicted him of lying concerning the Fathers, of having said that the Fathers called the holy Virgin the mother of God, without even making mention of the birth itself? For the sake of these things have you treated me as an adversary? Let none show favour unto any man. But if this phrase 40 has been employed in the discussion about the Faith by the Fathers at Nicaea, with [the |175 aid of] whom he combats against me, read it; or if it has been spoken by any other Council of the orthodox. For it is of the heretics, all of whom fight against the divinity of Christ, but it has not been spoken by those who have adhered to the faith of the orthodox. But if it were shown to have been said by a Council of the orthodox, then even I should confess / that I have been condemned as one who was on the opposite side. But if no one has used this phrase, thou hast risen up against them all to introduce into the Faith with boldness a new phrase which has not been accepted. And this it was that I required of thee in order to prove unto thee that it was not laid down by the Fathers; but it is for the Council, which has been assembled for this purpose and for nothing else, to judge whether it shall be laid down or not laid down. For it is not for them to be persuaded by me in any case, but for me to be persuaded of those things which they examine and judge and select for acceptance. For I have called you judges and have made you all judges of a just judgement, but that which justly belongs to the Council have I not given unto one man, who has conducted [his case] with violence and prevailed on the whole Council to adopt the faith which seemed [good] unto him.
What then have you done of those things on account of which you have been assembled? You have not settled what you ought, and you have broken away from the Council and have not waited for those who were absent. Nor have you observed what you ought toward those who were summoned unto the Council; nor have you assembled together as you have been summoned, but the judges have been as the accused wished. Instead of [being] the accused you have made him sit as the judge of [his] adversary. And how shall I call him judge? You have made him sit / at the head of the Council. And what shall I say of those who were present? And of those who were absent and of those who were not yet come? And you have given him authority over all, both over those who were there and over those who were absent, and over those who were alive and over those who were dead. Who of |176 those who have not chanced upon these things in the document which was [addressed] by them unto the Council in Ephesus, would believe them? Could a just judgement proceed from such a Council as this? Yet although I were supposed to say these things, because I have suffered, and not to have examined them with just deliberation, [and though] none were persuaded of my words, I would not indeed seek to have any help from men. For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come, that I may be with Christ, on account of whom he has fought with me. But [I am writing] that men may not be led astray from the right faith because of the name of the 'judgement of the Council'. For this reason have I said these things. I, however, have said less than the things which they have written; yet learn from those who have condemned me that there has not been a judgement and that I have not been condemned in judgement.
I indeed have spoken the [words] of the Fathers and have spoken those of the Divine Scriptures, and I first looked / into the plot which was being [made] against the Faith, and I first stated that it was the confirmation of the faith of the Arians on account of the hypostatic union, which resembled also [that of] the Manichaeans, in that he would have suffered being passible, and again [that of] Apollinarius, who agreed thereto with all his hands. And he 41 was carried away by all the heresies, since he declared it unlawful to predicate the properties of each of the natures in the union and referred them all, even those of the flesh, unto God the Word. And thereby you have thought that the orthodox were easily deceived by the heretics [into supposing] that they have none of those things whereof they ought to make use against them, since you have surrendered your mouths unto them, and you have bound your hands and your feet and have surrendered yourselves unto them. Either you will turn aside from your guilt or you will suffer wrongs without excuse for having, like irreverent persons, caused heresies to prevail against the orthodox. For supposing that he 41 be found [to be] an Arian, he will call you as witnesses against those who were assembled at Nicaea, as |177 though indeed they had openly risen up with audacity against Arius, to say what they ought not, namely, saying that he who is passible and mortal and made is consubstantial with him who is impassible and immortal and the maker of all created things. And supposing that he is a Manichaean, you will bear witness in his favour that, in that he suffered / impassibly, he suffered in schema. For he, who, when he is supposed to be suffering, suffers not, suffers impassibly: for he who was not [man] by nature, has not even died. You have hardly confessed the truth, and you have reprimanded the three hundred and twenty-eight,42 as not having spoken the truth through acceptance of persons. If in addition to this also you insist on saying: 'We do not say that God the Word died in nature, since the divine nature is immortal and impassible, nor in the semblance of the flesh, but in the nature of the flesh, which is passible and mortal, and that which God the Word became was flesh,' a heathen would accept this word, accepting [it] in the change of the likeness. And thou sayest that the Incarnation' took place through the change of the ousia without his own ousia and his likeness being changed: when he suffered in the passible nature, not before he came to be in the ousia. Why then do you not say the same things as we, when it is a question of the doctrine of the Incarnation; but why docs he lead us astray with the birth of a material flesh,3 with which God the Word was formed, and why have unconvincing and incredible fables been fabricated?
And if thou sayest against this, that the Incarnation of him who became flesh and man took place neither through change of ousia nor through change of likeness, but [that] this man who was taken----who was born / of a woman and suffered and died and rose and is ready to come to judge the quick and the dead----was changed into the ousia of God and was no more considered a man, except in name alone, and [if] thou meanest by this that God died and rose, the heathen also, who practises a religion which predicates the change of men unto divinity and therefore propitiates and serves him as God, would stand |178 by thee. How then, sayest thou, is the opinion of heathendom yours? You, who have combated against me on these [points] until now, are deceived, and thereby have you also deceived men. And if thou sayest that the Incarnation of God the Word took place neither by change of ousia nor by change of divinity and the body remained in the ousia without change, but [that] he2 became man with a view to the hypostatic and natural union, Arius also, who mocks at the three hundred and eighteen, would accept this confession: and you accept it and are not scandalized, and you agree with heart and mind3 to Arius who speaks truly when he claims that he became man in the natural hypostasis and was naturally united in hypostasis, suffering naturally by perception the sufferings of the body; him thou darest to call consubstantial, him who is the accepter of sufferings.
And if you decline this, as one who confesses not the soul and the body among the things whereof the Word has been constituted in the natural hypostasis nor [that] he suffered after becoming passible in a passible nature in regard to natural sufferings, he proclaims the / [doctrines] of Arius and Apollinarius. For Anus says: 'What does it serve thee that God should become a passible nature by the hypostatic union of the soul to suffer natural sufferings naturally in his body 'and in his soul?' Does he make him who is suffering all these sufferings consubstantial with an impassible nature? But Apollinarius condemns those who say these things while [otherwise] confessing like those who cleave unto his own faith, and commands them to keep aloof from those who say these things and to become his own partisans and to anathematize all those who dissent from him. If further he also is deposed for confessing neither the intelligence nor the will, for such reason as one who confesses not the Word in the flesh and in the soul and in the intelligence in the natural and complete union, you will not receive him, since he says all the [same] things as Arius. Let it be [granted] that he 43 is united to the soul and to the body and to the intelligence; but if it is an hypostatic and natural union, thou effectest an addition |179 and not a diminution and thou avoidest a diminution of the sufferings of the body in such wise as to make subject unto the sufferings of many sufferings him who is consubstantial with him who is impassible; great is the passibility of those who suppose this. For you give him the things which make [men] passible because of the hypostatic union, since he is united in a natural composition, so as to suffer without his will the sufferings of the body and of the soul and of the intelligence and [since] he is united in ousia and in nature, as the soul in the body endures / of necessity the sufferings of the soul and of the body. But thou makest him impassible. Then there has not been an hypostatic and natural but a voluntary union with the body and with the rational and intelligent soul which are united hypostatically and naturally in the nature of the man. But the union of God the Word with these is neither hypostatic nor natural but voluntary, as consisting in a property of the will and not of the nature. For the things which are united by the natural hypostasis have a natural and not a voluntary quality. For he took the likeness of a servant for his own prosôpon and not for his nature by change either of the ousia, of the ousia in the nature of the humanity, or of the humanity in the nature of the divinity, [so that] it was united and mixed with the human nature either by confusion or by a natural composition and a change of the activity of the nature; for this quality is changeable and variable. But the voluntary [activity] is neither passible nor changeable; it suffers not involuntarily in its natural ousia the sufferings of the soul and of the body. Those which are naturally united suffer indeed in ousia with one another, transmitting their own sufferings naturally and not voluntarily. For although he accepted them as sufferings voluntarily, when, however, he accepted them and suffered them, he suffered them naturally, in that he suffered them by a natural property and by perception.
/ If you say these things thus, you have incited them all and have become heathens in saying that which he 44 has said who said these things with irreverent audacity; they have |180 anathematized him,45 who said these things, and laid upon him punishment without remission and driven him out from the church and even from the inhabited world, as one who defiles the earth whereon he walks. How then do you say these things? But if he says concerning me: 'it is because he divides the natures into sundry parts and separates them and distinguishes them from one another, and not because he says these things clearly but because he distinguishes them into parts one from another and says: "one son of nature and one son of grace," as though there were two natures, and he distinguishes them, saying "I indeed distinguish the nature and I unite the adoration; because of him who is clothed I adore the clothing" ' 46 ----every one would say unto you 'O man, you have drunk mandrakes'.47 If you understand also the Father by the things which have been said by you, how do you say also of him who has not been kept separate even by one word, that he took and was taken and made it his own, and [how] do you call [him] man and God? For all these things belong unto those in whose doctrine the natures are distinguished, and not unto those who say that there is one ousia; for the union destroys not the diversities of the natures; but if the diversities of the natures / remain in the union, they are kept separate by the diversities of the natures, in so far as they are diverse. But how do you say concerning me that I separate the union by distance of space, since I say: |181 'because of him who is clothed I adore the clothing'? For the clothing is not apart from him who is clothed nor he who is clothed apart from the clothing but it is conceived in the same likeness. And for this reason it is not possible to adore him who is clothed apart from the clothing upon him, clothed wherein he is seated with the Father; for he is not seated with him without being clothed in it and that which is seated with him receives also adoration with him. When it is seated with him it is by all means adored not for its [own] sake but for the sake of him who is clothed in it.
By all means therefore we shun those who predicate the Incarnation [apart] from the union, either by a change of likeness which is [the view] of the heathen, or in hallucinations or in a schema without hypostasis [which] suffers impassibly, or in predicating the natural sufferings of God the Word, as being either by hypos tasis in the union or in flesh in the flesh either in an irrational or in a rational soul, and [in asserting] finally that the union resulted in an hypostasis of nature and not in a voluntary prosôpon, in order that we may not make the union of God the Word corruptible and changeable nor call it passible and necessary, but a voluntary union in prosôpon / and not in nature. Either they will renounce my words, admitting that the Incarnation took place in the nature, and will make the union passible and changeable, as Arius, or [they will make it] impassible, as the Fathers. Partisans of which side do you seek to be? It depends on you: [you are] either on the side of the heretics or on the side of the orthodox Fathers, or on the side of those who say: '[He is] neither passible nor corruptible,' or on [that of] those who [say that] the union appertains unto the hypostasis or on [that of] those who [say that it appertains] unto the prosôpon. But I say that the union of God the Word is neither passible nor mortal nor changeable. For these things let him who would anathematize me! I have kept without blemish the faith of the three hundred and eighteen who were assembled at Nicaca, saying that God the Word is unchangeable [and] immortal, that he is continuously |182 that which he is in the eternity of the Father. He was not [formed] of things which existed not nor of any other hypostasis, and there was not when he was not. Eternally [exists] the Father, eternally the Son, eternally the Holy Spirit; but the flesh which was made flesh, which was of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, exists not eternally, but there was when it was not; and it is of another ousia and of another nature and of another hypostasis, [to wit, of that] of men, and not of the ousia of God the Father----changeable and mortal and passible and corruptible. Not from [being] the ousia / of God the Word was it changed into the ousia of the flesh, but [he had] an ousiôdic flesh and a natural flesh which was not changed from its own ousia. Nor again was he changed in his likeness from the ousia of God into the ousia of the flesh, he was flesh not in schema and in semblance of flesh but in the ousia of the flesh, of the ousia of the flesh; the ousia of the flesh was not changed into the ousia of the divinity and made God; he was made flesh and made man neither by confusion nor by mixture, and he was composed neither in one plain ousia and uniquely after his kind nor according to a natural composition after one kind of animal. Nor further was he naturally united by a natural union in hypostasis, and suffered and was in a natural union, [the natures] participating in the same things for the sake of the natural participation in the sufferings.
For every natural composition, which participates by participation in one passible and changeable nature, and is completed in regard to the natures by the very nature of God the Word, [is completed] not in a natural change but exists voluntarily, in such wise that the union of the natures takes place in his own prosôpon and not in his own nature; yet the natures remain in their properties, and there is one prosôpon without separation and without distinction, having made them its own for the prosôpon. The divinity has obtained a likeness by the ousia of the humanity and the humanity has obtained / a likeness by the ousia of the divinity, so that there is one prosôpon of the union and so that the [properties] of the |183 humanity belong unto God the Word and those of the divinity unto the humanity wherein it was made man [and so that] they were closely united unto one and the same with a view to the dispensation on our behalf, since men were in need of the divinity as for our renewal and for our formation anew and for [the renewal] of the likeness of the image which had been obliterated by us: but [men had need also] of the humanity which was renewed and took its likeness anew; for the humanity was congruous, so as to preserve the order which had existed. For he 48 who was honoured with the honour which he gave him and rendered not unto him his [due] honour for the honour which he received showed that he had lost the honour wherewith he had been honoured. For the one also was honoured as the other;48 and he accepted him not for himself but regarded him as an enemy. When the other 49 was in these [circumstances] he thus preserved himself, making use of the things belonging to the other as if of his own; he truly preserved the image of God and made it his own: that [it is] which is the image and the prosôpon. For this reason there was need both of the divinity to renew and to create and to give unto it[self] the likeness, so that [it might be changed] from its own type to the likeness of a servant; and there was also need of the humanity, so that the likeness of a servant which was taken should become the likeness of God and God the likeness of a servant and that the one should become the other and the other the one / in prosôpon, the one and the other remaining in their natures; and he preserves an obedience without sin because of his supreme obedience, and because of this he was given unto death for the salvation of all the world.
Not indeed as Arius and Apollinarius are those who foolishly say that God the Word in his grace accepted an earthly mode of life and an obedience unto death through his Incarnation. For this reason the Incarnation took place in the nature of man by a natural union, in such wise that the divinity was made man naturally instead of the soul and comported itself and suffered truly by natural perception in |184 order to be given unto death on behalf of all men and in respect of death to accept naturally the passibility of the soul in the union of the natural hypostasis, being torn asunder by force. For this reason, the latter have attributed the Incarnation of God the Word to one nature of man by a natural composition and to an incomplete man where the ousia of God the Word is instead of the things which are lacking from the flesh for the completion of the nature of the man, being commanded and performing the things which are comprised in the things commanded and enduring unwillingly the whole human conduct truly in observances difficult and painful and full of suffering, not doing what he willed through fear of transgressing the command, thirsting and hungering and fearing [with] human fear, willing / [with] a human will. And he is in the body, in all the things of the soul, making it in stature according to the formation and model of the sensibility, understanding, learning, being perfected in flesh in the nature of the soul by the natural and hypostatic union. And they make void the voluntary union in virtue of the prosôpon of the natures, establishing a natural and involuntary property in such wise that God the Word participates in the sufferings of the soul and of the body; the property [of participation] by force and not by will but natural[ly] by hypostasis is a union of the natural hypostasis naturally, so that the nature may become one which suffers.
But one ought to be neither Arian nor Manichaean, [according to] whom the Incarnation took place in schema or in the nature of God the Word and [who] refer all things to him in their doctrine: the manner of life and the sufferings and the death. For the nature of God the Word sinned not nor transgressed the commandment, so that God comported himself and observed all the commandments and died for us as one who was found without sin by reason of his manner of life. Through man [came] death and through man the resurrection. For this reason also it was needful for the whole man, for the purpose of the Incarnation of God the Word, being completed in body and in soul, to comport |185 himself in the nature of men and to observe the obedience and the moral life of human nature. And they long for and honour the name of the Mother of God, since they say that God has died. And, further, as for the Fathers who even unto death have withstood / the heretics who said 'Mother of God', they, however, have in no place indeed made use of these terms nor have they employed them in the documents of the Council. Was it because they knew not? Or because they hated it? Perhaps they had some such word in their thoughts whereby indeed to adhere to the divine teaching; and they heeded not the raving of [their] enemies and gave no opportunity to diminish the divinity by making it passible and mortal. For not he who is in name a theologian is to be called a theologian, but he who is a theologian in fact and in name does not leave alone those who are ready to make him made and created; it is not he who provides matter for blasphemy nor does he admit that God the Word surely came forth from the Virgin Mary, as one who exists and has existed before, and he declines the [doctrine] that he was born a man from her as one who has not existed but has come into being. [Art thou] as one who says that God the Word is in two natures, God and man, and that the man, when he was born, was in the nature of God the Word, or [that] he was changed into another ousia of man; and sayest thou thus that he was born? For indeed [in that case] he would not have been of man, but of God the Word would he have been, and [that] in such wise as to make use of the schema of a man but not of the ousia of a man. |186
[BOOK II. PART I.] 50
Yet some one perhaps will say, 'Thou hast read only the letter; but read / also thy blasphemies which [are found] in thine instructions; for the letter perhaps was written by thee with observance and caution as though it was written unto him,51 whereas thine instructions, which were delivered authoritatively by thee, clearly explain thy purpose. And for this reason even thy letter has not sufficed us, but we have also examined thine instructions in order that we might be accurately instructed in all things concerning thee. Nor even so have we claimed authority for ourselves nor have we behaved boldly, but we have placed before ourselves also the instructions of the Fathers, and we have compared [thine] with them and, having thus made our examination with all accuracy, we have also pronounced sentence, making use of the Fathers against whom thou hast fought. For in that thou hast been summoned and hast not hearkened, we have done all these things rightly; we have condemned thy letter, we have examined thine instructions and we have also studied the instructions of the Fathers as law. What then ought we to have done and have not done? But he,51 since indeed he was present, said and taught the things which he ought to say, whereas thou didst then decline [to come]; but now thou dost blame us, calumniating us. Why dost thou not rather accuse thyself than us? For we judge not things invisible but visible, and, if we have made omissions and if we have acted in ignorance, say now if things are such as they are; and if we were / not justly stirred up against thee, thou oughtest to have said it then and not now.'
But I have much whereof to convict them concerning those many things which they have done and many things also which they have omitted. But I pass this by now, lest any one |187 should say that he is now saying them because of the inadequacy [of his case]. But among those things which they have done against me, I convict them of having not justly condemned me, for they have told lies and have deceived many without having convicted me by examination, but according to what he 52 demanded. Now he demanded that the things should not be duly examined, lest the condemnation should be his, but he persuaded them all as God, as one who knows the secrets which are in the heart, and those who took part with him so presented him in the sight of many as [to seem] one who was the avenger of God, namely Christ, and he permitted me not to speak otherwise. And thereafter he carried every one with him against me, so that they were even unwilling to hear a word of mine, as one who, while declaring utterly void [the doctrine] that Christ is not man, spoke of Christ himself [as] man in ousia but God in equality of honour.53 But he anticipated me and spoke against me as making God himself a man, / as if he conceived of Christ as nothing else whatsoever than God the Word. And of constraint I directed my words against him, [asserting] that he is also man, and I proved it from the Divine Scriptures and from the teachings of the Fathers; and he further made use of this against me, as one who said that Christ is only man, having dissembled whatever I had said and confessed as regards that which one required him to confess and [which] he was unwilling to confess. For I rebuked him not for not having confessed that Christ is God, but because he did not say that Christ was man whole in nature and in moral life and that God the Word became not the nature of man but in the nature and in the manner of life of man, in such wise that God the Word became both of them in nature. And these things I shall prove from the things which were written when he took [extracts] from my teachings and from his teachings----whether they were thus the same as in the beginning or whether out of enmity towards me he has changed them into the opposite----and from the |188 inventions [spread abroad] by the device of the heretics, but in reality [by men] such as Arius. When he speaks against the ousia of God, he refers all the human qualities to the nature of God the Word by the hypostatic union, so that he suffers in natural sensibility all human sufferings.
/ 'From the Book of Nestorius, from the sixteenth chapter, concerning the Faith.' From which book of mine? From which sixteenth chapter? What is it that you sought out, when there was none to argue against you? But this concerns me not much, whether it be clear or whether it be in need of investigation. I desire, however, to persuade you all concerning the things whereby he has deceived many and drawn them away from the Faith, as if indeed there had been an examination touching the Records [of the Council], concerning things whereof they have accused me by anticipation without examination, which they have accepted [as] mine and his without examination....
When Divine Scripture is about to tell of the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary or [his] death, in no place does it appear that it puts 'God' but either 'Christ' or 'Son' or 'Lord', because these three are indicative of the two natures, now of this and now of that, now of the one and now of the other. For example, when the Book relates unto us the birth from the Virgin, whom docs it say? God sent his Son. It says not that God sent God the Word, but it takes a name which indicates both the natures. Since the Son is man and God, it says that God sent his Son and he was born of a woman; and therein thou seest that the name is put which indicates both the natures. Thou callest [him] Son according to the birth from the blessed Virgin, for the Virgin Mother / of Christ bare the Son of God. But since the Son of God is twofold in natures, she bare not the Son of God but she bare the humanity, which is the Son because of the Son who is united thereto. |189
I demand then of you to reflect accurately on these things; for I pass by the things which they have omitted, and they have clearly not preserved the coherence [of the argument]. And he accuses me of these things as if I were dividing Christ and making [him into] sundry parts, the divinity by itself and the humanity by itself, while making use of [the words] 'honour' and 'the equality of one' in such wise that they tend to bring together in love and not in the ousias things far apart. Thus he accuses me both as touching the divinity and as touching the humanity, [of saying] that God the Word is flesh and man but [that] the humanity is Son, Lord, and God, which has taken place through love and through coherence. This is his principal calumny, so that you, since you are judges concerning this, ought at all times to take heed that, if you find that I have imagined thus----condemn me and I too will condemn myself. And also I will beseech you to accept on tradition my condemnation, which is just, although I should have combated ten thousand times and cite convincing arguments to establish that I make use not of ousia but simply of love, / and that thereby he is called Lord and Christ and Son. But if I have said the contrary, let them prove that the union is [made] from nature and [that] the union belongs to nature. But, so far from a union in nature, I predicate one prosôpon, one equality, one honour, one authority, one lordship; and, in short, [I insert] these things also in virtue of the union of one prosôpon in all those things wherein the prosôpon of the one and of the other exists in nature; for the prosôpon of the natures is not one nature, but it is in nature and is not nature. For the Son of God the Father is by nature consubstantial with the Father and that which the Father is in his nature the Son also is; for that which the prosôpon is in nature, the Son, |190 the Father also is not; for the Son, who is in nature, is not the Father nor is the Father the Son, who is in the nature of the Father and is the Son by nature; for in prosôpon he is something else. But they are not one thing and another but one only in ousia and in nature, without division, without separation, without distinction in all the things which appertain by nature unto the prosôpon; but he is other by the prosôpon. But certainly as regards the unity of the divinity and of the humanity it was not so. In whatsoever the prosôpon is by its nature, in those very things it exists by union as in one prosôpon even in another ousia. For he has taken him for the prosôpon and not for the ousia nor / for the nature in such wise as to become consubstantial with the Father or another son without there being one and the same Son. For the prosôpon of the divinity is the humanity and the prosôpon of the humanity the divinity; for it is the one in nature and the other in the union. Investigate therefore and see what it is that he has written: 'Whoever predicates two natures in the Son and who predicates each, one of them by itself as in the remoteness of the distinction of God by himself and man by itself.' For if I had said merely God and man and not 'two natures, one Christ', you would have had an opportunity to calumniate me for calling a man God and him man. Because of my having predicated two natures, man and God, I have not predicated two natures of man, though he is called God on account of the union, nor yet two natures of God, although he is called also flesh in the union. Thou hadst not [any ground] for the calumny, not even one, because I said that one Son and Christ indicate two natures; I said, however, that the Son is God and man. In the first place I said that the name of Christ and Son indicates two natures, and I came at the same time to speak also of 'the natures '; but since the Son is God and man, he is not predicated / solely but he is two natures. But thou art enraged against me because I have not called God the Word two natures by change of ousia; for it is not to be imagined otherwise than that I said that he came to be in the nature of the humanity and the Son was man in the union |191 and not in nature. Has this that I said alarmed you, or that which he also has said, that the flesh, when it was born, was said to have been born? Because one considers the birth of his flesh clearly his; he too has thus said that the flesh was born but [that] he made it his own. What then have I said at all new, [in asserting] that it is said that, when it was born, there was born of the Virgin Mary a man, the Son of God, since this humanity was the Son of God by union with the Son and not by nature? For by the union God the Word made these [properties] of the flesh his own, not that the divinity was born in the birth of the flesh, nor again that the flesh was born naturally in the birth of the divinity, but [that] by the union with the flesh God is called flesh and the flesh by union with the Son, God the Word, is called Son; otherwise he has not been united, and we calumniate him [by denying his union]. Who has deceived you? For this is the agreement of men deceived. For there is this agreement concerning the two natures, that in fact [the word] 'Son' is indicative of two natures, indicating Christ and also Lord. 'The natures which have been combined in a true union are diverse, but the Son is one with them both,' the natures remaining without / confusion in the union: 'The diversities of the natures are not made void on account of the union.' And again, it is by union that the flesh is son and not by nature...,54 for 'that 55 wherewith he sits with the Father is not alien unto him'.
Ambrose also has said:
When the Son of God speaks by them both, because there are two natures in him, he speaks, but he speaks not continually in one manner. Reflect on him, now in glory and now in the sufferings of man, since as God he teaches the things of God, because he is the Word, but as man he teaches the things of man, since he speaks in our own ousia. He is the living bread which came down from Heaven; this bread is the Body, as he has said: This bread which I give unto yon is my body. He it is who came down, he it is |192 whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world. Does not the Scripture also teach you that not the divinity but the flesh has need of sanctification?
How have you cited these things and anathematized mine? For I have not said anything else.... 56
But Athanasius leaves thee not alone, saying:
These things did not take place artificially, far from it! as some have supposed, but in reality, truly, our Saviour became man [and] the salvation of all men came about. For if he had been artificially in the body, as they say-----but that which is said [to be] artificially is a fantasy----the salvation and the resurrection of men would have been found by him to have been fictitious as the impious Manes said; but our salvation exists not in fantasy [and our salvation takes place truly not for the body alone but for the whole man, for the soul and for the body].57 Human therefore is that which [issued] from Mary, according to the Divine Scriptures and truly it belongs to our Saviour...
Let none admit the saying that God the Word is in the body artificially but [that he is] God as [being] God the Word, who existed of old and exists eternally, and came to be in the bodily frame and exists also in the bodily frame, without having come forth out of his own ousia into the ousia of the |193 flesh, or having endured the birth of the flesh but from our ousia....
For human is the nature which [issued] from Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say, and truly it belonged to our Saviour. For [as regards] the ousia of God the Word and as regards the ousia of man I dissociate myself from you, and not as regards the name; for I have said 'I object not to the appella-tion of the Virgin, the Mother of Christ, but I know that she is to be honoured who received God, from whom the Lord of all came forth'.
These things thou acceptest not; and how shall one leave thee alone / and believe thee, as one who sayest in this manner that God was born? 'Human therefore is he who [was born] of the blessed Mary,' although a thousand times thou wouldest dispute against Athanasius. God the Word existed in the body, in that which took the beginning of its coming into being from the blessed Mary; [yet] he took not the beginning of his coming into being. In the beginning was the Word, and God the Word exists eternally.
Confess that the natures exist, confess as thou hast been bidden, confess that God wished to rescue thee by means of the body and that the body was not changed from the ousia of God into the ousia of the flesh; it was formed and fashioned and grew and was perfected in the nature of men and was born, but from the bodily frame of our own form, of the seed of men; for it was of the seed of Abraham. Why dost thou treat these things of the body as hallucinations and makest void the things of the bodily frame and assignest them to God, in such wise as to bring the two generations 58 into doubt, in that thou makest even the generation of the bodily frame without beginning, from God the Father? For thou sayest that God the Father is body and man, both subject unto beginning and subject unto completion 59 and that he was |194 born of the Blessed Virgin, because he became man. How sayest thou 'the birth of the body'? For to God the Word alone thou dost attribute a generation from God the Father and from the Virgin. Speak clearly and confess the human nature, / [born] of the Blessed Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say. And that whereof inquiry was made is solved, that the ousia of God is not subject unto beginning and growth and completion, although it is so said through the revelation which [was made] little by little.60 Wherefore makest thou void the names indicative of the humanity, but wouldest at the same time make us believe in the divinity, as if it were not unbelief [to say] the divinity came forth from her, just as thou makest void that which indicates that it derived not [its] beginning from her? And thou makest void the humanity which was born of the blessed Mary, for thou sayest that she bare not the man; since, as demons that deceive, showing that man is not man, thou confessest the man but [it is] God the Word and [then] thou confessest God the Word but [it is] the man. For thou deceivest men, changing the ousias from the names, for thou sayest 'man' and assertest the ousia of God the Word; and again thou sayest 'God the Word', and assertest the ousia of man, and then thou exaltest it with the name of God the Word. They have nought to say. 'It is the human nature which is from the Blessed Mary'; she is then the mother of the man who derived beginning from her and gradually advanced and was perfected. 'He is not by nature God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little....' 60 She is therefore on the one hand by nature the mother of the man, by revelation on the other hand she is the mother of God, if by revelation / and not by nature thou sayest that he was born of her; he then came forth united to him who was born of her in flesh. Wherefore dost thou in part assert and then make void these things, like miracle-mongers, who make visible things invisible and in semblance make things which are visible invisible? |195 Christianity exists in truth: deceive not.... 'He is human who was born of the Blessed Mary....' 'He who took his beginning and gradually advanced and was perfected, is not by nature God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little....
Do you believe that they who say these things are [to be regarded] as truthful? Do you believe that which you have written----for you have written these things----or do you not believe them? Or do they say that Christ was a mere man, because they say these things concerning him? They say that God was not in the body artificially, saying of God that he began and gradually advanced. For how is [either of] those which are united [to be] called mere? But thou considerest mere those which exist not both in ousia: the divinity which is not the humanity and the humanity which is not the divinity; but these things are foolish, as I suppose, in the mouth of one who has said that the difference of the natures is not made void by the union. Thou sayest therefore that very thing which I also [say], commending [it]: that the divinity exists united to the humanity and the humanity exists in nature and united / to the divinity. And dost thou anathematize those things which [are found] in my [works]? Anathematize those which are thine, if it is right to call thine things of which thou art not confident that they are true, seeing that thou remainest in opposition to the Fathers and to the Divine Scriptures. For admirable and commendable is this discovery of heresy, wherein thou sayest [of] all these things that none confess them; thou alone hast set up thine own dogma in opposition to all men and thou dost suppose that they are held by all men. But, on the contrary, as one who has led all men through partiality, as partial thou art hated of all men.
In order that the truth which is preached by all men may be revealed, which surely indeed thou knowest, but which thou darest not say, it suffices therefore for those who seek to know thy mind to learn also of those things for which |196 thou blamest me, as though I were saying that the ousias are divided by remoteness in space, but participate together in equality by conjunction and by love and not by that whereby they naturally exist, [and as though] therefore we make a distinction in the doctrine of the natures, for the divinity is one thing and the humanity another. But by the conjunction of these things there is not one and another in the prosôpon.
Thus thou hast made men conceive of me, but it seems that I say the contrary of that which thou dost testify against me; for I indeed unite the ousias, but by the union / of the ousias I assert one prosôpon in one equality in everything whatsoever that appertains to the prosôpon, to which also both one ousia and another belongs, by separation and by being kept remote, but in the same [prosôpon]. Let us however also pass on as quickly as possible to other things, lest any one [there be for] whom in these things or by means of them there is blasphemy, and these also should be refuted.................................................................................................................... 61
That therefore which we were saying: 'Fear not to take Mary [as] thy wife, for he who is born in her is of the Holy Spirits For if thou sayest "was born in her" or "came into being in her", that does no violence at all to the sense; for he who is born in her is of the Holy Spirit. Yet if we say that God the Word was born in the womb, it is indeed one thing [to say] "he was with him who was born" and another "he will be born ". For "he who is born in her is of the Holy Spirit", that is, the Holy Spirit has created that which was in her. The Fathers therefore, in that they were acquainted with the Divine Scriptures, have seen that if "he who was born" is added to "he who was found in bodily frame", God the Word is found either [to be] the son of the Spirit or to have two Fathers. But if we say "He came into being", God the Word / is found to be the creature of the Holy Spirit. And, shunning the word "birth", they have laid down He came down for us men and for our salvation and was |197 found in bodily frame". What means "He was found in bodily frame"? [Does it not mean] that he was not changed from the divinity into the flesh? For in "He was found in bodily frame by the Holy Spirit" they concurred with the Evangelist. For the Evangelist also, when he came to the Incarnation, shunned predicating the birth of the Word and laid down the being found in a bodily frame. How? Hear.
And the Word became flesh. He said not that the Word was born through the flesh. For wherever indeed the Apostles and the Evangelists make mention of the birth they lay down that the Son was born of a woman.... Look well unto what has been written, I pray thee; where they employ the term "Son" and [the phrase] He was born of a woman, they lay down that he was born, but where they make mention of the Word, none indeed of them dares to say "the birth through the humanity ". Hear the blessed John the Evangelist, when he came to the account of his Incarnation, hear what he has said: The Word became flesh, that is, took the flesh, and sojourned among us, that is, put on our nature while living among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of the Son; he said not "we have seen the birth of the Word ".' |198
So then I have stated the reason which I should have supposed satisfactory, / on account of which the Fathers said in their laying down of the Faith not that he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, but that he was made flesh, in order that they might not say that the Holy Spirit was Father or that which was created [was] Son, but rather that he was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, in order that they might attach 'became' to the flesh, because he was made flesh. But as regards the history of [his] being made, what do you say? Speak openly. Reprimand those who have clearly blasphemed, [asserting that] 'He was born of the Holy Spirit'. If he was born, the Holy Spirit was the Father of the Son or the creator of God the Word; yet these, I have said, [are things] which neither the Fathers have said nor do I say. Have I blasphemed in saying these things? Or have I surely calumniated the Fathers? If it is [possible] for you to show that the Fathers have said these things, speak openly. Which of these things? Is God the Word a creature or the son of the Holy Spirit? And if he is not a creature, flesh which is fleshly, then is he no more a creature of the Holy Spirit; speak openly. 'He was made flesh' means that he was in every sense made flesh in his nature, and it was not another who was made flesh; he is said to have been made flesh. But he was made flesh in his own ousia, in the flesh which came into being and was born of the Holy Spirit. For 'he was born', as thou sayest, is contrary to what thou hast said; since, when he was born, the flesh is said to have been born, as though he made it the birth of his own flesh, whereas he was not / made flesh in his [own] self but in its own ousia. Therefore 'he was made flesh' and 'he was born' do not signify the same thing, and for this reason they have laid down 'he was made flesh' and not 'he was born'. [This is clear], since they have taken the word 'became' for the flesh; and for this reason also the Evangelist said that he became flesh and said not that he was born, so that by 'became' he limited not God the Word. But, as touching the flesh which came into being, it became his flesh. And |199 God the Word sojourned among us; God the Word 'became' not, for he existed.
And hear them; for you would not disclaim these men whom you have brought in accusation against me. Speak then, O Ambrose, disregard not him who is oppressed; be not at the beck and call of the calumniators, and condemn not innocent blood before it has been heard. I say that the flesh came into being of the Virgin Mary [and] appertained not unto God the Word; for I confess him neither made nor come to be nor created. Yet all these rise up against me like swords, nor even are they willing to hear my speech entirely, and in regard to these things they cite thee among the witnesses. Of death I was not afraid, [I] who have been thus calumniated, but of having been condemned as impious in thy prosôpon, thine! I have spoken in accordance with Ambrose and I deny not aught that I have said, although they have drawn the sword against me. / This have I said: 'In consequence of these things he was ready to come into being of a woman, according to the [word] "became"'. Thou 62 limitest not the divinity, but the body which was |200 assumed: namely, he who descended is the same whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world. Does not also the Scripture teach you that the divinity was not in need of sanctification but the flesh? If then they have deceived, they have deceived themselves and not me.
And thou also, O Gregory the divine, what then [sayest thou]? What opinion hast thou concerning these things? I ask, not that I know not, but because in thine own name they desire to crush the truth. What knowest thou of him who was by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, who began and gradually advanced and was fulfilled? I say not in the prosôpon, but in the ousia. What else at all wouldest thou concede except something which thou hast conceded unto them in written works? [To wit], that the man who was taken.... 'He indeed who begins and grows and is perfected is not God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little.' 'For one and another were those of which our Saviour was, if the invisible and the visible are not the same, God on the one hand who was man and man on the other who was made God.'
But speak thou also, O wise Athanasius; for thou also hast been calumniated with many calumnies such as these and hast endured [much] at the hands of the Arians, on behalf of / the tradition of the Son, God the Word. What opinion hast thou concerning [the statement] that 'he was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary'? In the nature and not in the prosôpon which [results] from the union 'we say that one and the same Son and none other was born of Holy Mary'. But [we call] this one and him only, who was born a son, Christ, God the Word together with his flesh, and the same one flesh with God the Word. But 'in ousia God the Word is of God the Father, and the flesh is the flesh |201 which he put on from the Virgin 'that it might come to be. We say not one and another, for there is one prosôpon of both natures. But he who by nature came into being by the Holy Spirit, what was he? And what was his nature? And of what nature was the Virgin, his mother? For inquiry is made of this. Hear them all.....I have said he is man who was of Mary, according to the Divine Scriptures, and that he was truly our Saviour. 'For if artificially the Word was in the body, as they say, he then who is said [to be] artificially is a phantasy. The salvation and the resurrection of men will be found to have been fictitious, as the impious Manes has said; but our salvation is not in phantasy nor in the body alone but in the whole man: to the soul and to the body truly salvation belongs. Human therefore was he who was of Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say, and he truly it was who.... [was] our Saviour....'
/.... So indeed we name Christ as concerning the flesh, owing to the conjunction with God the Word, recognizing him since he is visible as man.
'Hear Paul, who says in two [passages]: Of the Jews is Christ as concerning the flesh, he who is God over all:' He confesses the man in the first place and then, owing to his conjunction with God the Word, he calls him who is visible God, that none may suppose that Christianity is the worship of a man.' 63
That none may accuse me anywhere, take heed and look well, in what sense I say 'a mere man who is far removed from divinity'. I say 'Christ who [is] in flesh', as also I predicate the same in the divinity. For I have not said 'a fleshly Christ', but 'Christ who [is] in flesh', I speak of the flesh of Christ by reason of the conjunction with God the |202 Word, as being indeed united to and not distinguished from God the Word. Nor indeed with equality was it united but to God the Word himself. And of him who was visible in ousia, I said that he was of the Jews and not God the Word, since I confess that the man in respect of ousia and of nature is of the Jews and not God the Word in respect of nature. And I said 'man in nature apart from the nature of God the Word' / but 'he is God by virtue of that union which came about in the prosôpon'. Art thou angered with me on account of this?
But hear what Athanasius proclaims unto thee: 'Human then is he who [was born] of Mary, according to the Divine Scriptures; neither in semblance nor in phantasy is he our salvation and the resurrection of men, as the impious Manes said; nor only of body but of the whole man, of soul and of body, became he truly our salvation.' Human therefore was he who [was born] of Mary, according to the Holy Scriptures and truly was it he who was our Saviour.....
Why therefore deniest thou our salvation? Why therefore have you condemned as impious whosoever denies not but confesses [it]? You are then either denying that he is human, as the Manichaeans, or, if you deny not, you cannot condemn him who denies not but confesses [it]. Hear Gregory proclaiming that he who was taken was human; for 'he who begins and gradually advances and is perfected' is not God 'although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little'. Seest thou that he says that he who was taken, who begins and gradually advances and is perfected, is man by nature but God by revelation? What then is the obscurity before your eyes, that you see not these things? But if you were to accuse these my [opinions], you ought not to contrast the one [statement] with the other, since it is [useful] in supporting them. / But if you accept these and such like things, it is not right to write of them as impious. I have brought these my charges against those who deny the humanity which has been taken from us and who confess as the Manichaeans; and not simply that, but I have laid down |203 the properties of the natures and of the one prosôpon: and [it is] moreover in some respects two, in that on the one hand which concerns the natures, but in other respects in the union. And thou hast accepted the prosôpon of those men 64, as if indeed thou wert one of them, whereas thou art in everything the enemy of those who accept my words. For we take from these men and we cast before thee [our doctrine], proclaiming that our salvation has not taken place in phantasy, O men. 'Human is the nature which is of Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say.... He indeed who begins and gradually advances and is perfected has not become God, although he is so called on account of the manifestation which [took place] little by little.....' 65
But even as we call God the Creator of all and Moses a god, for [it is written]: / have made thee a god unto Pharaoh; and Israel the son of God, [for it is written]: Israel is my son, my first-born, and as we call Saul the anointed, for [it is written]: / will not put forth mine hand against him, seeing that he is the Lord's anointed; and [as we say] similarly also of Cyrus: Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, and [as we called] the Babylonians consecrated, [saying]: / indeed / have commanded them; they are consecrated ones, and I shall bring them; so also we call our Lord Christ and God and Son and consecrated and Christ; yet, whereas on the one hand the participation in the names is like, the honour on the other is not the same. |204
Wherein do you blame these things, O calumniators and wise men? Because I have said that, even as we call God the creator of all and Moses a god, so also [have we called] our Lord Christ God of all and Maker? lint, because Moses is called a god and Christ God and moreover Creator, we do not speak of Moses himself as of Christ; or, because Moses was a god unto Pharaoh, do we say that he was moreover the Maker of all? Far from it! For community of names constitutes not community of honour and equality. For the honour of the Creator of all and that of Moses are diverse: that of the one on the one hand [being] that of the creator, that of the other on the other hand [being] that of the creature which has been commanded to become the chief. Thus also both our Lord and Israel are called son; yet the community of names constitutes not a community of honour: but thus [the one] is by nature God, consubstantial with the Father, Creator and Maker of all; but not the other. So also [with] every single one of the rest of them. As we say of God 'Creator of all', so also do we say of our Lord Jesus Christ 'God and Son and Christ'; for as regards each one of these things which are called by this name, there is therein a difference between the nature which created / all and the honours which are surely bestowed; for the rank and the honour which is more excellent than all is the [divine] nature. For I have said that the name of 'Christ' and [that] of 'Son' are indicative of the two natures, of the divinity and of the humanity----[a thing] with which there is nothing equal in those things which have been said----in such wise that it is not right to take heed of the name but of that which it indicates. Christ on the one hand is God of all and Creator; on the other hand Moses also is called a god, but he is not called in the same way a god nor is he conceived as God.
But they suppose, then, to overwhelm me on the subject of the humanity, [saying] that, if he, who was of Mary, was human nature, as the Holy Scriptures [assert and] yet was God by manifestation and not by nature, thou callest one of them by grace God and Son and holy. But in answer to you |205 I say this only, that, if you, like Gregory and Athanasius, confess him who was of Mary and who began and gradually advanced and was perfected, [to be] human nature, while [he was] God by revelation and distinct from all men through the purpose concerning that name 66 whereof he made use for the distinction, to the same extent the Creator is [one] with the creature because there is one prosôpon ---- thus I also confess. But if you confess not the human nature which began and gradually advanced and was brought to fullness, as Athanasius and Gregory have said, / then you are not to be excused as [one of the] orthodox, but stand forth with the Manichaeans. But Gregory, Athanasius and Ambrose ask you if the flesh is consubstantial with us and if the soul is consubstantial with us. Whatever it is, it is also in the ousia of man; therefore it is man, distinct from us in honour and in rank. In such wise as Israel is called son and as Moses is called a god, so likewise Christ [is to be called] God, [but] not by nature, and Son of God, [but] not by nature. And as God himself was made man but in the nature of men, he was made man in him who [issued forth] from Mary.67 But if he has not been made man in man, he has saved him[self] and not us; but if he has saved us, he has been made man in us and has been in the likeness of men and has been found in schema as a man and has not himself been man.
Say then these and such like things openly. Why then do you make pretence of not speaking of these things, although you dispute concerning them as if [they were] the things which you are saying, whereas you are not saying them? And those things which you say you say in schema, and you are unwilling to call him who was of Mary human nature, as is said in the Scriptures. Him who calls him not human nature, like one of |206 men, of the natural body of our fathers, whence we also have come in soul and in body----and he has / all [the qualities] of the rational part of the soul except sin----him Gregory accuses [in the same way] as the Manichaeans: for 'he who begins and gradually advances and is perfected is not God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little.' In that which concerns the humanity he is not by nature divine but by revelation. But in the nature of the divinity there exists a great difference between those who are called gods or lords or christs, but in the humanity he is like them all, and there is one prosôpon in two natures. He is God and he is Lord and he is Christ; for he makes not use of a prosôpon which has undergone a division but makes use of it as of his [own] prosôpon. For all the things appertaining to the ousia are his by virtue of the union and not by nature. Or do you not admit that Christ in his divinity is God and maker of all? He is not like Moses, although Moses is called a god. For community of names constitutes not community of honour; for there is one honour of the servant and one of the lord, although in that which concerns the body he is distinct from the servants.
But if thou sayest that the body and the nature of the body and the soul, rational and intelligent, abide without change and without transformation, but dost not admit the things which indicate the soul and the body, [some] of them in the union and [others] of them in the nature, taking / all of them of one nature, thou beliest the truth, making yea nay and nay yea. And in order to deceive thou callest him who was of Mary human nature, as the Divine Scriptures [affirm], and accountest not among his own [qualities] according to nature those of the humanity. But in virtue of the prosôpon thou raisest him above all humanity, in such wise that he on the one hand, who is eternally even as he is and began not nor gradually advanced nor was perfected, is one, but he who began and gradually advanced and was perfected both in the |207 union and in the manifestation in one prosôpon, is another, God who was made man and man who was made God. He was not transformed and changed from his divinity, just as also the humanity of Christ is not changed in nature from [that of] men except in honour and in prosôpon; for he is God of all and Lord and Son; and in all the things which are the divinity in ousia, in them exists the humanity in honour, not by another honour but by the same as that of him who took the prosôpon: the humanity making use of the prosôpon of the divinity and the divinity of the prosôpon of the humanity, since for this it has been taken and for this he has taken it, not indeed so that we should not confess him who was taken but that we might confess him. Confess then the taker as he took, and the taken as he was taken, wherein [each is] one and in another, and wherein [there is] one and not two, after the same manner as the manner of the Trinity.
/ Likewise from the same, from the fifteenth roll.
Have this mind in you which was also in Jesus Christ, who, being in the likeness of God, emptied himself and took the likeness of a servant. He says not: 'Have this mind in you which was also in God the Word, who being in the likeness of God took the likeness of a servant,' but he puts the name 'Christ', which is indicative of the two natures, avoiding all risk, and he names him the likeness of a servant which he took and [that] of God, those things which are said in regard to the duality of the natures being divided without blame.
It is also right after this to examine the opinion of every one and first mine; [to ascertain] if it is, as he 68 says, that I say one thing and another and distinguish the divinity somehow as it were by remoteness of place, and confess not that he is one and the same. Yet, avoiding all risk, I have said that he |208 named 'the likeness of a servant' and 'God'; we understand neither that which took nor that which was taken in distinction but that which was taken in that which took, while that which took is conceived in that which was taken; for that which took, therefore, is not conceived of itself, nor again that which was taken, so that he is not [conceived to have been] in the very prosôpon of that which took and of that which was taken.69
/ Thou dost censure me, therefore, not for this but because I distinguish the properties of the union which belongs to each of the natures, in such wise that each one of them subsists in its hyposiasis, and I say not that they are referred to God the Word as one who is both of them in ousia; or that the [properties] of the flesh were taken upon God without [their] hypostasis,70 that he might be revealed only in the likeness of the flesh and that he might make use of and suffer all the [things] of the flesh, whether he was changed into the nature of the flesh or they 71 were mixed in one nature, or [whether] the [properties] of the flesh are referred to the ousia of God by confusion or by alteration or by natural composition for the fulfilment of the natural composition, in order that he might suffer passibly the sufferings of the body, without the bodily frame's fulfilling any purpose in its own nature in the dispensation on our behalf, and without its performing human actions, either by the will of the soul or by the human imagination, or by the sensibility of the body, but by the imagination and by the will of God; still by the sensibility of God he is sensible of all human things. But in name alone he has a body, without hypostasis and without activity; and for this reason thou callest him man as something superfluous only in word and in name, in that thou art not content to predicate the |209 ousia and activity of man or the existence of two natures, each of them with properties and hypostases and ousia.
But some one perhaps will say: 'It is because thou confessest not that / God the Word and Christ are the same thing.'
For this reason then thou 72 dost censure those who say that Christ is one [thing] and God the Word another, apart from Christ. If then I said 'Christ' and 'God the Word another, apart from Christ', or 'Christ apart from God the Word', you would have said well; but if I have not said and do not say this but confess otherwise, still now saying this same thing, pervert not that which I say, and in the very same thing thou wilt find the distinction of whatsoever it 73 indicates. Now I have said that the name 'Christ' is indicative of two natures, of God indeed one nature [and of man one nature 74]. One indeed is the name which indicates two and another [that] which indicates one which is not anything else. Even as if a man were to say of man too that the name 'man' indicates one thing and 'rational soul' another. [It is] not that man is one thing and the soul another apart from man. For he who says 'man' speaks not of him [as] without a soul, because except for a soul he is not man. But the [name] 'man' on the one hand is indicative of the union of two natures, of the soul and of the body, but that 75 of a nature, for the nature is one thing and the union of the natures another. What then? God the Word is nothing else apart from Christ, nor Christ apart from God the Word. Why dost thou make use of the names indistinguishably, as though the same thing were indicated by this or / by that? 76
But 'Thou makest a division, so that one says not "God the Word" but "Christ", as though "Christ" were one thing and "God the Word" another.'
But hear also from us: He is not one thing and another; for he would be one thing and another if Christ were apart |210 from God the Father. But, if there is not the very same thing in ousia, [this] indicates one thing and another, [for example], the visible and the invisible; and those things from which Christ is [formed] exist in their own ousias and God the Word is not in the nature of both of them. But thou confessest distinct natures of the divinity and of the humanity but one Christ from them both; thou sayest not that God the Word himself has different natures but one; but there is a distinction between him and his concomitant. Thou sayest therefore that Christ himself is one thing and another, because thou predicatest of him the different natures of divinity and of humanity. But the nature of God the Word is one, not different natures. Or, as I have said, [the truth is] that he is not one thing and another, in that Christ exists not apart from God the Word nor again God the Word apart from Christ, but he indicates one thing and another, because Christ is of God the Word and of humanity by union, whereas God the Word is one nature and not of both natures, and it is not his by union to become God the Word.
/ And thou too bearest witness, albeit unwillingly, to these words which I say; but forsooth thou bearest witness when thou sayest that the natures which have been combined in the union are different, whereas one Christ [issues] from them both. For if thou indicatest not the one and the other, wherefore hast thou not been the first to make bold to say that which thou wouldest persuade me to say: that one [issues] from them both, God the Word? But thou wast unable to speak or I was unable unmistakably to hear thine impiety, and for this reason thou hast passed it by without indicating it; thou hast been constrained clearly to confess the truth, so that thou art thereby [proved to be] without reverence and hast no place of refuge. The one and the other indicate one thing and another, but it is not one thing and another: for it is one thing and another from which our Saviour [issues], but he is not one thing and another----far from it!----as he also is in respect to the Trinity. But thou referrest to God the Word the things of the flesh, so that he sees and speaks and suffers |211 the things of the flesh, but only as surely making use of the flesh, as the Arians say when they attribute the activities and the sufferings to the divinity naturally, and as Apollinarius [says when he maintains] that instead of the intelligence it 77 performs naturally the operations of the soul and of the body. Thus this man 78 also makes use of God the Word in all of them, both in the body and in the intelligent soul, that he may suffer the sufferings of the body and perform the activities of the rational soul, [making them] the manner of life and conduct of God the Word. And the properties of his own prosôpon thou dost attribute to the nature / of God the Word and not to the prosôpon of the humanity, which is moved to and fro by the humanity in accordance with the nature of man, but [according to you] by God the Word.
But what is [this] whole man who neither acts nor is acted upon in accordance with the nature of man? In name indeed alone is he man and in name body and in name rational soul, he who is not moved to and fro in the nature of his being, neither as soul by purpose and will nor again as body by sensibility of soul, but [in whom] God the Word has been established to become the will and the purpose and the sensibility in the body and in the soul in such wise that God the Word should act and suffer sensibly these bodily [sensations] and those of the soul: anger and wrath and lusts and fear and dread and thoughts and operations and judgement and voluntary choice; all these things he does and suffers in the place of the soul and in the place of the body, in such wise that by the victory of God the Word won in suffering and nature that nature which had been guilty was victorious, since he had given unto it his own victory, in order that it might be victorious through and by him who had assumed it for his nature. All these things are changes of the nature of God the Word, being naturally given to him that he might suffer, and [that] thou mightest predicate of him a nature passible and changeable and variable. For he, who by his nature was impassible but who through a passible nature became the nature of the other, was passible and corruptible |212 and variable; for he, who by nature is impassible and / unchangeable and invariable, does not even suffer in any manner in the human nature, since it is not his to suffer in his nature. But if thou sayest that the one, whose it is not to suffer in his nature, has suffered in nature, it is a folly to say that he has suffered in another nature; but he who comes to folly surely deceives, and like the Manichaeans makes our very salvation to have taken place in deception.
Speak; what say you? Which is the party of the orthodox: [that] of those who teach that God the Word is unchangeable and invariable or [that] of those who predicate of him the human nature [received] from Mary, who consider him a rational and intelligent soul and a whole man and then deny the properties of the humanity and confess not that they are such as they are in the nature of the man, but attribute to God the Word all things as to a. changeable and variable [being]: birth and growth and upbringing and gradual advance in stature and in wisdom and in grace and the commandments and their observance and their fulfilment and the suffering and the Cross and the death and the resurrection? What say you? Instruct men. How ought they to think and to confess? Is God the Word two ousias in nature, or dost thou imagine that man is in his nature two ousias, of divinity and of humanity? Or is God the Word one ousia, and has his own ousia received no addition / as that which has existed eternally, and is the ousia of man one, of the nature of men, and was it also like the nature of the sons of man and did it [so] comport itself? Thou confessest not these things, nay more thou deniest them.
God the Word was made man that he might therein make the humanity the likeness of God and that he might therein renew [the likeness of God] in the nature of the humanity; and thereupon he renewed his material elements and showed him [to be] without sin in the observance of the commandments, as though he alone sufficed for renewing him who had |213 originally fallen by the transgression of the observance of the commandments. Otherwise he gave himself for him to observe them because he sufficed not to keep himself without sin. In chat case our fall remains untended as a paralytic man who tends himself and remains incapable of walking, but for whom the attendant walks or whom he carries, saying not to him: 'Arise, walk, since thou hast indeed been healed that thou mayest walk.' For this reason he took the likeness of a servant which was without sin in its creation in such wise as even in the observance of the commandments to receive a name which is more excellent than all names and so that whatsoever came into being through the renewal of his material elements might be confirmed by observances and by prudence; for which reason also the renewal of the material elements took place through the incarnation by means of which he might contend against defeat. But if the purpose also of his having been made man / had not been fulfilled, it 79 also would surely not have taken place at all, but all things would be fictitious and foolish, both the disobedience of the first man and the things which made him guilty unto death; for he who had not a nature which could observe [the commandments] would also have been unable to observe them. For this same reason the second man also observed [them] not, but God lived in his stead and observed the commandments, because he was in that nature which sins not. And if this is so, what was the need for the life of the humanity to show that he who was God the Word was able to observe those human things which he who was man was unable to observe? But [there was such need] that he might show that he had not authority, when he wished, to rescue him[self] from death, because the Father wished it not; for all [men] he comported himself and kept himself without sin and, as one who has not sinned, he gave himself for salvation on behalf of all men.
These are [the doctrines] of the orthodox, who confess one |214 ousia of the Father and of the Son and one will and one power; these are (the doctrines] of those who confess that the things of Christ are neither folly nor fiction. He did nothing in schema, in hungering and thirsting and fearing, in learning, in not knowing, and [in] all those things which could convince [one] that he was a man, because / he was God in nature [and] in truth and man in nature and in truth. And because of this it was needful for the divinity to renew the humanity and for the humanity to be renewed and to take the very image [of him] who created it but not his own ousia; and it was needful that it should observe prudently the conduct of the man who had fallen, because especially for that it was created, to conduct itself according to the law which is in the nature of men and to preserve the very image of the Creator by the observance of the commandments without fault, the divinity making use of its own prosôpon in the likeness of a servant in order that the humanity by means of that prosôpon wherein it contended might be victorious, its victory being thereby confirmed. For since the renewal of its material elements it had the image of the sonship from him who created it; but it 80 had need also of a recompense for the observance of the commandments, in order that the prosôpon might be common to him who gave and to him who for the sake of his obedience received the image which, because Adam preserved it not when it was given to him in his material elements, was taken from him. Destroy not therefore the pattern of the Incarnation, but concede the properties of the divinity and concede the properties of the humanity and concede one prosôpon of the union, and all of them [will be] true and all of them orthodox. If you are willing to hear, hear the same things concerning them according to the witnesses which you have cited.
'I said: Have this mind in you which was also in Jesus / Christ, who, being in the likeness of God, emptied himself and took the likeness of a servant. He said not: "Have this mind in you which was also in God the Word, who, being |215 in the likeness of God, took the likeness of a servant", but he took the name "Christ", as a title indicative of two natures, avoiding all risk, and named therewith [both] the likeness of the servant which he took and God.' I said: one and the same Christ, two natures,' 'the likeness of the servant which he took and God,' without distinction. Quote these words of Gregory: '[There are] indeed two natures, God and man, but not two sons; for one and another are those from which our Saviour is, but not one and another----far from it!----but one by mixture, God who was made man and man who was made God'; and again: 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little.' He predicated not two natures of God the Word and he came not into being of two natures, neither has the man two natures nor is it [the case] that he is of two natures, but God and man are two natures. For he took a name common to the natures, Son and Saviour, and without separation he is named God and Son; and he 81 divides this twofold [Son and Saviour] into those two natures, from which our Saviour [came into being]; and by the union that which is one thing is called another: thus / 'God who was made man and man who was made God'----not because he was changed in respect to his divinity. And 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although he is so called on account of his revelation which [was made] little by little.' Whom then does he call one? And whom two? And whom in ousia? And whom by union?
But Ambrose also has said the same and not strange things concerning the union of God and of the flesh: 'The Son of God speaks in both of them, because in him there were two natures. Regard in him on the one hand the glory of God, on the other hand the sufferings of the man.' For he also predicates the union of the two natures, not that two natures |216 [were] one nature but that two natures [were] in the one prosôpon of the Son:----' the glory indeed of the divinity, but the sufferings of the humanity.' For he calls not the one son and God the Word another son, but he indicates something else by prosôpon and ousia. As then is the name 'God', so is the name 'son', the one indeed indicative of the natures but the other of the prosôpon of the Son. The same is God and Son, and there is one prosôpon of the two natures and not of the one ousia. For this reason both of them [are] one Son and in one Son are both the natures. One God the Word is not both natures nor is one divinity both natures; for there has not been confusion nor has there been mixture nor again a change of ousias resulting in one nature of the ousia nor again also a natural composition resulting in a composite nature. / What then have you heard [that is] strange in my words----and you have condemned me, and you have laid down these things? For the former has laid down the name 'Son' and the latter 'Saviour' and Athanasius 'Lord'. But how have they who are called Christians dared to doubt whether the Lord, who was born of Mary, is son in the ousia and in the nature of God the Word, but was born in flesh of the seed of the house of David? For the flesh was of the Virgin Mary. For thou also knowest that he who was of the Virgin Mary was human nature, in nature indeed and in ousia Son of God, in the ousia and in the nature of God the Father, but in flesh human nature from Mary. For he 82 lays down the common name 'Lord', which is conceived of nature and in nature, as well as the things which are indicative of the properties of the natures, indicating them both, the divinity and the humanity, the one from God the Father in nature and the other of a woman in nature. In calling him who was of God the Father 'human', he calls him not of God the Father in his nature, but rather in the human properties he indicates two natures. He is not making the human nature nor the divine without prosôpon and without hypostasis. Nor has the Incarnation taken place on our behalf as something |217 superfluous, unreal, in such wise as to refer human [attributes] to God, as the Arians say that he suffered in nature our own sufferings, in his own nature and in his own prosôpon, the flesh adding not anything [thereto]. But since the humanity is understood completely as the nature of man, it has completely / all [the qualities] of the sons of man, [acting] and suffering, as the nature of men is wont [to do].
Likewise from the same, from the sixteenth roll.
'That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow which is /; / heaven and on earth and which is under the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Because of him who is clothed I honour him wherewith he is clothed, and because of him who is invisible I adore him who is visible. God is not distinguished from him who is visible; for this reason I distinguish not the honour of him who is not distinct; I distinguish the natures and I unite the adoration.
I seek and would persuade you prudently to look well in every place, lest he 83 blame me for breaking up into several parts and dividing the divinity and the humanity in the likeness of things which are distinguished in place from one another. How is he who is clothed distinguished from his clothing and one who is concealed from one who is revealed? As we have added in our very words: 'God is not distinct from him who is visible.'...
But thou sayest unto me that I distinguish the natures. How then are those natures which are indistinguishable distinguished? For in the formula they are known as ousias without confusion, without mixture, in such wise that in the |218 union both the natures are preserved with their natural attributes and naturally with the properties / of the ousia, so that the divine nature is conceived in nature of God and the human nature is conceived in the nature of the humanity in the ousia. He [himself] distinguishes in several parts, he who says that the humanity is conceived by nature in the divinity but that the humanity is not conceived to be the divinity, and that God the Word was not in both the natures either in schema or without the substance of the flesh or in passibility or in the action of the sensibility and in the nature of the flesh. For if he 84 were not so conceived, neither is he to be otherwise conceived without limiting by distinction him who is infinite and unlimited. For this idea he has also in the very thing which he says in his letter: 'The diversities of the natures are not made void by reason of the union'; for in the natural differences he distinguishes the things which are united, having distinguished [them] indistinguishably, for he has made the distinction by the word ousia. For the word and the idea of divinity are one thing and that of humanity another, since things which are distinguishable are distinguishable. But I predicate two natures, that he indeed who is clothed is one and he wherewith he is clothed another, and these two prosôpa of him who is clothed and of him wherewith he is clothed. But thou also confessest 'of two natures'. Neither of them is known without prosôpon and without hypostasis in the diversities of the natures. There are not two prosôpa of the sons conceived nor again two prosôpa / of the men, but of one man who is moved in the same manner even by the other. For the union of the prosôpa took place for the prosôpon and not for the ousia and the nature. It is not indeed that one ousia without hypostasis should be conceived, as if by union into one ousia and there were no prosôpon of one ousia, but the |219 natures subsist in their prosôpa and in their natures and in the prosôpon of the union. For in respect to the natural prosôpon of the one the other also makes use of the same on account of the union; and thus [there is] one prosôpon of the two natures. The prosôpon of the one ousia makes use of the prosôpon of the other ousia in the same [way]. For what ousia seekest thou to make without a prosôpon? That of the divinity? Or that of the humanity? Therefore thou wilt not call God the Word flesh nor the flesh Son.
But if thou predicatest God the Word [to be] in the two natures, God and man, but the man [to be] nought, it is not right to think aught else of thee [than] that either thou speakest only of the name and the schema of man without the nature at all, after which God the Word was named, or [thou speakest] as though the humanity added not anything in nature to the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf; or, in order that God the Word might be able to be revealed and suffer human sufferings involuntarily, so that while the humanity was suffering without sensibility, God the Word was suffering the sufferings of the body / and the sufferings of the soul and the sufferings of the intelligence and was acting and being acted upon----so for this reason thou makest all of them God the Word's and dost expel the humanity. If after this thou dost decline to confess two natures with me, by the same argument decline also to say that God the Word was made flesh and [renounce] the flesh in which he was made flesh and was made man. [It is] likewise both in regard to the man and in regard to God. But he who speaks so 85 makes |220 not two Gods the Words nor two fleshes, but makes confession completely, without diminution, of the divinity, and of the humanity in which it was made man, that the humanity might not be conceived [to be] fictitious, nor further that by a change of ousia and by a change of likeness the nature of God the Word might even so become the nature of a man. Neither by mixture and confusion nor by a change of ousia, nor again by a natural change of composition of the humanity, is he conceived; for all these things are rejected and corrupt and such as befit paganism and heretics and corrupt the properties of all natures.
But, O excellent judges, do you wish to cite the witness which [was borne] by the Fathers, which was written by them, that I may make use of it; that in my making use of indubitable witnesses you may learn that I too have said the same things, and [that] you have condemned me as one who says them not and have condemned me in raging anger and in darkness? For whatever / else have I said other than that which Gregory has said? 'One thing indeed and another are the things of which our Saviour is [formed], if the invisible is not the same as the visible and that which is timeless as that which is time; yet he is not one thing and another----far from it!----for they two are one by mixture, God on the one hand who was made man, man on the other hand who was made God.' See then that he calls the clothing visible but him that is clothed invisible. For God is one thing and man another, but Christ is not one thing and another but one in prosôpon by union: [that] of God who was made man and [that of] man who became God. By man indeed is it said that God was made man, and by God is it said that man was made God. It was not that he was changed from the divinity; God indeed remained God and was made man, and man remained man and was made God; for they took the prosôpon of one another, and not the natures. Therefore [they are] one thing and another, and [he is] not one thing and another in prosôpon. For in that same doctrine by which it is said that man was made God men by all means attribute unto him |221 adoration and service. In him, through whom and by whom it befell him to be made God, [he is adored] with one [and] the same adoration although he is conceived as one thing and another in the natures. And he is without distinction in the union, but in view of the natures which are distinct he both is and is conceived one thing and another.
Now Athanasius also has said things which agree with this: 'Now that the Word has become man and has made the properties of the flesh his own, / the same are not therefore imputed to the body because of the Word which has come to be in it.' For he said that God the Word has come to be in the body as one who is clothed in the clothing and the invisible in the visible, not as though they had been confused nor as though they had been changed, but as though remaining in both their natures and making the very properties common to him who acts 86 and to him who is in his own ousia,87 and he 88 possesses all those things which are made [the common] properties. And it is evident that he says two: 'God the Word and the body in which he was and whose [properties] he made his own in order that those of the one might become the other's and those of the other the one's.' But this God the Word remained impassible even in the body, nor yet was the suffering of the flesh brought nigh unto him, because God the Word who was in him was born of God; because of the heavenly Word which was in him he became heavenly, but because of him wherein he was he also was adored with God the Word who is adorable. Because of him who was clothed I honour the clothing, for he was clothed in the likeness of a servant, as Gregory said: 'The King of Kings and Lord of Lords is clothed in the likeness of a servant.' 89
Why then have you accepted these things but accused of |222 impiety my words and not those also of them who have confirmed my own words? [Is it] either because you suppose that even these which in letter and in spirit are the same / are not to be rejected in [the rejection of] mine own words? Or [is it] because you make void [both] the former and the latter, that they may not be spoken, and further employ these of mine, having destroyed him who spake them? And you too, though involuntarily, are witnesses unto me and you bear witness unto me by those [words by] which you suppose that you undo these of mine, since you also are in agreement with them and undo yourselves, because you are speaking against yourselves. And if I were able to have judges unlike you, I should have had no labour to convince [them] that it is the same idea, and so on; and I do not suppose that it would be right to toil much.
Likewise, from the same, from the seventeenth roll, concerning the faith.
God the Word indeed was Son and God, and was with his Father even before the Incarnation, but in the latter time he took the likeness of a servant. Yet having been formerly son and having been [so] called even after the taking he could not be called son by distinction, lest we should introduce two sons into our faith; but because he adheres to him who has been son from in the beginning, we cannot make him who adhered unto him distinct in the honour of the sonship----in the honour / of the sonship, I say, and not in the nature. For this reason the Word also is called Christ, because he has continuously adherence in Christ.
But in order that we may not say the same things [and] tire the reader with the same [subjects], let us pass on to |223 their testimony which they have chosen, as they suppose, against me, and which they have set down as seemed good to them; whereby I have proved and shall prove that nothing strange has been said by me [and] that I have been condemned in this judgement without examination. Hear what Gregory, bishop of Nazianzum, says of the things which the former have written....
For we [distinguish] not the man from the divinity; we call him one and the same thing; for | we call him] not originally man but God and Son and only-begotten before the ages, who was not mixed with the bodily frame nor with the things which are in the bodily frame but in the end took also the man.'
How then does it seem to you? That it is against [me]? Compare them both with one another. 'For God the Word, even before the Incarnation, was son and God and was with the Father.' Set down the [words] of Gregory: 'Originally indeed not man but only God and Son.' These [are statements] which are supposed contradictory by you; quote those which have been spoken by me [to see] if they are applicable. 'But in the last times he took the likeness of a servant.' Set over against them [those] of Gregory: 'But at the end he took also the man.' Lest / they should be supposed to be contradictory by you, set down those things which have been said by me: 'But he was before the other and he was called Son, but after his taking he could not be separated nor distinctly distinguished nor be called Son.' Cite [the words] of Gregory: For also we separate not the man from the divinity.' Quote the rest of mine (which thou cuttest short) as having been laid down by me: 'That we may not speak of two sons.' Set down |224 those of Gregory: 'But we say that he is one and the same.' Quote the rest of my [words]: 'But because he adheres unto him who was in the beginning son; he who adhered unto him cannot receive in distinction the honour of sonship, by honour, I mean, and not by nature.' Set down the words of Gregory: There are indeed two natures, God and man, as also [there are] soul and body, but the sons are not two; for those from which our Saviour is [formed] are one and another; yet he is not one and another. Far from it! For both of them are one in the union.' So he has made the distinction in the nature and not in prosôpa, in saying 'One and another, but one son'. And again: 'by nature' is other than 'by union', as he is called 'other' in prosôpon and not in nature. For after the flesh God the Word is flesh, but after the divinity the flesh or the man is called Son, in such wise that also after that flesh which has been taken God the Word is called Christ. Read those [words] of mine even as they have been written.... 'For this reason also God / the Word is named Christ, because he has continuously adherence in Christ.' Quote those of Gregory: 'For [there are] two of them in the union, God who was made man and man who was made God.' For by adherence unto man God the Word is said to have been made man, even as also man is said to have been made God by union with God the Word. For he calls the union a 'mixture '.90
Quote the [words] of Ambrose: 'Does not also the very Scripture teach you that not the divinity needs sanctification, but the flesh?' After the flesh therefore which has been anointed or after man God the Word is called Christ, as Ambrose has said. But after the flesh he is named flesh or after man man; is not Christ to be named after the flesh which has been anointed? And after the flesh he is named |225 flesh; yet they make not two fleshes nor two men after the man who is named God the Word. Because God is named Christ after Christ, does it make two Christs? Or preserve harmony between you and the Fathers as regards 'in the union' and as regards 'in nature', and as regards 'in ousia', and as regards 'the property of the prosopon', seeing that he has given us his and taken ours.91
And thou dost concede unto him all the properties of the flesh and the sufferings and the cross and death and dost not concede that he should be truly Christ by reason of the man who was in truth anointed, without there being two Christs, since also [there are] neither two fleshes nor two men. / But let us add also the rest: [there are] neither two births nor two sufferings nor two crosses nor two deaths nor two resurrections from the dead nor the rest [of them], nor everything else which thou referrest from the flesh into God the Word. He 92 then changes it from the flesh [only] in name and makes all of them [the property] of God the Word naturally and is grieved with those who speak the truth, as though they were making two sons. But when thou speakest, thou dost shun change and transformation and illusion and supposition, and thou dost pretend to be suspected of saying these things with intent to deceive. But when I say these things, thou leapest from thy place as if I were speaking of two sons; and again thou deniest and pretendest not to deny.
In this indeed lies the distinction between us, as touching what is in the natures and what in the union, in order that we may not deny the things appertaining to the natures on account of that which is predicated in the union, and again that we may not suppose that to be nature which is predicated of the union on account of that which is in the natures. In [regard to] the things which thou dost agree not to be predicated of the union, thou claimest as though they were in the nature and permittest not the mention of the union. But, being unable to speak of it when thou excusest thyself, thou settest therefore about accusing me and regardest me as |226 impious, although in excusing thyself from the things whereof I rebuke thee thou bearest witness unto me that I am pious; / and the same things are taken as impious in me but fair in him. Or perhaps they issue from thine own knowledge, that thou mayest strive and labour on their behalf! Yet, for all that [thou admittest them] of necessity and by constraint, hardly dost thou admit it and confess in him these human qualities. In what other things then more than these art thou confident of a just judgement? Even however in the following you have the same examination that by the same means you may confirm these my [words].
Likewise from the same, from the seventeenth roll: 'Concerning the Faith.'
Let us keep without confusion the adhesion of the natures. Thou therefore confessest God who is in man, but I worship the adhesion of the divinity [where]by man is adored together with God Almighty.
But that we may not make use of the witness of any other, it is fair that we should make use of his own testimony concerning these our [questions, of his] who says: 'We are keeping without confusion the adhesion of the natures, in that the diversity of the natures is not made void by reason of the union.' Thereby he indicates one and the same, and further he indicates God who was in man. God indeed was impassible, in a passible bodily frame. Therein lies the diversity, nor does it indicate / identity. 'I worship the adhesion of the divinity where[by] man is adored together with God Almighty,' and 'the body indeed wherewith he too is seated with the Father is not a stranger unto him'; we have not quoted [these] that thou mightest disclaim them, but that thou mightest not blame the things which have been well said by thee. But you, O admirable judges without justice, you have not understood these things when they were |227 read before you; or else they have surely not been read or you have only been careful of this, that you might anticipate those who were about to come to the examination.
Now I pass by the [words] of Ambrose who says that the union of God and of the flesh is without confusion: 'In both of them there spake the Son of God in whom there are two natures, man and God.' But Athanasius also says: 'If God the Word were in the body as it were artificially, as these men say, that indeed which is said artificially would be a phantasy; in regard to him both the salvation and the resurrection of men would be found a phantasy'.
But let us again speak of the divine adhesion, since thou shunnest indeed the term 'adhesion' as impiety, thou who sayest also this, that whoever says [' adhesion' says] that it has adhered to him as in the prophets or by grace and not that it adhered by ousia, that is, that it will be adored with him in virtue of the union. And again from Gregory: 'God indeed who was made man, but man who was made God.' For this was not / his on account of his own nature, but in virtue of the union of the divinity; for in the adoration of the divinity which is united unto him he is adored with it, not in his own adoration. Just as 'He was made God' is not' He was changed into the divinity', so he was not made God of his own nature but by the union of the divinity. For he is adored with the adoration of the divinity which is united unto him and not with his own adoration. As being made God is not to vacate humanity, so he was not made God of his [own] nature but by the union of the divinity. Things indeed which are diverse in ousia but are adored with a single adoration are said to be adored together; but when they are mentioned as though in the union of the prosôpon, since there is no distinction in the prosôpon, how can one be separated and be said to be adored [apart]? But when mention is made of the ousias, on account of the distinction which exists between them, it is said: 'He is adored with it' because [he is adored] as if in both ousias, just as it is said also of the |228 Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in so far as they are in the union of the divinity, that 'God is adored', and, in so far as they are distinguished in the prosôpon, although they are not distinguished in nature but remain always in their being, we say that the Son is adored with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, in order that we may not, like Sabcllius, make the prosôpa without kypostasis and without ousia. For he who would suppress [the saying] that the Son is adored with the Father / suppresses [the saying] that the Son exists in hypostasis. So also concerning Christ: when we speak of the prosôpon, we say that the Son of God is adored, concerning also the flesh as united with him; but in discussing the natures and speaking of two natures, we say that the humanity is adored with the divinity which is united with it. And he indeed who would hinder the saying of 'two natures' and 'him who is adored with it' would suppress [the saying] that' the humanity and the divinity exist in ousia and in hypostasis', even as has been our argument also concerning the Trinity, as also Gregory says. Our [words are] like those indeed of the Fathers. Therefore look well into the judgement which has been [passed] on these things, as they have been doing everything at haphazard, fleeing from the examination as from fire.
Likewise from the same, from the sixth roll. Ponder the things which follow immediately thereon: That he may be merciful and a faithful chief priest in the things which concern God. In that indeed he has suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted. Therefore he who has suffered is the chief priest, but the temple is passible, not God the impassible who has quickened the passible temple.
Who indeed can undertake the advocacy of blasphemies such as / these? I called the temple passible and not God |229 the quickener of the temple which has suffered. For this you have condemned me like the priests for blasphemies, because
I have said that God is incorruptible and immortal and the quickener of all. Or contrariwise [can he be] corruptible and mortal and in need of life? 'For does not also the Scripture teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?' All this Ambrose proclaims unto you and you hearken not, or rather, you hearken and hearken not, you see and you see not, and you accept things which are inconsistent. How therefore do you accept these and have not accepted mine? Naught that is strange have I said, nor again have I written aught that differs [even] in small details from his own 93 [words]: In that he has suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Now he proclaims the nature which has suffered, and you have no need to learn of me or of others. 'The Scripture proclaims it: "Confess therefore the glory of God and the sufferings of man."' Ambrose tells it unto all of you. Why are you frightened of accepting these [words] of Ambrose? And in that you ban my words [you ban] his also. These things he has said; for these things you have condemned me; then not me but him also, for I have said the same things as he, those which you have quoted. Who among men will / change these things and be able to accept them as the reverse? I should have had no need of much examination to establish my [words], if they had come up for examination and for judgement, and I should have been teaching in no other manner but by means of what they have said and what they used in [their] witness. Who had confidence in the judgement? And who [was it] that fled from him and carried him off by force, and wherefore? And it was by all means evident even to the unintelligent.
Thou hast said that he was impassible in a passible body, and thou accusest me as if I were speaking impiety [in saying] that the temple of God is passible and that the quickener of the temple is not passible. If thou art saying with truth that |230 God is impassible in a passible body, then hast thou not made use of this term 'impassible' merely with intent to deceive, in order that men may let thee by all [means] say and maintain that God is passible and mortal, while thereof accusing me who say that the temple of God is passible and that the quickener of the temple has not suffered? But you have learned how wise is the judgement of the judges, and I have made you know for what cause I have been judged. But the rest of these things also it is fair to read.
/ Likewise from the same; from the twenty-seventh roll. That you may learn how close was his adhesion unto God, [know] that even in the infant the flesh of the Lord appeared; for the child and the Lord of the child were the same. You have praised my argument, but [beware] lest you laud it without examination; for I have said that the child and he that dwelleth in the child are the same.
Suppose, then, that I have spoken thus; I turn not back from 'the child and the Lord of the child are the same'. I have said that he is the child and he that dwells in the child, but I [will] explain in what manner the child and the Lord of the child are the same, in order that thou mayest not suppose of me that I predicate them both of God the Word in ousia, as if he were in the two ousias. But, inasmuch as he appeared a child, he was of our own nature, made and created; inasmuch as he was concealed, he was Lord and Maker of the child which had been revealed; for there was one prosôpon of them both and not one ousia. Therefore have I said that he was one in the prosôpon and one and another in the ousias: the child and the Lord of the child; for 'he who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of his manifestation which [took place] little by |231 little / he is so called'. Gregory also, explaining that God is predicated in them both, who is in one prosôpon, lest we should suppose that there is one nature, says: 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of the manifestation which [took place little] by little he is so called.'
Theophilus also says: 'This master-craftsman, the Word of God, living and making everything, who has disposed everything in fitting order, put not on a body of an honourable nature and of heavenly attributes and came unto us, but he showed in the clay the greatness of his craftsmanship in reshaping man who was formed from the clay,' 94 He hid not that he was made and that he was also the Maker. He has not made the Maker the made and the Lord the servant in the same ousia, as thou arguest with us. For the earthly and the heavenly, the visible and the invisible, the limited and the illimitable, are the same, as Gregory has said: 'The child and the Lord of the child are the same, yet the same not in the same [ousia], but in the prosôpon; but the child and the Lord of the child are in the natures one thing and another, [even] those of whom is Christ; but [he is not] one and another----far from it!' What then makest thou of the things of the prosôpon of the ousia and of the nature? Thou dost transport the ousia of God / into two ousias and then removest our own nature and the firstfruits which [are] of us in attributing neither to the child nor to the Lord of the child diversity of natures but saying that the ousia of the child and the ousia of the Maker of the child exist in the same ousia of God the Word, as if [it was] he who made his own ousia and God the Word was the two ousias [issuing] from the one ousia of God the Word, or as if the ousia of man was changed into the |232 ousia of God the Word. For if thou shrinkest from speaking thus, why censurest thou one who speaks clearly and accountest him impious and accusest him of impiety?
Wherefore then, O judges, you who have been [involved] in folly and in deception and in violence, have you not examined the testimony which has been written by the Fathers? You would have proved to him 95 indeed from his own [statements] that he indeed confesses two natures, one and another, of one and another ousia, as the holy Fathers have said. And thou also sayest that 'the natures are diverse, but that Christ [is] one of them both, [yet] not as though the union made void the diversities of the natures'. These things it appears that thou hast said; and 'The child and the dweller in the child', which thou hast said, is also the same. I say that he was impassible in a passible body, that he has a rational soul inasmuch as he is a child, for he is man as well as child. How therefore, in saying these things and persuading / us to agree with the truth of the faith, condemnest thou this man 96 on these same [points]? Is not the injustice evident? Thou callest the natures diverse in Christ, and this man makes the same confession and accepts thy statement of these things; and [thou sayest] that there is one prosôpon in the diverse natures, while he too confesses this and accepts thy confession concerning these things. And thou speakest of property and appropriation in consequence of the union, and admittest that that which exists is one thing and that which is called another, while this man also speaks of property and appropriation without his 97 having come into being by [passing] from [his] appropriate and voluntary property into a nature that was without volition, that he might suffer the natural sufferings. But thou gatherest together the things which have been said, so that indeed there is neither he who made them his properties, nor those things which have become his own, but there is one, not [one] prosôpon but [one] ousia indeed, so that thou makest void all those things that we have confessed together.
If thou callest this correct and not different from the truth, |233 you ought not to have maligned either the [doctrine] of one prosôpon or again that of two natures. For naught have you condemned me, not that I do not confess one prosôpon in having said 'The child and he that dwells in the child are the same'; for 'is the same' indicates one and the same prosôpon; nor is it as though I confess not two natures, for 'he who dwells' indicates / the nature, as though it was in the child as in the bodily frame, that the ousia of God might not be supposed to be the same as the ousia of the child. If then neither thou preachest this, nor this man who has written these things, thou oughtest not to have accused me and calumniated me as not confessing one prosôpon in two ousias or as defining them individually 98 in distinction and in division, as things which are distant from one another. For I have called the 'dweller' one who by all means dwells in the nature; and the dweller is he who dwells in him in whom there is dwelling, and he has a prosôpon, while he in whom there is dwelling has the prosôpon of him who dwells. So by the use of their prosôpa as though they were making use of their own authoritatively, the one is the other and the other the one, the one and the other abiding just as they are in their natures. He is truly God, we confess truly that he [is so] also in his nature and is complete, in naught falling short of the nature of the Father; and we confess that the man is truly man, completely in his nature, in naught falling short of the nature of men, neither in body nor in soul nor in intelligence; all these things he has in our likeness, apart from sin. He was not without activity in his own nature; for although God makes use of these things in his own prosôpon, he makes use of them as of things appertaining unto man, in such wise also / as the humanity makes use of the divinity in the things appertaining to divinity; for they have a union in prosôpon and not in ousia.
For this reason it is right to lay down and to confess that, as he is confessed [to be] the archetype by reason of the image, since it is therefrom that he is called that which he is, so also, when God the Word is called flesh, he is confessed |234 [to be] flesh, that from it he is called flesh and the flesh is God and Lord and Son of God, that from it it is said that the Lord is in these things, that he may be conceived without either confusion or change or phantasy in respect to the divinity and in respect to the humanity. But if a man changes the things appertaining to the image and predicates them of the archetype, necessarily is he acting foolishly in regard to both of them, both in regard to the divinity and in regard to the humanity: in regard to the humanity in assigning unto it the nature of the divinity, and in regard to the divinity because he attributes the things appertaining to the divinity to the nature of the humanity and changes them both. But these things indeed would have been so when they were to be examined by the judges, if there had been judges and they had consulted the [interests] of the orthodox without inclining to the side of the heretics and had not let them be brought to pass against the rules. But you would not have been the judges, yea, I would add that [you would have been] not even orthodox, if you had not also obscured these things. And what shall I say? All of you have one and the same opinion; but read too what follows.
/ Likewise from the same, from the first roll. Common indeed is the activity of the holy Trinity, and they are distinct only in the prosopa; for the majesty of the glory of the only-begotten applies sometimes to the Father, for It is my Father that glorifieth me, and sometimes to the Holy Spirit: The Spirit of truth will glorify me, and sometimes to the might of Christ.
What, pray, is there finally in me to rouse them? [Is it] because I have said: 'The activity of the Trinity is common and the division lies only in the hypostases.' Or perhaps it |235 is yours to suppose that I have said unto you otherwise concerning the Trinity that the Son is glorified by the Father and by the Holy Spirit. Not that he suffices not for his own glory, but I have formerly borne witness abundantly and for this reason I have laid down 'sometimes indeed by the might of God' as being sufficient unto his own glory and not in need, because he is not in need. Who then has deceived you? But perhaps you conceive that I am speaking of the humanity which has been glorified by the Father and by the Holy Spirit and by God the Word himself.
You fight hard, and you are unwilling to name aught of the dispensation. And suppose that it has been so said by me; for I disclaim not that on behalf of which you are fighting, but now I establish my theme openly. For naught / else is your fighting by all [means] against me than this: you confess not that the flesh of the Incarnation is created and [that] the second Adam is of our own nature and that he is created. You concede not that he is the creature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and that further he is glorified by the Creator. Why doubtest thou? What do we make this man? Either you do not confess that the flesh is made, or you confess that the flesh is made but is not of an ousia other than [that] of God the Word? So, in order that he may not be the creature of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, you make him the creator of himself. For you are very cautious therein, and you make him the maker of himself and say that he is made of none other than himself. All this is fair and just in your opinion when it is so said; wherefore do you not say clearly whatever you suppose to be true? But [this] in name indeed you shun but revert to it in fact, and refer to the nature of God the Word naturally the attributes of natural flesh. That two natures should be united in one prosôpon makes not two Sons or two Christs, the diversities of each one of the natures being preserved.
/ Thou knowest him who by all means somewhere has said these things. Thou hast in fact said that the diversities subsist and are not made void by reason of the union of the |236 natures of the divinity and of the humanity. Say one prosôpon in two natures and two natures in one prosôpon, as Gregory and as Ambrose and as Athanasius, as all the Fathers, as thou too hast said, that we may not [again] write the same things. If you had been just judges, he would not have been confident. But he would have made you all participate in impiety, that you too might shun equity of judgement, because you were afraid of reprimand for that which you have wrought against me. Are you willing that we should examine the other things too which they have written? Let it not be tedious unto you to hear the same thing many times; but you shall compulsorily, of necessity, attend to the things which are to be said.
Likewise from the same, from the sixteenth roll, speaking of the Son. He it is who said: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He it is who endured death three days, and him I adore with the divinity. 'And after three days': on account of him who is clothed I adore the clothing, on account of him who is concealed [I adore] him who is revealed, who is not distinguished from the visible. For this reason I distinguish not the honour of him who is not distinguished; / I distinguish the natures and I unite the adoration. It was not God by himself who was formed in the womb nor again was God created by himself apart from the Holy Spirit nor yet was God entombed by himself in the tomb; for, if it had been so, we should evidently be worshippers of a man and worshippers of the dead. But since God is in him who has been taken, he also who has been taken is called God with him after him who has taken [him].
Readers ought not to break off, as if they had no more any need of reminding, but to be willing to go through in the book of their words those which they have set down close |237 at hand in opposition to me, that 'the bodily frame exists not by itself. This [it is] concerning which they have unjustly belied me, as though I were speaking of a mere man and distinguishing him into part[s], as those things which are distinguished from one another in space. And again contrariwise to this they accuse me, [demanding] from what reason I call him indistinguishable and infinite, since they hear 'he came into being by himself, not even for one moment, but God too is in him ever since his coming into being, since also God is in him that he may come to be in him'. 'For he is impassible in a passible body who in the fullness of the times assumed the man that he who assumed might come to be indistinguishably in him who was assumed.' And it was not artificially that he came to be in the body, but truly he came to be in the body and was / not distinguished from the body. 'The nature which [was born] of Mary was human and our salvation came not to pass in phantasy.'
From the things which they say, you also know my [words]: 'And he who has been assumed is named God after him who assumed.' This was not his of his own nature; for he who has been assumed is the passible man in whom the impassible existed, [that is] the human nature in which God existed not artificially,2 the clay wherein the cunning craftsman has proved his craftsmanship. By the union with the divinity it is his to become Son and to become God. For 'he who begins and gradually advances and is perfected is not God, although on account of the manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called', and he is called that whereunto God is united in nature. For 'one thing and another are those things whereof our Saviour is [formed], yet [he is] not one and another----far from it!----but one by adhesion, God on the one hand who was made man and man on the other who was made God'. By his adhesion he was made God and not by his nature; by the union of the divinity and of the flesh he became one Son, for both the natures existed in him. Therefore 'The man is called God by the union of the |238 divinity and is said to be one Son'----[he is said] to become one son----by this doctrine he is adored with the adoration of the divinity and is adored with him; yet there are not two adorations, but one. For in the / one adoration of this one ousia the other also is adored, because he who is adored with the other is not adored in his own adoration, but both of them together. In the adoration indeed of the one, the other who is with him, who is adored in the adoration, also [is adored]; of necessity he is united and not distinguished. For also he who is adored is not capable of not being adored, nor again [is he] to be adored apart from him in whom he exists, nor yet again [is he] to be adored in him without the latter also, in whom he receives adoration, being adored. For he is not adored in his own prosôpon but in that prosôpon to which he is united, which is common on account of the union for the union took place in the prosôpon in such wise that the one [became] the other and the other the one. From him therefore who assumed the prosôpon it is his who has been assumed to become the prosôpon of him who has assumed it. For this reason the flesh of God the Word bears the same title with him, and it is not according to the flesh that God the Word becomes God and Son and Lord; for God the Word is called God and Son in his nature and not after another in the things derived from the nature. But the flesh has received from God to be named that which he is called, being called God when bearing the same title with him, making use with him of the name of God; it is not its after its nature. Otherwise then thou art dividing the union and predicating two things of him.99
And censure one who says that the body is by itself and according to whom the [properties] of the divinity belong not to the divinity which [is] in the body. / And before everything censure 100 thyself who hast so spoken; and if indeed thou darest not to deny that owing to the union the flesh had the prosôpon of the divinity, but referrest to God the Word alone the [attributes] of the humanity and of the |239 divinity but to the humanity neither those of the humanity nor those of the divinity, thou yet dissemblest in that thou namest God the Word in them both; thou art like unto me in being [too] reverent to suppose that the humanity is not worthy of the prosôpon, and thou overthrowest the union which thou confessest in schema, where[by] two natures are one prosôpon, laying down that it is God the Word who is united to the flesh or to the man and that he is said [to be] in both of them in the nature of God and [to be] man in the union, but a man who is neither united to the divinity nor even exists.101 And for this reason man is named Son neither after his nature nor through the union of God the Word. But thus thou seemest to set up God the Word in both of them but man [in] neither of the two of them, whether in the nature or in the union with that |240 which is united. 'God on the one hand who was made man, man on the other who was made God.' 'For he who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of the manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.'
And all the things which are called after the union in respect to both of those / things which are united come to be with reference to the one prosôpon. And thou sayest that the union of the natures took place in one prosôpon, but in fact with all thy might thou settest up the Incarnation of God the Word of the Arians and of the Apollinarians, and thou provest to those who have eyes to search thee out that he made use of the body and of the soul as of an instrument without soul and without reason and without will as if for his own nature, doing and suffering the sufferings of the body which became consubstantial. And for this reason thou countest it not with him and thou referrest to God the Word, even as to a craftsman, all these [properties] of the instrument, but thou dost attribute to the instrument those of the craftsman, since he was not assumed for this, that he might do and suffer voluntarily in his nature, but that God the Word might suffer all human things and do them, while he had not his own will or feeling or sufferings or humanity; but thou dost attribute unto God the Word feeling and willing and suffering in all the things of humanity in his nature. And for this reason thou declinest to say that there was aught [added] to the humanity itself owing to the union with the divinity, apart from what God the Word is in prosôpon, that is, God and Lord and Son of God; for except the ousia he 102 has all the [properties] of the ousia owing to the union and not by nature. For the divinity makes use of the prosôpon of the humanity and the humanity of that of the divinity; and thus we say one / prosôpon in both of them. Thus God appears whole, since his nature is not damaged in aught owing to the union; and thus too man [is] whole, falling short of naught of the activity and of the sufferings of his own nature |241 owing to the union. For he who refers to the one prosôpon of God the Word the [properties] of God the Word and those of the humanity and gives not in return the prosôpon of God the Word to the humanity steals away the union of the orthodox and likens it to that of the heretics. For you have learnt of the orthodox in the testimonies which they have written, that they give in compensation the [properties] of the humanity to the divinity and those of the divinity to the humanity, and that this is said of the one and that of the other, as concerning natures whole and united, united indeed without confusion and making use of the prosôpa of one another.103
How therefore has he swept you away to everything that he wishes, O wise judges? Either then refute the [sayings] of the Fathers which you have cited in testimony, or else otherwise it is of necessity [incumbent] upon you to receive one who says on their own side according to their teaching: 'Two indeed in nature and one prosôpon in the union, in mixture, in revelation, in adhesion, God who was made man, man who was made God, the one is said after the other to have been made man and the other said after the one to have been made God.' Whatever therefore have I said which is alien from them, for which you have condemned me? Was it not right to confess two natures? Was it not right to confess one prosôpon belonging to two natures, / of the divinity and of the humanity, that of the divinity and of the humanity? But although you deny that which you have written you are to be reprimanded.
Read therefore what follows:
Likewise from the same, from the third roll: against heretics, concerning the Holy Spirit. For how is that a |242 servant who [works with the Son and the Father? And, if any one inquires concerning the Spirit what are his acts, he will find that he] 104 is with the Father and with the Son, and falls not short of them in aught. It is not indeed as though one divinity were divided, but the Divine Scripture, for the proof and the likeness of the Trinity proves that [there is] one power and that it is distinguished for each single one of the hypostases. And search out likewise from the works which at sundry times have begun [as follows]: God the Word became flesh and dwelled among us and caused the humanity which was taken to abide with the Father. The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand, to that likeness which was taken, the Holy Spirit has come down and shown his glory.
The reader therefore has not need that we should go back to each one of the things which have been said before, and that we should say the same things. But we will say unto them: Is the flesh created or not created? Speak clearly; if thou sayest that it is created, in whatever manner it be, thou concedest that it has been made by the Father and by the Son and by the Holy Spirit, for they are entirely distinct in nothing in the making and all things are wrought by one and the same / will and wisdom. But if thou distinguishest not between these and separatest [not] the Son from the Father and from the Holy Spirit, but even [sayest] that he has become flesh in virtue of the flesh and has dwelled among us and that all the dispensation on our behalf has been effected by one and the same will and wisdom and |243 might even as also it has been effected, I myself also and all the company of the orthodox say [the same], according to the Holy Scriptures. If therefore this is worthy of accusation, let care be taken by thee that naught is left without accusation. And yet sayest thou that it is created? Say it clearly and suppress the [doctrine] that God the Word became flesh; for if he became not, how is it said that he became? For thus he is not admitted [to be] as an act, the work of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For thereby it appears that thou art constrained to say that the flesh of God the Word has need of the Father and the Holy Spirit, the [flesh] which in its own ousia is naught else than God the Word. But it is not God the Word, who has not need of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.
If thou conceivest the flesh thus, thou well definest it to be so. Look well however in the Fathers who imagine the opposite concerning the flesh, from whom you have cited testimony, when they say: 'It is indeed the human nature which [is] of Mary,' and again: / 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of the manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' For both natures of which our Saviour is [formed] are one thing and another, even as thou hast formerly agreed with them to say the same things: 'Diverse are the natures which have been combined in the union, but of both of them [there issues] one Christ, not indeed that the diversity of the natures is to be made void on account of the union; for God is impassible in a passible body; for his body, which also is abiding with him, with the Father, is not alien unto him.' What then is there to do with the things that I have said, which confirm the [words] of the former and those of the latter? And they make void thine, while thou settest aside all those whom thou hast cited as thy testimony. For these reasons the judges have not come to the examination, lest they should |244 hear these and such like things and be condemning themselves. But I will cite again the rest of the things which are like unto them and we will run over them, that you may see through all of them the cause of his declining the judgement.
Likewise from the same, from the sixth roll: in speaking of Christ. He has been sent forth to preach release to the captives as the Apostle [says], and cites: 'He [it was] who was trusted of God and was made chief priest;' for he surely became and existed not eternally from aforetime. He it is who gradually advances little by little to the honour of the high / priesthood, O heretic! Hear the voice which clearly proclaims unto thee: In the days of the flesh he offered up a prayer and a supplication with strong crying and with tears and was heard for his righteousness and, though he was rightly Son, learned obedience by the things which he bore and was made perfect and became unto all them that obey him the cause of eternal life. Being surely brought to fullness and made perfect he gradually advanced little by little, [O] heretic; concerning whom also Luke proclaims in the Gospel that Jesus increased in stature and in wisdom. Paul also has said things agreeing therewith: He was made perfect and became unto all them that obey him the cause of eternal life and was named of God chief priest after the order of Melchizedek, and, after other things, he was proclaimed chief priest. Why therefore dost thou interpret against Paul, thou that dost mingle God the Word impassible with an earthly likeness and makest him a passible chief priest? |245
I imagine therefore that all of you, since you constantly say these things and since the latter brings them forward in his testimony, are like those who make mock of them that are heavy with sleep and answer differently to different things to those who cry out and ask them. For this reason, when thou settest aside thine own testimonies, thou dost not understand. For thy witness Gregory says: 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of the manifestation which [took place] gradually / he is so called.' But then he is not thy witness but my advocate, who has laid down these things in his discourses. Why then dost thou mingle these [arguments] of one who has laid them down in his very discourses? But Ambrose too [says]: 'Does not the Scripture also teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh? Confess the glory of God and the sufferings of man.' [Thou claimest] that he is on thy side, but knowest not what thou sayest. Whatever then has this man 105 said unto thee other [than this]? For he who accepts these disputes not against those. If thou accusest the latter as one who predicates the two ousias, accuse also the former who predicates two natures, one thing and another.
But thou sayest that he who confesses two natures, one and another, of necessity makes two prosôpa; for it is not possible that two prosôpa should become one prosôpon; but, if it is right to confess one prosôpon, refer them all to the one prosôpon of God the Word, in order that they may be predicated of one prosôpon and not of two; just as thou sayest that he [it is] who suffered, and dividest [it] on thy two fingers and makest proof as if concerning things [that are] divided. In this indeed thou hast naught [to do] with me, O admirable man. He, who in word accepts the Fathers and the words of the Fathers, accepts also my words at the same time. He, who says: 'Does not / the Scripture itself |246 also teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?' predicates one prosôpon of the flesh and of the divinity, and that the one has need of sanctification, while the other has not need. And 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of his manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called'----and the latter too predicates two: he who has begun and he who has not begun, and he who gradually advances and is brought to fullness, and further he who eternally is such as he is; he who is not God in his nature, although through the manifestation he is called God, and he who is [so] in his nature. For in the natures thou dividest also the prosôpa: man and God. [There are] not two sons nor two men; but hast thou not been informed that the Fathers confess one prosôpon of two natures, and that the diversities of the natures, either of the divinity or of the humanity, have not been made void by reason of the union, because they are thereby combined in one prosôpon which belongs to the natures and to the prosôpa? For the diversities subsist, since there has not been confusion or even suppression, so that thou mightest refer the diversity of the natures naturally to one nature and to one prosôpon of the same nature and mightest suppress that which is without prosôpon and without its own ousia, that is, the humanity, and mightest name God and man God alone.
For he, who thus names the one prosôpon of the two natures / God the Word, further attributes not the [properties] of the divinity to the prosôpon of the humanity in such wise that there should be one prosôpon of the divinity and of the humanity: the prosôpon of the divinity and the prosôpon of the humanity are one prosôpon, the one on this hand by kenosis, the other on that by exaltation. Either thou confessest the confusion of the natures and the absolute suppression [of the humanity], or thou confessest the instrumental and natural union of the heretics, whereby he is united to all the [properties] of men, in order that he may be able to comport himself and to suffer according to human nature. And the [attributes] |247 of the humanity [are] as the instrument to the craftsman; that is, thou referrest them to God the Word and dost not attribute to the instrument, that is, to the humanity, those of the craftsman; and the [properties] of the humanity, as by an instrument, thou referrest to God the Word, but thou dost not attribute those of God the Word to the humanity. Thou therefore deceivest, in that thou makest use of the things which we say in our own name alone and in our own prosôpon, whereas in fact on the contrary thou suppressest them; and thou makest God the Word himself passible, in suppressing the sensibility and the will of the humanity, which [according to thee] 'is not indeed sensible in its nature', but is sensible in the nature of God the Word, nor became willing in its own nature but became willing in the nature of God the Word. And for this purpose, as regards the humanity, thou attributest the things of the humanity to the nature and not to the prosôpon.106 But thou attributest the things of the humanity unto God but dost not attribute those of the divinity to the humanity. But we / speak of one and another in natures but of one prosôpon in the union for the use of one another: God on the one hand who was made man, man on the other who was made God.
But further, as in the Trinity, [there is] there one ousia of three prosôpa, but three prosôpa of one ousia; here [there is] one prosôpon of two ousias and two ousias of one prosôpon. There the prosôpa exist not without ousia, nor here again does the ousia exist without a prosôpon, nor also the nature without prosôpon, nor yet the prosôpon without nature. For of the prosôpon of the one ousia and not of another the other ousia makes use in the same manner on account of the union. It has indeed made our own [properties] its very own properties, conceding its own to him to whom all these things belong completely, except sin. For he has come to aid our nature, not to take that which belongs to him, and to save and renew in him[self] our nature through a sublime obedience, and not to remove it from obedience, being obedient in its stead to all human sufferings, while it is obedient in naught, |248 and not to participate in the human nature of men. Nor [according to Cyril] did he come into being of men nor again of the [things] of divinity, but he attributes to the divinity the [properties] of the humanity without attributing those of the divinity to the humanity; but he was taken as something to serve as an instrument, not having voluntarily practised obedience as / a rational nature, with thought and with examination and with the choice of good and with the refusal of evil.
But if thou callest the nature of men in him whole, attribute unto him completeness also in the operations wherein it seems that it exists, that is, that he trusted in God and was made chief priest. And he offered up prayer and supplication and entreaty unto him that was able to preserve him alive from death and rescue him with strong crying and with tears and was heard on account of his righteousness; and though he were a son, he learned obedience by the things which he had borne and became the cause of eternal life unto all them that obey him; and again 'he who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of his revelation which [was made] little by little he is so called'; and again: 'Does not the Scripture also teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?' Although he was a son, by reason indeed of the union of the divinity and of the flesh, the Son of God speaks in them both because both the natures exist in him: 'Now indeed the glory of God and now the sufferings of the man.' For in saying 'God' and in saying 'in nature', we conceive him not without the man; and so again in calling him 'man' and in speaking of him as 'in nature', we speak not of him apart from his being God, but / we name the man God indeed on account of the union of the divinity but man in nature; yet similarly once more also God the Word is God indeed in nature, but we call God man by reason of the union of the prosôpon of the humanity. The [properties] therefore of the natures change not the union nor those of the union the natures and deprive [not] both |249 of them of the properties of the natures or of those which are caused by the union in the dispensation on our behalf.
But let other things also be written for the confutation of the condemnation which the judges have pronounced against me.
Likewise from the same, from the seventh roll. Wherefore, holy brethren who have been called by a heavenly calling, behold this Apostle and chief priest of our confession Jesus Christ, who [was] faithful unto him that hath made him as [was] Moses in all his house. And after other things: Since you have this chief priest who suffers with you and [is] your kinsman and sustains your people, fall not away from the faith; for he, by means of the blessing which was promised unto him, was sent of the seed of Abraham in order that he might present himself as a sacrifice on his behalf and on behalf of his kinsmen. It is to be remarked that I have confessed, that they all had need of sacrifices, and that I have excepted Christ as one who has not need; but he offered himself as a sacrifice on his own behalf and on behalf of his race.
Who then [is he] that is faithful / unto him that made him chief priest? Make answer. God the Word? For of him it says that he was made chief priest unto him who made him. Who is he that made him chief priest? [Was it] he who was faithful unto him, or did he make himself or [was he made it] by the Father? But if he made himself chief priest, if thou sayest that that [took place] in the union in the same manner as the Word also became flesh, thou art constrained to give a nature of our own ousia unto the flesh, after which he also is called flesh in the union and not in the nature. He is truly chief priest, he who is consubstantial with us and our kinsman, on account of whom God the Word also is called chief priest. |250
For there is none that says that the one was of the other and denies that the other was of the one. Confess therefore in the first place this one who exists in the nature and next [him] who is said [to exist] through the union; for if this is not confirmed, there is not even place for it.
For each one of the names of an ousia indicates concerning him in the first place the ousia whose name it is. Bring it before the hearer, and then afterwards thou comest to the fact that they are said otherwise also and not in ousia. Consequently also when in that which is said men take first a name which is [used] of a nature, and afterwards of things which [are said] otherwise, however it may be, they are named either in the manner of homonymy or even not by nature; for this reason they cover them over as things concealed and forgotten. When therefore we speak of the things of the union, / thou sayest 'and is made man', but thou assignest this not to the union but as to the nature. But thou dissemblest the things appertaining to the nature and thou hinderest those who speak [them] as persons committing impiety. Thou allowest naught else than to take the [words] 'he became' and 'he was made' of the nature of God, although ten thousand times thou sayest [that he is] unchangeable; and thou confessest that he who made was made and exists in his nature and is called what he became; or speakest thou on the contrary in phantasy [words] which confess two natures of which Christ is [formed] and diverse natures which are diverse natures? How can men speak otherwise of the natures, unless they make use of the name of the natures, of the one and of the other?
But this [is] weighty. For this reason also I have said that it is to be remarked: he indeed has been sent unto us of the seed of Abraham through the blessing which was promised, that he might offer his body as a sacrifice on his behalf and on behalf of his kinsmen. Remark indeed that I have confessed, that all the chief priests have need of sacrifices, while Christ, as one who had no need thereof, offered himself as a sacrifice on his own behalf and on behalf of his race. Suppose that it has been so said by me; for I decline not to refute the change in your words, lest it should be supposed that, after I |251
have been refuted, I have set myself to accuse [you] because of [your] inadequacy. For even in these things God has not left me without / excuse for my thought, which is clear unto all men. For I have said that all the chief priests have need of sacrifices for their sins, except Christ; whereas I have said that Christ has offered the sacrifice of himself for himself and for his race, for his race, indeed, that he may release them from the condemnation of the signed bond of sin. While he was free from sin, [he] yet [offered himself] for himself that there might be given unto him a name which [is] more excellent than all names, and he was obedient unto death, and accepted death upon the cross, he who was free from sin. For he who was not found with sin and was obedient that he might die for us, received a name which is more excellent than all names, which was his since the beginning, from birth, since he was a little child. And although he was indeed Son and there was neither more nor less in him in authority in his sonship, yet was he made perfect that he might become a Son with authority; similarly the humanity, which from birth had to become the Son through the union and which had not authority but obedience, yet through obedience was perfected in authority and received a name which [is] more excellent than all names. Therefore he was neither passible nor yet mortal but both in authority and in honour. He was / in them all; apart from the ousia he had all the [properties] of the ousia; he is one Son who exists in the union.
And every chief priest has need of sacrifices for his sins, but Christ had not need [thereof] for his sins but for his race, that he might release them from sin. But this was also so for his own sake; because of his unlimited obedience [it was] that he died for sinners. Both in his will and in his thought he acquired, in short, naught else than to wish and to will whatsoever God willed in him. For this reason God also was in him whatsoever he was himself, in such wise that he also became in God whatsoever God was in him for the forming of his coming into being in his likeness, [to wit] the prosôpon of God; and whatsoever the humanity became |252 by the obedience which it observed was not for his prosôpon therein, but for the prosôpon of God in God. This prosôpon will be his and [he will be] also God, in such wise that, wherein he is one, having acquired no distinction in the prosôpon, [it is] necessary to give unto him a distinction of the complete natures. But in the prosôpa of the union, the one in the other, neither by diminution nor by suppression nor by confusion is this 'one' conceived, but by taking and by giving,107 and by the use of the union of the one with the other, the prosôpa take and give one another but not the ousias. The one we conceive as the other and the other as the one, while the one and the other abide. For when God the Word is called God and man, there are not two prosôpa of God the Word / because the two of them are not said [to be] in ousia, but the one is said [to be] in ousia and the other in the union, and in the use of the one with the other which came about through both the natures. But he is predicated in them both, in the one and in the other: in the one indeed by ousia and in the other by union. And so also, when by reason of the very union we concede to the humanity the being said [to be] in both of them, in the ousia and in the union, we make not of necessity two prosôpa of the union, in that there is [only] one belonging to both the natures, belonging to the divinity and to the humanity as to the humanity and the divinity. In saying 'God indeed who was made man', he 108 has not however left out the compensation, as thou conceivest this in the union, since the union with the humanity is congruous with God the Word, in such wise that he is called God in both of them. Nor again [is] the man also man and God; thou takest away the compensation from the union of the two ousias. For this reason he goes back on his word and [adds] 'the man who was made God' as depending on the union which makes the prosôpa and not the natures common.
And hear also from the same2:----' He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, |253 although on account of the manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' Because he is called God through the manifestation, he is not to be conceived as man without prosôpon and without nature; because he is man in nature, he is for this reason God in the manifestation, in order that it may not be supposed / that he is called God for the suppression of the natures and of their properties owing to the union, or that the union of God took place only with a view to the man. Wherefore whatsoever God is by nature is said also by [reason of] the union in whatever is united, that is, man. For the man, who, as not united, was not what he is by nature, [namely] man, is called God through that which is united.109
For all these things make thy protests absurd; if indeed it be that another man says that he was man who began and therefore was not God, although by reason of the union he is so called, he is not foolish; for it is the other who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness, and not God, and he offends your hearing in naught. But if I say that the other is he who gradually advanced and was perfected for the chief priesthood, thou rebukest me as though I were introducing another prosôpon; there is, however, no distinction between a man's saying 'the man who begins' and his saying he who begins', for all these indicate the same thing, that is, the man. 'Speak of the glory of God and the sufferings of man': 'Does not the Scripture also teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?' Why dissemblest thou these things as one who is ashamed of them and makest the sufferings of him who suffered for our sakes those of the impassible, in such wise that the debt on behalf of our salvation was paid and settled without sufferings, since / he took nothing? But thou hast done all things in |254 schema and in fiction and agreest neither with thyself nor with the Fathers. For you are not fighting against me, but through me you are fighting against these. Further, among the things whereof you accuse me, let us hear these things also:
Likewise from the same from the fourth roll. Hear then, you who are inquiring into the words: He that eateth my body. Recollect that he speaks of the body, and [that] I have not added the term 'body', in order that it may not be thought by them that I am interpreting it contrariwise: He that eateth my body and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. And, after other things: But on the present subject he has said: He that eateth my body and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. Recollect that he says of the body something which he says: as the living Father hath sent me. The former then has said these things of the divinity, but I of the humanity; let us therefore see who it is that interprets [them] contrariwise. As the living Father hath sent me, as they say, I then too am living, I the Word by reason of the Father. And now after this [it is written]: So he that eateth me, even he shall live. Whom do we eat? The divinity or the flesh?
Therefore, although they are willing to say that I have not interpreted contrary to the divine / scriptures, they are to be reprimanded by all men. However, since I have asked, you have considered my request impious: [was it] then that I ought not to have said whatever divine scripture says, that 'the flesh was eaten '? But divine Scripture has said simply flesh, whereas you have condemned me, since by 'flesh' I |255 conceive the flesh and not the divinity, as though I [were] one that makes distinctions, conceiving the one as flesh and the other as divinity. I distinguish not the union of the natures but the natures which are united in reference to the ousias, even as being without confusion of the one with the other. I have said the flesh and the divinity. Suppose that I was not speaking with precision; I condemn my lack of instruction and my own impiety. Only wait for me, that you may say this clearly: that the flesh and the divinity are one and the same in ousia as well as in prosôpon; 110 and we denounce all those who think otherwise than this as impious. If you do not say this clearly, for what reason have you condemned me before God?
But some one will perhaps say: Wherefore art thou downcast? They have confessed the death of God and have condemned thee also to death. Whatever else hast thou thought in opposition to those who stand up for these things, and do not permit men not to attach death unto God and in fact defy those who confess [it] not? I know then that they have been / doing this for a long while, but now I am addressing this my discourse to those who in truth seek to be instructed lest they be deceived by the name 'Council' [and believe] that I have been condemned by the judgement of the Fathers and by the testimonies which they have cited. From all this I shall prove that there was no judgement, because they made no examination, neither amongst themselves nor with the others, nor have they been content even in schema to divest themselves of the depth of their impiety. 111
'For the flesh of our Lord is one thing in ousia and the divinity is another,' says Gregory; for the things whereof our Saviour [was formed] are one thing and another, the visible and the invisible are not the same and 'he who begins and gradually advances and is perfected is not God, although by reason of the manifestation which [took place] 'little by little he is so called '; and 'not artificially was he |256 in the body': and 'human was the body which [was] born of Mary', and the flesh [was] of the holy Mary. Athanasius said this: 'he took from the virgin a body in the likeness of the latter.' 'For he took not a body of an hyle precious and heavenly and came among us, but of clay, to show the greatness of his craftsmanship, in order that he might re-shape the very man who was formed of clay,' as Theophilus has said.
But Ambrose speaks of the union of the divinity and of the flesh: 'The Son of God speaks in both of them, since in him were / the two natures. He is the living bread which came down from heaven; this bread is the body, the body whereof he himself has said: This bread that I will give unto you is my body. He [it was] that came down, He [it is] that the Father has sanctified and has sent into the world. Does not Scripture also teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?'
Did I alone say this? Why have I need of other witnesses for protesting that the flesh is not in the same [manner] God the Word? or that it is [not] for it to become what God the Word is, or that it is [not] God the Word's to become flesh, although the other is predicated in the union? If you yourselves are not persuaded and believe not all these things and defy all men, what have you [to do] with me [and] with all of these? Let him who injures me injure me and him who persecutes me persecute me and him who kills me kill me; and we consider it a great favour to be deemed worthy to endure the scars of Christ on our body. If [it is] pleasing unto you to hear, hear also other things and judge if they are worthy of the judgement [which has been passed] and if these things are not [the work] of men who look askance at heaven and contend against God.
/ Likewise from the same, from the sixteenth roll. If thou examinest well all the New [Testament], thou canst not anywhere find that death is imputed unto God but either unto Christ or unto the Son or unto the Lord. For the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord, which is taken |257 for the only-begotten from the divine Scriptures, is indicative of two natures and indicates sometimes the divinity, but sometimes the humanity and sometimes both of them. When Paul, who was sent forth to preach, says We were enemies, but God has been reconciled with us through the death of His Son, he proclaims the humanity by the name of the Son. When the same [Apostle] says unto the Hebrews God hath spoken by his Son, by whom He made the worlds, he indicates the divinity; for the flesh was not the creator of the worlds, the [flesh] which has been made after many worlds. And, after other things: Nor indeed was James the brother of the divinity, nor do we preach the death of God the Word----eating the Lord's body.
Can it be believed that there is in these things [a ground of] accusation wherewith I should be accused and [for] which I should suffer what I have suffered? Because I have said that not God the Word, whose nature is immortal, died but the flesh, for this reason have I been accused? I suppose that not even the demons and they that [are] in enmity with God, have dared to say or have taught this with their voices. Or is it not because of / those who fear not God and respect not men that I have said 'If thou examinest all the New [Testament] together, thou wilt find no place where death is imputed unto God the Word, but either unto Christ or unto the Lord or unto the Son; for the name of Christ or of the Lord or of the Son, which is taken for the only-begotten from the Scriptures is indicative of two natures'. Have I lied? Thou hast the Divine Scriptures: read [them]. |258
What urgent need is there that we should speak cursorily? He has said: 'God the Word has suffered'; or else: 'Christ is not God and man of two natures and two natures.' Read. Either thou sayest [that] God the Word [is] in ousia in the two natures, of two natures and two natures, and, concerning the one ousia of God the Word, [that] it has been divided into two ousias, in such wise that, whatever is the nature of which we say that it has suffered, we attribute unto God the Word having suffered in nature in both of them; or both natures, distinct from one another, have been combined in the one ousia of God the Word, so that, of whichever we say that it has suffered, we say that it is one ousia and the same, which has been combined, that has suffered; or the ousia of the humanity has only been taken for use, that he might see and suffer, nor was it that they might make use one of the other at the same time, and to this reason the latter has contributed naught with the former to the dispensation on our behalf. And he made use thereof according to his own will / as though [it were] without feeling and without reason and without soul, without gaining aught, as the Arians say. For he who receives these things is not constrained to refer them to the prosôpon of him who endured these things, because he made not use of it in order that it might aid him, but that he might be able to suffer and fulfil all human things naturally, without that wherein he suffered or whereby he suffered being reckoned with him who suffered. Say clearly whatever thou dost wish; only [say it] clearly. Why censurest thou me as an impious person, because I have said 'If thou examinest all the New [Testament], thou wilt not find therein that death is imputed unto God the Word, but unto Christ or unto the Son or unto the Lord. For the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord, which is taken for the only-begotten in the Divine Scriptures is indicative of two natures and indicates sometimes the divinity and sometimes the humanity and 'sometimes both of them '? These things I have said, concerning them I am judged, and you are the judges of the things which are said. Speak thou!
For I ought to depose these things of thine also, as thou |259 too hast deposed against me, and to hide naught; nor indeed shall I show myself like you, who have judged my words without examination and without comparison. I have said this: 'In saying that God has not suffered and that Christ has not suffered, thou then inferrest naught else therefrom than that Christ is not God, while if thou sayest that God the Word suffered, thou confessest that Christ is God.' / So then you ought not to depose the whole section, but [only] as far as to bring forward those things which can make it known that I say these things; but the rest you ought to hide. How so? 'If thou readest all the New [Testament], thou canst not find therein that death is imputed unto God the Word, but either unto Christ or unto the Lord or unto the Son.' For thus far he can extract them and make believe that I confess not Christ [as] God; but the rest of the things which have been deposed by you clearly dispose of this supposition. For 'Christ or Lord or Son, which is taken for the only-begotten in the Divine Scriptures, is yet indicative of two natures, sometimes indeed indicating the divinity, but sometimes the humanity, and sometimes both of them'. For I have not denied that Christ is not God,112 but [I have said] that He is also God and God by nature; since I have said that it indicates two natures, the divinity and the humanity. It is not therefore possible that I should be accused of not confessing Christ [as] God through what I have written.
But perhaps [I am accused] because I have called Christ both man and two natures, of the divinity and of the humanity, one passible and the other impassible, and have not confessed that God the Word suffered in both the natures and in ousta, God the Word who became the ousia of man, [with the result] either that he who died lived as if he existed in schema, and we refer / unto God the Word and not unto the ousia of the man the sufferings, in whatsoever manner it be, and that the |260 humanity contributed naught to the dispensation, or that he is manifested and is able to suffer in the very human nature----for this reason it is not reckoned with the divinity----and we refer all these attributes of the divinity and of the humanity to the divinity, as those of the instrument [are referred] to the craftsman, whereas he attributes not those of the divinity unto those of the humanity, in the same way as also those of the craftsman, without whose will nothing is done, are not attributed unto the instrument. This man's meaning is not evident in the things whereof he accuses me. But the judges sit deaf and speechless, without having examined aught. Again constraint [is laid upon me] to make use of the same testimonies against them in establishing mine own [theories] and in reprimanding those who for this reason have fled from judgement, because they had no defence. But otherwise let him who has extracted my words say in passing that the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord is not indicative of two natures, of the divinity and of the humanity. I say naught else.
Read, O man, what thou hast amongst thy testimonies and contend not with a shadow: 'two natures indeed, God and man, but not two sons; for one thing and another are those things whereof our Saviour [is formed]; yet [he is] not one and another----far from it! / ----but one in the mixture: God who was made man and man who was made God.' 'He who begins and gradually advances and is perfected is not God, although by reason of his manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' Have I written these things? Have I inserted aught in them all? Have you not written them? Wherefore then are you accusing me, as though I have predicated two natures of our Saviour? [He is] one thing indeed in nature in the divinity, but another however in nature in the humanity; the divinity [is] not two natures nor [is it formed] of one thing and another, neither are they by mixture in God the Word, but they are two in nature and in the union [there is] one prosôpon belonging to both of them. Yet again [it is] not as if the prosôpon of the humanity, of God |261 who was made man, were rejected in the Trinity. 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although by reason of his manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' Neither does he say that God the Word is both of them in ousia, nor does he distinguish the humanity from the divinity in such wise that God the Word should suffer even the sufferings of the flesh and accept them in his nature in his prosôpon; for the flesh is outside, participating not in the [properties] of the divinity in its own prosôpon; but by a compensation consisting in the taking and the giving of their prosôpa he speaks of the union of the divinity and of the humanity. Of God on the one hand he says that he was made man out of humanity by union; / on the other hand he says of the humanity that it was made God from the union with the divinity, whereas it was not that it issued forth from the divinity; for 'he who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although by reason of the revelation which [took place] little by little he is so called'.
Ambrose too says the same of the union of the divinity and of the flesh: 'the Son of God speaks in both of them, because there were in him both the natures.' Athanasius too says this, that our Lord, and not the divinity, came forth from Mary, and predicates also the two natures, calling indeed that of the divinity one thing and the flesh another, and predicating a union thereof. Therein there are both the natures, not in God the Word but in the Son; not indeed that the Son is one and God the Word another, but the one indeed indicates the union and the other the ousia. For the prosôpon is one thing and the ousia another, even as [it is] in respect to the Father and the Son, [who are] one thing and another indeed in the prosôpon but not one thing and another in the divinity. Further, in respect to the union of the divinity and of the flesh, in the prosôpon of the divinity of God the Word [he is] not one thing and another but the same; yet in the natures of the divinity and of the humanity [he is] one thing and |262 another. And for this reason Divine Scripture speaks lucidly of the prosôpon of the divinity and indicates them both in the prosôpon of the union. But of the ousia of the divinity and in the ousia of God / the Word there are not both of them; for the things which are said of the ousia are conceived in one something in so far as they are predicated only of the ousia.
For this reason Ambrose also speaks of the union of the divinity and spoke not of the union of the Son, although not another but out of the same. But the one indeed is indicative of the prosôpon, while the other is indicative of the nature; and for this reason, in that there has been a union of the ousias, he speaks of the union of the divinity and of the flesh, and, because the union of the natures resulted in one prosôpon, he added that the Son of God speaks in both of them, since in him are both the natures, [and] not God the Word. For God the Word is one and not two. That therefore which is known by the ousia is one thing and that which [is known] by the prosôpon is another, and that which [is known] by the natures is another, and that which indicates the union is another. For this reason I have said that 'Divine Scripture nowhere at all imputes death unto God, but either unto the Son or unto Christ or unto the Lord', in order that none may suppose that the union took place in the ousia and not in the prosôpon. And the prosôpon is not distinct, so that one nature, [that] of the humanity, would be superfluous, since the Incarnation is conceived [to consist] in the mutual use of taking and giving, but Divine Scripture sometimes after the prosôpon of the divinity and sometimes after the prosôpon of the humanity, / names him Son and Christ and Lord. Gregory has said this, Ambrose has said this, Athanasius [has said] this: 'The Lord who [was born] of Mary is indeed the Son, by ousia in the nature of the Father, but by flesh of the seed of the house of David; for [he is of] the flesh of the Virgin Mary.' |263
Have I said anything new? [Have I said] not the same things in the same words, and in the same sense? For what have you condemned me? Is it possible to imagine for what reason you have done these things by yourselves and have not waited to make your examination with all the bishops? But also it is not [possible] to flee from their accusation which they have brought against me; that which they have finally written without protest ought [here] to be written.
Likewise from the same, from the twenty-fourth roll. Now I observe in [the case of] our own people that they have acquired a great reverence and fervour of piety but have lapsed from the rest of the faith of the knowledge of God. Yet this is not [to be attributed] to the impiety of the people, but, that I may speak justly, [it is] because the very teachers have not had time at all to set before them the teaching of the exact faith... 113 This man has openly said therein that none of the teachers before him has spoken before the people / aught that he has spoken.
But hear also concerning this----for this discourse is not very difficult and arduous----and ask these very persons; for they will tell the truth, though unwilling. In what treatise are these things said by me? [Is it] not in the deposit which was laid down by the holy Fathers who were assembled in Nicaea? 114 And what was my aim? [Was it] for the reprimanding of those who have taught wrongly or [of those] who have taught correctly and holily and with piety? And I have proved to the people that my own teaching and the teaching |264 of these men [are] in agreement. Because they have not known the teaching of the Fathers they have been fighting with me, as though I were teaching outside the deposit of the Fathers. And I reprimanded them after the deposit of the Fathers, for not making known that whatsoever they were condemning is constantly in their mouths; and, lest I should reprimand them with excessive censure and vex them, I withheld myself from the accusation and I said concerning a person against whom there was no accusation: 'the teachers of the faith have no time to set before you the exactitude of the faith.' I said [it] simply without definition. How therefore have I accused all the Fathers before me as not having taught any of these things which I have taught the people, when my own aim and my work was this, namely, the teaching of them and the proving, after the deposit, that they taught these things and that I have said naught else apart from the deposit of the Fathers? But, from the ignorance and lack of instruction of the accusers they have supposed / concerning me: 'He is teaching us outside the teaching of these Fathers who have taught all of us.'
I have not then said that the teachers of sundry times have taught otherwise. How therefore should I have said that [they so taught], if [they taught] rightly? But I have said that they did not intelligibly and distinctly deliver to the people the deposit of the Fathers in order that they might hear and admire these things. For it [is] one thing for us to say that they have taught contrariwise, and another thing for us to say that they have delivered the very words without explanation, and another thing that, since they had not leisure, they could not teach according to what their intention was, and another thing that they were ignorant, or that I have been accusing them as heretics. For if I had finally accused the teachers before me thoroughly, I should also have accused the three hundred and eighteen on whose deposit [together] with the Fathers before me I was taking my stand. For none will say that I have said and taught these things apart from the teachers who [were] before me. I have said naught, |265 neither in word nor in thought nor [so as] to teach against those teachers who [were] before me. And yet if they have not read [it], you have written [it]. But you have nothing against me, because I have not said aught of those things whereof you have accused me. To this only, the chief point, have you clung; for this have I reprimanded you all. And you ought not also to believe these other things, since they have thus irreverently accused me, as persons who fear not God / and respect not men. But you have been abundantly convinced by him who was sitting with you in your assembly, as though indeed you could not otherwise escape than by quarrelling and by calumniating.
Those things which were done after the selection of these Chapters.
Yet after they have examined [my words] with all exactitude, as though Christ were seeing [them], they have condemned me without having found difficulty over anything or having quarrelled and without having established anything by question or by answer; but they were hastening in order that those who were about to come might not overtake them, that is, the Council of the East, which was near, and those from Rome. Neither have they examined nor even have they read; and, as I indeed suppose, even the things too which they have written they have written afterwards; the days and the time itself sufficed not for the writing and the signing. For it was apparent that they were signing against me gladly and freely, even without a cause; for not one indeed of them has written the cause on account of which they have deprived me, except only this man [who is] wise and intelligent above all men and able to say something intelligible, that is Acacius of Melitene: 'Because he has not confessed that God the Word died, he was worthy to be deprived, since he has made Divine Scripture to lie and further because he has calumniated Cyril with having said that God the Word died, / when |266
he has not [so] said; and he has also made the Scripture to lie, teaching that the birth and the suffering concerned not the divinity but the humanity, and he has calumniated also the very writings of the holy and godly bishop, Cyril, as though they call God the Word passible, a thing which neither he nor any other of those who think piously have dared to say....'
Now on one of these [points] and not upon two of them it was right that I should be accused; but they were accepting against me contrary [charges] and in the greatness of their preoccupation they were not willing to break off that with which they were engaged, but they were zealous to withdraw themselves and to dissent, that they might not come under the judgement of the judges. But they disclaimed [us] as enemies in such wise as to prove their preoccupation and their anxiety and to be thought fearful by the bishops who were present and who were absent; and they did all things such as take place in wars. And the [followers] of the Egyptian 115 and those of Memnon, by whom they were aided were going round the city, girded and armed with rods, stiff-necked men, who rushed upon them with the clamour of barbarians and forcibly emitted from their nostrils a spirit of anger with fearful cries at no great distance, breathing [anger] without self-control, with all pride, against those whom they knew to be not in agreement with the things which were done by them. / They were taking bells round the city and were kindling fire in many places and handing round documents of various kinds; and all those things which were taking place were [matters] of astonishment and of fear, so that they blocked all the ways and made every one flee and not be seen, |267 and were behaving arbitrarily, giving way to drunkenness and to intoxication and to a disgraceful outcry. And there was none hindering, nor even bringing succour, and thus [men] were amazed. But all of it was being done against us, and for this reason we made use of the succour of the Emperor and of the authority of the Strategi, who were angered at the things which were done, though they let them be.
But there came the bishop of Antioch with many other bishops, whom they were seeking to win over to agree with them in what was unjustly and boldly done; and they named themselves an Oecumenical Council. And after they 116 knew the things which were being boldly done and their disgraceful audacity and their sudden war and the vehemence of the madness wherewith they were intentionally doing all things, they degraded from their episcopal rank the organizers of this disorder, who had raised up all this evil; yea, I mean Cyril and Memnon. But for the rest / of their organizers, they laid them under anathema, because they had discharged naught of the work of the episcopate, as persons who have made use not of the object and traditions, but [only] of the authority of the episcopate. And, in order that they might not deny or dissemble what was done against them, they wrote their deprivation in all parts of the city, that there might be for all of them witnesses that they had deprived them and for what reasons they had deprived them. They made these things known unto the Emperor through the letters of the Council, and their boldness in all of them and the war which had taken place after the fashion of barbarians.117 And for this reason also they allowed them not to pray in the apostolic church of Saint John, but [brought it about] that persons stoned them, and they hardly escaped and were rescued, and they said also the cause wherefore they made bold to do this: that whatever had caused this disturbance and division in the churches might not be examined by the Council; I mean |268 indeed the twelve Articles which were written irreverently and shamefully against God the Word,118 immortal and incorruptible; and that great forethought ought to be shown that such blasphemies as these, which not even the party of Arius have dared to speak openly against God the Word, should not be left without examination.
But Cyril also and his fellow-conspirators wrote to the Emperor, blaming John for many things, as though / he had boldly deprived Cyril by reason of the love which had been vowed by him toward me. And they were in need of their confirmation of my deposition and the setting aside of that of Cyril and of Memnon; for they dared not write the [acts] of John and of the Council that [sat] with him and their words: 'That, as it has been ordained by the letters of your Piety, they have been assembled in common with us and we have been examining the things required dispassionately and accurately in order to confirm the faith of the religion of the Fathers'----which has been commanded by the Emperor and required also by the Easterns, who also were constantly expecting these things. Those who had confidence in the Divine Scriptures and in the teaching of the Fathers dared not say, though [it were] in schema: 'Let there be a judgement!'----not even in order that they might escape a slanderous accusation. They indeed dared not hold an inquiry and a judgement concerning the things which were required to be [judged], because they had not confidence in the things which they wrote. So [that you may perceive] that I say them truly, read the report 119 of the latter and of the former, in order that you may know that the latter were always demanding that there should be a judgement, while the former were shunning [it]. |269
/ The letter which was sent to the Emperor by John, bishop of Antioch, and by the other bishops who were assembled with him.
Being commanded by your letters, we have reached Ephesus, the metropolis, and have found all [kinds of] turbulent fellows and the business 120 of the churches hampered with civil wars. For Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus have gathered themselves together and have assembled a vast assembly of country-folk and have not allowed the feast of Holy Pentecost nor the office[s] of morning and of evening to take place; and withal they have also closed the churches and the martyria; but they have assembled with themselves and with those whom they have deceived and have committed ten thousand iniquities and have trodden [under foot] the canons of the holy Fathers together with your commands: and that when the most illustrious count Candidianus, who was sent by your most Christian authority, testified unto them in writing and without writing that they should await the coming of all the holy bishops, and that then there should be [done] whatsoever seemed [good] unto the whole assembly, according to the letters of your Piety. Cyril also the Alexandrian sent [word] unto me by letters two days before that we should hold an assembly, as all the Council were awaiting my coming. For this reason we have caused the deposition of those two who have been mentioned above, of Cyril and of Memnon, and interdicted them / from every spiritual ministration. But the rest of them, who have participated with them in iniquity, we have inhibited until they anathematize the Articles which have been sent by Cyril which are full of wicked purpose and are in accord with the teaching of Apollinarius and of Arius and of Eunomius, and [until] according to the letters of your Piety they have assembled themselves together unanimously with us in tranquillity and have scrutinized accurately with us aught that is required and have confirmed the true faith of the Fathers. But as for my own insignificance, your Majesty knows that, in view of the length of the way and withal that we are journeying on land, we have advanced quickly and rapidly; for we have travelled forty stages 121 without even one rest being taken by us during our journey; and [this], it is within the authority of your most Christian |270 Majesty to learn from the inhabitants of all the cities through which we have passed. Withal however, both owing to the famine which has occurred in Antioch and owing to the daily brawls of the [diverse] parties and owing to the great and continuous rains which have taken place out of season and owing to the danger which came about through a flood which approached the city, we were detained also not a few days in the city itself.
But after the Emperor had seen these things, he was angered at what was being done against me without examination and without judgement, and he swore that there should be naught else except whatever had been before laid down to take place, that is, a judgement and an examination of the things which were required, so that for this purpose indeed the Oecumenical Council / was assembled, that it might at the |271 same time be convinced concerning the examination which should duly take place. But when the followers of Cyril saw the vehemence of the Emperor who was eager for this, thenceforth they roused up a disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the Emperor were opposed to God; they rose up against the nobles and the chiefs who acquiesced not in what had been done by them and were running hither and thither. And of such effrontery and boldness [were they that] they took also with them those who had been separated and removed from the monasteries by reason of their lives and their strange manners and had for this reason been expelled, and all who were of heretical sects and were possessed with fanaticism and with hatred against me. And one passion was in them all, Jews and pagans and all the sects, and they were busying themselves that they should accept without examination the things which were done without examination against me; and at the same time all of them, even those who had participated with me at table and in prayer and in thought, were agreed, [and] bound themselves together indistinguishably in affection and in visits to one another and by entertainment in [their] houses, and by covenant and by the confirmation of the things [done] against me, and were vowing vows one with another against me. Those too were willing who would surely not formerly have been supposed to be giving a welcome to heretics, although they were supposed / to be orthodox; in naught were they divided. There is indeed much to say on the subject of the dreams which they recounted, which they say that they saw concerning me, while others [saw] other things. And they amazed the hearers by the saints to be sure whom they saw and by the revelations which were recounted by them and by a prophecy which was fabricated.122 For there was none of them who was unaffected nor [any] that was distinct from their communion; I speak not only of Christians but also [of] pagans. For they were persuading all men of all the things which they were seeing, likening themselves to angels of light; and in all these |272 things they had first calmed and [afterwards] roused up the mind of the Emperor, that the inquiry which had been required and for which the Oecumenical Council was assembled might not take place. But when he was against their disgraceful [and] irreverent request in requiring that the judgement should not take place, they gave abundance of money to those who were nigh unto him. I have naught to say; for the Emperor allowed everything to take place in practice contrary to that to which he had clung in schema; for they were not frightened by him nor [feared] to cause sedition and to run about unto all men.
But there was added thereunto also the plotting of evils: for they held assemblies of priests and troops of monks and they took counsel / against me, helping them in this purpose. And they had as helpers in these things all the ministers 123 of the Emperor who used to probe into his very purpose, and they gave confidence to the former. As indeed the schema of the monks was very dear unto him, so all of them were unanimous in the one purpose of persuading him that there should be no judgement, while the things which had been done without examination against me should stand. And all the monks participated in the one purpose because of me, [even] those who in the rest of the other things were without love among themselves, [some] being envious and [others] envied, especially for the sake of the praise of men. And they took for them-[selves] as organizer and chief, in order to overwhelm the Emperor with amazement, Dalmatius the archimandrite, who for many years had not gone forth from his monastery; and a multitude of monks surrounded him in the midst of the city, chanting the offices,124 in order that all the city might be assembled with them and proceed before the Emperor to be able to hinder his purpose. For they had prepared all these things in advance in order that there might not be any |273 hindrance and they went in with [the chanting of] the office even to the Emperor.
But when the Emperor saw Dalmatius, he shook his head and put up his hand as one who is in astonishment at the sight of a person; and he said: 'What is the cause which has constrained thee to break thine own pact? For we were coming unto thee, but now why hast thou come unto us? And especially in the midst of the city! Thou, one that not even / in thy monastery hast been seen outside thy cell nor usest to let thyself be seen of all men, hast now made thyself as it were a spectacle both unto men and unto women. For why should there not have been many constraining causes which would have needed thy coming forth? [For example], mine own sickness even unto death and [that] of my relatives, the disturbances and the tumults which have been in the city and which had need of the intervention and the prayer of some one that they might not extend unto blood and unto death; wars and destruction and ruin and famines and earth-quakes, which could have been stayed by prayer unto God alone----and has not one of these persuaded thee to come forth from thy monastery?'
Dalmatius says: 'Yea, Emperor, it was by no constraint such as this among these things that there was need of my coming forth. For this reason indeed God has not made me to know [aught of these difficulties], for he has settled them otherwise. But now God has commanded me, [even] me, to counsel thy Majesty, and I have been commanded to bear thee witness that thou transgressest against thyself in transgressing against the Council and perverting its judgement. Thou hast assembled the Council for judgement and it has judged; it knows how it has judged; it is responsible unto God.'
The Emperor said unto him: 'I too find no impiety in this man nor any cause worthy of [his] deprivation. I testify unto thee and unto all men: I am innocent; for through no human / inclination have I loved this man and done the things which have taken place, so that he has been judged |274 and condemned, as those who rise up against God and usurp for themselves the [prerogatives] of the priests. Neither now nor formerly was I zealous for this ordination in such wise that I should be thought to be surely avenging myself and seeking retaliation on account of his election; but in participation with you all I caused this man to come by force, though his fathers' house and his race were loved by him. You have been the cause of these things, and not I. When, O Dalmatius, I was entreating thee to be [my helper] in this affair and was requesting thee with many [entreaties] not to decline the service of God, thou yet didst decline and didst beseech me on the contrary, [saying]: "Constrain me not because I am a recluse." And I also requested another of the monks, one who was supposed to be some one and illustrious for piety, and he too declined as one that knew not [how] to carry out this service, because he was a recluse. For all of you said that Constantinople was in need of a bishop, one who [would be] loved by all men for his words and for his manner of life and who would be a teacher of the churches and the mouth of all men in everything. But when I declined for these reasons, [was it] that I did aught by my authority? Did I not again request of you to choose one who is such as this man? / Did I not even likewise beseech the clergy of Constantinople to choose whosoever was suitable? Did I not say the same things unto the bishops, "It is yours to choose and to make a bishop". And you too in like manner I besought; did I not leave [it] in your hands all this time, having waited patiently that you should choose peaceably, lest by haste there should be a mistake in him who was chosen? However, you chose, and did I not accept your choice? Requirest thou [that] I should say aught concerning [the rest of] you? Have I spoken of their zeal and their running about and their gifts and their promise and their oaths and everything [of] those who were seeking to become [bishops] as by purchase? Among the latter whom would you have sought to be [bishop]? But I pass over these things; which choice would you have sought to be [ratified]? |275
Thine own or that of the former or of another? For some would have chosen [one and others] another, not as by choice as making their choice [fall on] the more excellent ones but on those who were evil; and each was glorifying him who had been chosen by himself and was speaking evil of the one who was chosen by the others and accusing him with evil accusations. But you have not agreed upon one and were not agreeing upon him upon whom the people agreed. I have read before you the utterances of the people concerning each one of those who have been chosen. What then ought I to have done and have not done? You / monks agreed not with the clergy, nor had the clergy one purpose, and the bishops were divided and the people were likewise divided, and one was striving for [one and another for] another. Nor even so gave I myself authority, but I left the choice with you. But after all of you were found at a loss, all of you came and gave me [authority] to choose whomsoever I wanted. But thereupon, after I was hardly convinced, though all of you besought [me], I bethought me that none ought to be made [bishop] from here, lest there should be enmity against him and he should be hated; for you were all hating one another and were hated of one another, seeing that you were all zealous about this affair. But I had wanted a stranger who was not known by those here and knew them not, one who was famous for his preaching and for his manner of life. For people had informed me that there was [one] such as this in Antioch, [speaking] of Nestorius. This man I sent [and] fetched, though I grieved all that city; notwithstanding everything had been like this, I yet caused him to come for the sake of your own advantage which was more precious unto me than theirs. But when it happened, it was not supposed by you to be such. What then is it right to do unto the man? You have not examined him that he may make a defence of that wherewith he is reproached, nor has your bishop been judged by one consent, but the bishop of Alexandria / and [the bishop] of Rome have judged that he was one that believes not correctly and ought to be convinced of their decision. But he requested and awaited the judgement as if an injustice were done unto him and blamed |276 them for not having accused him correctly, because he was a bishop and ought to be summoned to the judgement of the bishops and not to my judgement. Nor was it [the case] that any one whatsoever was a judge nor ought the bishop of Constantinople to have been heard before [any] one man. Did I judge as [was] pleasing unto me? I authorized the Council. Who is it that requested a judgement and submitted not thereto? Who is just? He that submits unto judgement and requests [it]? Or he that flees from the judgement? Could he liken himself unto the former, to do unto them whatsoever he himself suffered, and assemble the bishops who were under him and those of the East who were convinced by him, even so as to judge him guilty and accuse him himself? But he has indeed done this. But he has submitted unto the judgement, especially [with a view] to putting an end to these divisions. For there is no law that the bishop of Alexandria or of any city whatsoever should not be judged when he is to be judged. But also, when the Council assembled and sat, they required him [to present himself] once or twice, and he refused even to answer them. For what reason? Speak, dissemble not. For the things which took place are not forgotten by me; thus have they been irreverently done / so that the plotting which they plotted could not be hidden. For he has not declined the judgement but the preparation of the Council which has been [but] incompletely assembled to judge [him], a thing which pleased not us ourselves. Neither is that wherein an enemy sits among the judges a Council, nor have we ourselves commanded that aught should take place before all the Council should be assembled; for an assembly of all of them, and not of some, we call a Council. Because we saw aforetime the plotting and the trickery which took place, we ordered that the Council should not be [held] incomplete but that they should await the assembly of all the bishops that the examination of the thing required might; take place by question and by answer. They then dissolved the Oecumenical Council and the law of the tribunal; [it was] they who reckoned our will as nothing. And the bishop of Antioch has done well in |277 regard to them, since he has deprived them of their episcopal rank lest, in remaining in their same ranks, they should dishonour their rank. Wherein therefore has he acted foolishly, who required of them that they should wait for those who were distant and that the rule which had been given should not be infringed and that there should be no dissension in the Council? Ought he, who did none of those things which it had been decided should be carried out, but was content to be judged by every one without declining, to have been deprived for this? '
/ After he [had] finished saying these things, he added and said: 'Neither do I find any cause of blame in this man; I and my empire and my race are guiltless of this impiety.' And the others agitated themselves at this very reply and seized upon it, as [if] to be sure he let pass and left alone those things which had been wrought against me in whatsoever they wrought. And Dalmatius and those with him cried out: 'On me let this impiety be, O Emperor; I rebuke thee and thine on account of these things; I will make my defence for these things before the tribunal of Christ, as having done this very deed'.... And after he [had] received this promise, that the responsibility for the impious deeds committed against me should not be [his], he decreed and confirmed the things which had been wrought against me. Thus I was judged and thus too was the examination [carried out].
And after the things were finished which were wrought against me by them, the impious band went forth from [his] Majesty and some spread abroad [some things and others] other things against me; and they carried Dalmatius around, reclining on a couch which was spread with coverlets, and mules bare him in the midst of the streets of the city, in such wise that it was made known unto all men that a victory had been gained over the purpose of the Emperor, amidst great assemblies of the people and of the monks, who were dancing and clapping the hand[s] and crying out the things which can be said against one who has been deprived for iniquity. But after it was known that the intention of the Emperor had been overcome by them, / all the heretics, who had formerly been |278 deprived by me, took part with them, and all with one mouth were alike proclaiming my anathema, taking courage from anything that had taken place, in every part of the city, but especially in the parts by the sanctuary, in such wise as to add unto them[selves] crowds of the people to commit iniquity without reverence; and thus they took courage, clapping the hands and saying naught else except 'God the Word died'.
And there was not any distinction between heretics and orthodox, all of them together rising up against God the Word. And they were fighting without mercy against those who were not persuaded to predicate the suffering of the nature of God the Word, saying, not that the immortal adhered to the mortal to cause the mortal to die without its [being itself liable unto] mortality, but on the contrary that the immortal adhered to the mortal that it might become mortal and [that] thus it rose, having died with him, in the immortality of him who rose, and everything like this in that the immortal became mortal, that indeed again the mortal might become immortal in such wise that it might in its nature be receiving the [attribute] of immortality and that of mortality according to the might of him that commanded whereby he can make the immortal mortal and the mortal immortal. And these things were said openly by these and by those and by other heretics, being chanted and applauded / in the houses and in the streets and in all the churches, in consequence of which things thou couldest not distinguish the things which were being said in the churches or know whether the very churches belonged to the heretics or to the orthodox, such was the agreement and the zeal to embrace the faith and to confess God passible. And they were making use of demonstrations such as these while they were being accused for the same things and were making a defence thereof in the same [terms]. And they all had one mouth and one heart and one agreement against God the Word, in such wise that the services in the churches and in the monasteries were forgotten and they were busied with sedition and persecutions and affairs such as these. As for those who were furnishing them with money and supplies and provision, by all those things which they were giving they |279 were both preparing them and demanding of them to be ceaselessly engaged in these things.
It therefore seemed [good] to the Emperor that I should be under [sentence of] deprivation and that both Cyril and Memnon likewise should be under [sentence of] deprivation. It would then have been supposed that he did this in order that he might constrain all of us to come to an agreement and to be accepted and to accept one another and that he bore patiently my deprivation that he might make us of one purpose. And further he was waiting without a reconciliation with the others in order that he might cause me, even me, by all means to come in, as well as through their zeal and their request on behalf of Cyril, that it might be supposed that the wisdom of [his] Majesty [had] defeated / their intentions. But this was not so; but, either because his purpose, which had been correctly [formed] from the beginning, was changed or because this had been his purpose from the beginning, he was indeed [only] in schema on my side, until he found patience enough to sell [me] for money. But, howsoever all has happened, I have arrived at this.
But when Count John, who was set over the Treasury, was sent to Ephesus, it was then supposed that he had come that I and Cyril might speak with one another, all the Council having been assembled and [that] therefore it was an affair not to be declined. In everything there had been [cause] for fear and amazement unto the others, such had been their fear and trembling at speaking with me and at having judgement [passed] according to our words concerning the things about which inquiry was made. He, however, carried not his vehemence to the full but slackened, because that which is dear unto men [had] fallen upon him,125 that which also was thenceforward mentioned as in a rumour; yet at the end he that reveals hidden things revealed it and brought it to light and made it known unto the eyes of all men. And it made him ashamed during his life, and after his death he was convicted: both he who sold the truth, that is John, and he who [did] more than he, that is Cyril, when the gold of iniquity was / exacted. |280 But let these things be set down in the midst and [such things] as they proclaim and prove with their voice that they may teach all men.
For, after John had come to Ephesus, he commanded each one to come, and Memnon fled from the things which were taking place; and when they were bringing him forth from the altar, he 126 both summoned him as to a friendly conference and handed him over to be guarded that he might not be found wanting in aught of those things which ought [to be submitted] to the examination of the authorities, of those which all men ought to do. But after we were all assembled in order to hear in common the letters of the Emperor, his purpose to such an extent slackened and became altogether different that he made himself ridiculous rather than be zealous about the things which were thus worthy of zeal. For when the letter of [his] Majesty, which had been written unto all men, was about to be read, Cyril persuaded him and those with him that I should not come into their presence but that I should hear what the Emperor wrote from the curtain. He brought this about without letting aught of the things which were right enter into his purpose, because he had already been bribed. And when they perceived that the things which concerned me were being read, they praised the Emperor with many praises; but when it came to the [affairs] of Cyril, they cried out and swore that those things should not be read. Of such childish / licence as this used they to make use, who were formerly in trepidation and were zealous, if it were possible, to bury themselves in the earth, when they had no single defence, neither concerning the things which they [had] dared and carried out outside the command [of the Emperor] nor concerning the examination of the faith. But after I had been given into custody, so then [was] Cyril also, as though on the supposition that we should not enter and approach our cities, and----a thing which also occurred aforetime by the command of the Emperor----that we should not be received by the chiefs and by those who were charged with the care of the cities. But finally he commanded |281 me to dwell in my city where it was pleasing unto me, not by permission but in consequence of mine own request. For I had requested many times and I [had] requested of those, who had freedom of speech with the Emperor and who were supposed [to be] my friends, [as] a favour that they would inform the Emperor that for me indeed it was not a question of the human glory of the episcopate, but that I was longing for mine own cell----this favour he has done me; but before this, that there should be [held] even without me an examination of the faith so that they might not be deprived of the faith by reason of their passion against me. For I had seen the snares and the wars which had formerly taken place against me; and when there was no cause for accusation against my prosôpon so that they should send me forth and deprive me from Constantinople, they came on [the pretext of] the faith. And by reason of their passion against me, they were impassioned also against the faith. So it seemed unto me that this [was] advantageous and helpful, that I / should disregard myself that that might take place for which rather there was need; for whenever enmity is dissolved, how often do men come to themselves?
But he 127 gave unto me the dowry of [his] favour, even that which he had sold unto Cyril, as this too was revealed after the death of the latter by the confession concerning me which was found in [his] writings; for immediately that this confession had been [made], there came that death which confutes all men and spares not; of such aids as this used I to make use. But while I on the one hand was dispatched in such honour as this, Cyril on the other hand was kept under guard for a while; but he who was being guarded with all caution hid himself from them that were guarding him in Ephesus and from the chiefs who had been commanded not to let him cross over unto Alexandria and set out from Ephesus and gained his [own] city without being hindered by any one. For this too had been prepared beforehand and bought by him with money; for he came not out of the city by force but |282 transgressed the letters of [His] Majesty against the will of the Emperor. He also [brought it about] that he escaped from the constraint and the punishment for his transgression of the command of [his] Majesty. But it was surely granted that all these things should occur thus by reason of that rage which was against him as it were in the folly of deception, in the likeness of which was also [his] friendship for me, since on account of this that, which was supposed / friendship for me, was always [a source of] harm unto me, because it was not [friendship] for me but [a desire] to sell [me]. For the enmity towards the other recoiled in fact upon me.128
Thus then these things against me were carried out from the beginning, and they left nothing undone which could convict me of having told a lie, and they were convicted by those [things] which they wrote. For [it is] in the power of every one, who wishes to examine [these things] with all exactitude and not in anticipation to pass over the things which were written by the others at Ephesus, to understand by reflection consequently from their writings who it is that has stirred up all these things and for what reason he has stirred them up and for what reason he has not consequently acted as a brother towards his brother, reprimanding, counselling, demanding, looking into these things by himself, but was the first to reveal them and spread abroad abundantly trouble and war and enmity by the letters which he had written. For what reason, when I have written an answer to his letter and when I have accepted [part] thereof as correctly stated and have made known unto him the things concerning which I doubted whether they were well stated as well as the purpose wherefore I accepted them not, either instructing or as if on the one hand he understood not or [as if] on the other hand it were so, |283 that he might establish that which was written----for what reason has he stirred up the Egyptian and the Roman Council about the things which [are] against me? / Hast thou requested me to establish mine own points as brother to brother? But thou didst wish by thyself to select these [writings] of mine and bring about a verdict against me when I was far away from thee. Wherefore hast thou not come unto me with thine own Council as one requiring [something] of me or as one reprimanding me, as they that [were] before thee did in regard to those whom they saw to be in need of their own coming: as Alexander against Arius and as Timothy 129 against Gregory 130 or as Theophilus against John? 131 For there was none to hinder thee nor yet to deprive him that was accused of [the right to] defend himself. There is none far away and requiring to be judged and [yet] judging another; there is no accuser to be the judge of his enemy far away. For what reason, when thou wast calling an Oecumenical Council, didst thou together with the incomplete Council decline to come and defend the things [of] which thou didst accuse me and condemn me, when I was not present? For what reason, when thou earnest, didst thou not wait for the Council which was required but wast frightened thereof? Wherefore, when I was requesting thee and hindering thee and adjuring thee to wait for the Council, didst thou refrain from [awaiting] the coming of the Eastern bishops, and didst not await the Count who was / charged with the duty of the maintenance of order but didst despise all of them together? For what reason, after all the bishops came and the Emperor commanded that indeed, since there had not previously been an inquiry and an examination, inquiry should be held into them between me and thee and the bishops of the East, didst thou do all [these] things that there might not be examination and judgement?
One was his aim and one his purpose from the beginning even unto the end: that there should not be a judgement and an examination on the subject of the things whereof he accused me, while mine [was] that there should be a judgement and an examination on the subject of the things whereof he accused |284 me, though not because the flight and the haste of this man had been victorious. For what reason was I zealous whereas thou didst decline, if thou wert confident in the proof which thou hadst from the Scriptures and from the Fathers? But he feared me, [some one will say,] because of the help which [I received] from the Emperor. He [it was], as men know, who was rather in actual fact for surrendering me and not for helping; but [granted] that this was [so], who then was hindering the judgement from taking place without the help of the Emperor? For after it had taken place, after I [had] already departed from Constantinople and the Council of the East was requiring that there should be a judgement and an examination of the faith, even without me myself, the Emperor too had also commanded that the two deprivations of those, whosoever [they were], who had been deprived by the Council, should be retained without [further] examination, but that they should choose each seven bishops 132 and [that] they should be sent by both the / Councils to Constantinople in order that they might speak before the Emperor concerning the things required and [that] the rest of the bishops might be dismissed from Ephesus.
Have they spoken with one another? Yet, since they [had] proceeded to Chalcedon in Bithynia in accordance with the letters of [his] Majesty, he 133 received the two parties of the bishops who were sent by the Council. But after he [had] asked of the Easterns the cause of the division which had taken place, they said that they were introducing a passible God and that they themselves were not persuaded to agree before inquiry was made into these things, [adding] 'Even if the Emperor treats us with violence, we shall not be persuaded to admit a passible God; for he that has not a nature that suffers suffers not, while he that has such a nature as this is not consubstantial with one who has one such as the former; but if he who suffers not is consubstantial with the one who suffers, even he who suffers not can suffer'. And the Emperor |285 was in trepidation as it were at this supposition, and even his ears could not endure these blasphemies, and he shook his purple robes, saying: 'I have no part at all with such men as that.' 134 However, he commanded not to constrain them by violence but, on the contrary, that [the question] should not be left but that inquiry should be made into the truth in every manner whatsoever concerning the things to be examined; and with these [words] he dismissed them with many praises, having commanded them to make ready this examination.
/ But after this was heard, the others again stirred themselves up that there might not be a judgement and an examination of these things. But the authority of your Majesty sent away the Easterns, but commanded you 135 ----and by 'you' I mean thine own sympathizers, them that were executing thy vengeance----to enter into Constantinople and to establish another bishop in mine own place.136 Where then had been the judgement? And before whom? Say, in whose presence? Although it was a farcical judgement, say, you who have written the things that took place, how was it brought about? For they were many; be ye not persuaded by any of them that [are] my own [followers], lest you say that he wrote out of human love. Lean upon your own [followers], who have written of the things that were brought about. But you cannot efface what happened thus and was written at that time.137
But perhaps some one will say that whatever was brought about was clearly a farce. But it was an unscrupulous thing to bring about things which were unbelievable and in need of much indulgence. For the things which were done thus are unbelievable; but they have indeed been thus prepared not only against me but also against the faith, on account of which I was stirred up and was diligent to write and to teach the things which were taking place just as they were taking place, lest men should suppose that the judgement and the examination took place and should believe without a reason and depart from the faith. For the providence / and the judgement of |286 God have been revealed unto all men, although there are [some] that see and see not, who have arisen against me out of enmity from the beginning, though now he 138 is willing to be the first to drive every one to evil against me who have been condemned without judgement. And at the same time he has put a barrier before all men that there might be no further return for me, and has thereby hemmed in the party of the Easterns and of the rest of the countries which had not taken part with them in what they brought about and [which] had given help unto me. Nor was I acquainted with any of the things which were taking place nor was I the first to think of rebuking and accusing them for the judgement [conducted] without justice.
And I summoned an Oecumenical Council against the Council which had been [held] incompletely, in order that it might be shown in the sight of all men for what reason they did what they did; since it was not for the faith that he was confident and enthusiastic but that his own [affairs] and mine might not be examined, while by means of letters and various other means he had corrupted those who were nigh unto the Emperor and unto the Empresses and was persuading [them] that there should not be a Council. And this was told unto the Emperor and he was much reprimanded by letters, lest he should be able to dissemble; for he ought to rejoice at a judgement, if all these things were not [uttered] in semblance, so that he might be zealous in proving to the Emperor that his purpose was straightforward and just. For this was done in such wise / that he should have no defence, as one that knoweth not the things of which he is rebuked and denies [them]; and he hindered the judgement not once nor twice but even unto death. But the Emperor had acted contrariwise toward him who was blamed by him and condemned me, even me who was honoured and praised, while many were testifying that I was injured. Thus absurdities were growing so many that they were not kept dark; but that their oppression might be revealed, he 139 properly made even him 138 a witness and a judge for me, so that [their] oppression might be indefensible. |287 For all of them testified that we were not found doing iniquity and that they condemned me without reason. And while I was in the same [condition] without examination and without judgement, the others worked amongst them[selves] and changed all the things that concerned me.
Concerning the things which were done when Cyril and the Easterns met together and +before+ 140 seven of each party 141 were sent [to Chalcedon].
But let us speak as in a few words: perhaps some one will ask: 'How therefore did the Eastern Council also condemn thee in such wise, that then not even a single cause of defence was left unto thee?' For by the persuasion of [his] Majesty, and by this [Council] every one is the more convinced, even so that none can hide it. For one and the same was the word concerning every one of those who were in accord with me and were accepting / me and were contending with me and [concerning every one] of those who were being accused with me and were being insulted with me, since those who were changed over with them had not a single cause to change over from me. Tell thou us the cause for which they changed over from thee; for [it is] thy boldness which was against me and thy writings and the Articles which thou hast composed. They anathematized thee and deprived thee in Ephesus; and thou canst not deny neither thou nor they, what you have done in your writings. When therefore they were doing these things, they were testifying about me in two things, both in respect to orderliness and in respect to piety; but thee on the contrary they were accusing both as a bold man and as an heretic, and they summoned thee to judgement to reprimand thee for them both and they judged that thou wast worthy of deposition. And when you were summoned by the Emperor as to judgement, they were the first to accuse thee; |288 for they were persuaded of your boldness and of your tyrannical behaviour and of all the evils which you caused in Ephesus. For in Chalcedon also you closed all the churches against them before the judgement should be [given], in order that they might not enter to pray, and you blocked the roads [leading] to the Emperor and were meeting them with stones and clubs and were driving them into narrow places as into places whence men [that were] strangers, being not acquainted with the roads, had not [any means] of escape, / since they were coming in the hope of order [being maintained] by the Emperor; and thus they were hardly rescued from those who were distressing them, until the Emperor sent the help of the soldiers to rescue them.
But there was an assemblage of those who were practised in sedition without number,---- then was I summoned from Ephesus,----[consisting] at that time of Egyptians and of monks from Constantinople and of those who were renegade from monasticism and all those who by reason of any cause whatever had been driven out and were zealous for the work of agitators and were supposed on account of the habit of monks to be acting with enthusiasm. Then they were taking from the monasteries robes together with food and provisions, which were being given unto them as the wages of the fervour of love, and they were fattening their bodies therewith instead of [practising] continence. From the things which thou wast sending and bringing from the granaries and the stores of wine and of oil and of vegetables and all kinds of clothes, thou didst fill the monasteries which were being set apart for this and other places, in such wise that even the holy places of prayer were being encumbered, and the issues and the entries of every place which could receive [them] were full thereof. These things [it was] which were taking place before every one and thou wast paying for them with the things which |289 are called 'benedictions',142 which were being given instead of wages thereof, a thing which heretofore / thou hast not done nor [wilt do] hereafter. And thou wast carrying out these things so that thou mightest not be supposed to be sending these things so as to cause sedition, but that, as they were coming into the monasteries and were being received by the monasteries, the recipients might not be convicted for having indeed received them and for acting irreverently as disturbers and causers of tumult, in being supposed [to be] enthusiastic. For thou wast letting them bring about anything at all and wast doing everything that men might not believe that they were doing these things.
Tell me therefore for what reason thou wast letting these things be done and for what thou wast driving out them that were suffering these things, so that they were not even accounted worthy to be heard concerning aught whereof they were being driven out. What was their purpose about thee and what about me when they returned to the East? Indeed every one of them warned his city not to agree to what was carried out against me. For what reason was a decree sent by the Emperor, by the hand of Aristolaus,143 to constrain them to accept whatever was carried out against me? And was it sent unto them as unto persons who were and because they were [ inclined] toward me? For what reason was he commanding them to accept thee among the bishops? And what [was] the reason that persuaded them / to accept thee among the bishops? You saw not one another and you spoke not with one another, nor have you said nor have you heard for what cause you were divided; and it was for you to accept without judgement and without examination and without |290 a Council what you accepted not in judgement, and for the others to accept what they accepted not! But of yourself you thought that you were reconciled with the others concerning the things whereof you were justly blamed in order justly to confirm the two Councils either through fear or by patience or by partiality or by all of them together. What defence have you [to make] before those who are blaming you for having made a secret agreement in partiality and by deceitful means? 'The Emperor's command. It is the Emperor who has commanded us and who has prepared this for us.'
Say! why then dost thou ask me how they have accepted my deposition who formerly accepted it not? Ask me not, but I [will ask] thee; how hast thou accepted the faith which formerly thou didst not accept? How hast thou hidden thy Chapters on account of which thou hast been deprived? How have they accepted thee who accepted not thy [writings]? But how have they, who accepted not thine impious Chapters, accepted the deposition which was [pronounced] against me? These [questions] need asking and answering. For / the affair wherein thou wast openly judged by every one, willing and unwilling, made me not defenceless, but on the contrary it caused me to need no other defence. These things therefore cause those who are wanting to examine to know how they happened, as you too will confess with me therein. For the others deprive themselves and condemn themselves by their own judgement, since they have accepted not what was examined by the Council but what you have accepted in the participation of both of you 144, willing and unwilling, in the settlement, apart from the rest of the others, in such wise as not to settle in the name of the Council things which they wanted [to have settled] once for all for better or for worse but to prove that they did things pleasing unto the Emperor in accepting what was carried out against me, though formerly they were not accepting [it]; but they were zealous, however, to shun [all] mention of the Articles. And they were [attached] to these two parties, [some to one and] others [to the other] |291 against one another: thou [being inclined] to my deprivation and the others to the denunciation of thy Articles, on account of which we have accepted every burden. But I have accepted all sufferings and have not agreed nor----but let this be said with the aid of God----shall I agree until my last breath. For this reason, in that they have accepted / what formerly they accepted not, they are the causes of their own condemnation and are suppressing also the things which were carried out against me. For by the suppression of the Articles my deposition also is suppressed with them; or was it not because I accepted them not [that] my deprivation has taken place? For other cause there was not for my deposition.
But thou sayest: 'I have not suppressed the Articles, but I have accepted John who has confessed with me and has agreed with me on the faith as against thee.' John also has said the same: 'I have accepted thee, Cyril, who hast confessed with me on the words of the faith.' Who then [is] he that has accepted his companion? And who [is] he that has been accepted? For both of you say them and are persuading those who have separated themselves and have distinguished [themselves] from the deceptive peace which you have made: thou indeed, in that the others have accepted my deprivation which they were not formerly accepting, [and because] thou wast supposing that they accepted also these Articles which I was not accepting; and he, because he accepts not the writing of thy Articles in the deposit of the faith----men of whom thou wast determined that they should agree with thee in the things whereof men were correctly accusing them. Or did not our inquiry and our war and our strife take place that we might not accept them?
But it is [possible] to say that it was not because they were suppressed [that] they were not written in the deposit of the faith, / when an agreement had been effected, but because they had been without division and without inquiry. If all our inquiry and dispute had been for the purpose of the suppression and the refutation of these things, for no other reason were they not written when the agreement was effected, than that they had not been accepted by common opinion and |292 agreement. How then dost thou cling to them as though they were accepted, things which were not accepted in your confessions [of faith]? For in the course of coming to terms these things were not to be left alone, so that thou and thine own [followers] made not use of them as (being] orthodox nor the Easterns as [being] heretical; for that would not be any coming to terms on the faith, but disputes and divisions.
For what reason, however, was there no suppression of these things in confession [of faith] in the written documents? However, they were left alone. First indeed because they were giving way to the vehemence of [his] Majesty and men were requiring that every one so ever should make peace; after this, because they were wanting to do him the favour of not anathematizing his Articles in written documents, since it sufficed for them not to accept them and not to write in the written documents those things, which formerly he vehemently wanted to be accepted. But for what reason did he accept [the proposal] that they should be left out of the written documents, if he wished for this----as indeed [was] what he was wishing----that they / should be accepted as orthodox? In the first place indeed [it was] lest he should come to the necessity of a disputation and should fall and the Easterns should arise against him and require before everything that he should be deprived for these things, as one who was condemned----a thing which he feared, for, when he was being constrained and pressed, it was necessary for him clearly to say what he believed; since he would either seem to believe what was [written] in the Articles and in his letter or, otherwise, actually to have imagined as even the Easterns. In both [cases] he would be accused: either of saying the same things and having appeared as a wrongdoer or of clearly having revealed himself as an heretic. Yet in order that he might not suffer this, of his own will he agreed and adopted [their views] in order that they might have peace without the written documents and the Articles; and next that they might concede unto him that which concerned me, which he was demanding, that is my deprivation, in order that I might have no further [opportunity |293 of] making answer, in that all of them were come together at the same time against me, a thing for which he had been eager from the beginning. Yet notwithstanding he succeeded not, because it came about by the vehemence of [his] Majesty and not through a just judgement.
/ The letter of Cyril to Acacius, bishop of Melitene.145 Unto those who were blaming him for the agreement which he made with the Easterns, and how I made [my] defence before those who were blaming the agreement which came about.
The one 146 indeed made [his] defence as though he [had] not accepted thy Articles but discarded them, while all of you were zealous for them. But the other 147 says that he had not been content to anathematize them, though they were very zealous that they should anathematize the Articles. The latter however [says]: 'I have brought about what was indeed needful for you but incredible; [to wit] that they have of their [own] will accepted the deposition of Nestorius, whereby they have also accepted the Articles.' But the former 146 denies not that he has accepted the deposition, but [it is] because thou hast accepted and confessed in written document the faith whereby the deposition is set aside; saying that thy faith is not a [matter of] dispute between thee and us in the written documents according to the certainty of our words, since thou distinguishest the natures and the divine utterances concerning both the natures. What we were all zealous to confess and thou confessedst not, has now come to pass. For he was the first to establish in every possible manner what was needful for the faith; but we have not hindered the establishment also of those things wherewith they were calumniated, but rather have we made [ready] the way.
/ And the one 147 indeed says: 'I have made them say Mother of God", which they used not formerly to accept.' |294 Moreover he prides himself and extols himself against them that were disputing against this confession. But the other has confessed that I accepted quite simply [the name] 'Mother of God'. There is then need to state the meaning, according to which the hypostatic and the natural union of God and the natural birth from a woman is excluded. For he says that we confess Saint Mary the mother of God because God the Word was made flesh and was made man from her and, since the conception, he therein united himself unto the temple which was taken. And it was not that he was born but that he was united unto the temple which was taken and was born of her. For we decline not the term 'birth' but the 'hypostatic union of God the Word'. For this reason we have caused it to be excluded. And the one 148 indeed predicates of God the Word God whole and man whole who in ousia is both [ousias]; and for this reason he has written, saying, 'He was born of the Father before the worlds in his divinity, but in the last days the same for us and for our salvation was born of the Virgin Mary in his humanity'. He says that the same was born of the Father and of the Virgin Mary in the humanity, here again also because he has not examined clearly with a view to establishing the things which were required or which are required, that is, one Lord Jesus Christ, whole man [formed] of a rational soul and of a body, in such wise that Christ / and the Son and Jesus are in the two ousias. And in everything he is God as well as man by nature and in everything he is by nature man in the same way as God the Word; both of them exist in ousia, [and] for this reason each of them [exists] by himself.
Because these things have been laid down without comparison he drags them in to [serve his own] purpose according to his own aim and defends [them] to his sympathizers and deceives them, there being none indeed that is not surely calumniated, and each attracts his companion to his own aim. And he accuses me of not having correctly said that which was said by the Easterns, who [according to him] say that |295 God was born of a woman, whereas I say [it] not; and he states my own words according to hearsay; for he says:
He 149 says that God passed through the Virgin, the mother of Christ, [as] we have learned from Divine Scripture; but we learn not indeed anywhere that he was born of her. And elsewhere in his interpretation he has said: 'And nowhere therefore does Divine Scripture say that God, but Jesus and Christ and the Son and the Lord, came into being from the virgin, the Mother of Christ.' For by saying these things he divides our Lord into two sons, so that the one is uniquely Son, Son and Christ and our Lord, he that was born of God the Father, God the Word, and again the other [was] uniquely Son and Christ and Lord, he that was born of the holy virgin.
How dissemblest thou the truth? Not only does the one 150 say this clearly, but the others 151 / name the holy virgin the mother of God because they speak of one Son and Christ and Lord, whole in his divinity and whole in his humanity.
But add what thou hast accepted and confessed, that there has been a union of two natures and that for this reason we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And deceive not the wise Acacius and through him the rest; for it would not escape such a man as he----in such wise as to be blamed for the faith to which he was reconciled against thee ---- that perhaps thou clingest also to these [theories] of mine or rather to those of orthodoxy, which thou hast accepted in all this trouble. For I have confessed two natures united, but thou wast denying [them]: that there is of the divinity and of the humanity one Christ and one Lord and one Son; he was not born of woman in the divinity, but in the humanity; not as he is God |296 is he one Son of two natures united, but he is one as man. Where then do I speak of two natures, one indeed solely Son and Christ and Lord, God the Word who was born of the Father, but the other solely Christ by himself [born] of the holy virgin? Thou also understandest not these sections which thou hast written down: 'We have learned from Divine Scripture that God has passed through the holy virgin, the mother of Christ', of which thou hast written / that I say them. How then proclaimest thou that I call God the Word who was born of the Father one Christ uniquely but the man who [was born] of Saint Mary another Christ? Of whom then sayest thou that I have said that God passed through her? For it is evident that [I spoke] of him who was born of the Father, [namely] of God the Word. How therefore do I call Christ any other than God the Word, him who was born of the Father? I have said that he passed through even the blessed Mary, because he derived not the origin of [his] birth from her as the bodily frame which was born of her. For this reason I have said that he who is God the Word has surely passed through but was surely not born, because he derived not his origin from her.152 But there both exists and is named one Christ, the two of them being united, he who was born of the Father in the divinity, [and] of the holy virgin in the humanity, for there was a union of the two natures.
And we ought to say unto thee, Acacius, that I have confessed in one Christ two natures without confusion. By one nature on the one hand, that is, [by that] of the divinity, he was born of God the Father; by the other, on the other hand, that is, [by that] of the humanity, [he was bom] of the holy virgin. How then canst thou name her 'Mother of God', when thou hast confessed that he was not born of her? For if thou hast said that in the divinity he was born of the holy virgin, she would be called the mother of God after the nature which was born of her; but if thou, even thou, confessest that |297 he was not born [of her] in the divinity, in / that thou confessest that he was not born, how dost thou confess her Mother of God? How canst thou accuse him of saying two Christs, [who said that] which thou also hast confessed----that Christ is two natures, one nature of the divinity which is called Christ and one nature of the humanity which also thou namest Christ? Either thou dost confess two Christs owing to the diversity of the natures, one indeed the humanity which was born of the holy virgin, but the other God the Word who was born of God the Father, or thou dost say, as the other says, 'one in the union' and nothing more? And on account of what hast thou brought thyself to all this and brought the others with thee to do these things against a man who was saying this?
Cyril. But God the Word who [proceeded] from the Father is not one son, while he again who [was born] of the holy virgin is not another, as was supposed by Nestorius, but one and the same. For it is made clear and explained afterwards; for he cites 153 that which signifies God whole and man whole, him who was born of the Father before the worlds in his divinity but in the last days for us and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary in the humanity, the same consubstantial with the Father in the divinity, the same consubstantial with us in the humanity. Therefore they divide not the one Son and Christ and Lord / and Jesus, but they say that the same existed before the worlds and in the last times; but [it is] known that he who [has proceeded] from God the Father [is] God and [he who was born] of a woman in the humanity [is] man.... How then is he conceived consubstantial with us in the humanity since he was born of the Father, I have said, in the divinity, if the same is not conceived and called God and man? |298
Now if it [is true] that the one ousia of God the Word, which was born of the Father and of the Virgin Mary, [was] the same, for what reason dost thou confess two natures in the union and not [that] there was one belonging to the same who was born of the Father and of the Mother, as thou wantest and even constrainest us to suppose and to let thee also suppose? But they that have accepted this confession do not allow thee to lead them whither thou wantest, but constrain thee and induce thee as a deceiver to abide by the things which thou hast confessed with them.
For thou hast confessed the union of the divinity and of the humanity, since of two natures was the union. Two thou hast confessed, and thou sayest that the others have confessed one. Thy cunning [is] great: so thou hast confessed the union, and thou sayest that the others have confessed the division of the union, so that the one same ousia is divided into the two ousias, unlike one another, of the divinity and of the humanity, so that the one ousia, which is divisible into ousias unlike and of another kind / one from another, is consubstantial. For one ousia cannot be conceived as two ousias unlike and of another kind one from another, but which are alike [in the sense] that they are consubstantial one with another, as is that likeness. In which nature then is the Son consubstantial with the Father and in which [is he] consubstantial with us? For the ousia of God the Father and our own ousia are alien one to another. He therefore too would be alien unto his being and would be of two natures alien one to another. How then is it to be conceived that he is consubstantial with us ourselves in the humanity when he exists not in the ousia of the humanity? But how is he consubstantial with the Father, when he exists not in his ousia? Or how [is] the same in ousia of the ousia of God the Father and of our ousia? And [how] is it the same ousia? And [how] are two ousias alien one to |299 another one, so that each one of the ousias both is and is conceived in one ousia? But if this is impossible, [it is] also inacceptable that it should be conceived in the word of truth. It is not a nature [which is] in its nature of the ousia of the Father and of the ousia of the humanity, so as to become consubstantial with both of them; but in the ousia of God the Word only is he consubstantial with God the Father, whereas he is consubstantial with us ourselves in our ousia; and the same both is and is named one, who [is formed] of the nature of God and of our nature, in the prosôpon indeed of the union. For in the natures he is naturally / distinct according to the diversity of the natures which participate not in one another according to the doctrine of the ousias. And thou canst not unloose aught that thou hast bound,----to wit, the union of two 'natures; and two natures are not one nature'. For a union of the diversity of the diverse natures and not of the diversities of its very own ousia is conceived and said to have taken place; for the coming into being appertains to the one ousia, while the union is the combination of the ousias.
Cyril. But these things appear not so unto Nestorius, but [it seems to him] rather that the aim thereof tends in the opposite direction in every respect. He used then to say in the church when interpreting [these doctrines]: 'For this reason too God the Word is named Christ, because he has adhesion constantly with Christ'; and again: 'He has preserved the adhesion of the natures without confusion, and we confess God in man; we honour the man who is adored with God Almighty through the adhesion of the divinity.' Seest thou how far [from the truth] his word [is]? For it is full of great impiety; for he says that God the Word was named Christ singly, but that he has adhesion constantly with Christ. Does he not in effect speak of two Christs? Does he not confess that he honours the man who is adored with God? Do these things then, O our brother, seem to be akin to those which have been said by the former? 154 They have not even any coherence / with one another; for he on the one hand predicates two natures in operation in him, they on the other hand one; that is, they confess |300 and adore one Son and Lord and God, the same [proceeding] from the Father in the divinity and from the holy Virgin in the humanity; [we] say that a union indeed of two natures took place but we confess clearly one Christ and one Son and one Lord.
Nestorius. We ought to say unto thee, wise Acacius: why deceivest thou us? For thou hast confessed the union of two natures unlike one another and, wherein thou accusest Nestorius himself, thou seemest to confess [the same] with him, although thou sayest not that two Christs are predicated; for Nestorius too seems not to have confessed two Christs. But, after what thou spreadest abroad concerning him, that he says so, though he confesses not that two Christs are predicated therein, thou too seemest to predicate two Christs; for thou speakest not of Christ in one nature but [sayest] that he is in two natures whole in their ousia, unlike one another; Christ exists in the divinity and in the humanity; for in that he is two, the two natures also are named two Christs by one and the same name of Christ. For when two natures, unlike one another, are named by the same name, they are called two / by homonymy. But thou sayest one in the union; this also Nestorius says: that two natures [result in] one Christ, which are self-sustaining in their natures and need not, for the support of one another, that they should be supported by |301 the union; but they have established the dispensation on our behalf. The divinity [is] not in need of the humanity, nor yet [is] the humanity in need of the divinity, because in their own nature they need naught. For it was not for the very divinity through the union with the humanity to become God without need, nor again was it for the very humanity to become man through the union with the divinity; but [it was that] from [its] creation by divinity in [its] ordinary nature, although the union also was its as a result of its creation. For the union of the divinity came about not for the completion of the one ousia but for the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf. Nor again [as to] the divinity, was the humanity for the completion of its nature, but for the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf. For they uphold the prosôpon of one another, and for this reason there makes use of the prosôpon of the one nature the other nature, as of its own. Both of them make not use of the one and the other in common nor of composition for the completion of the nature, as the soul and the body [are composed] for [the formation of] the nature of man, but there makes use of the prosôpon of the one nature the other nature [as though it were] the same as its own. And for this reason the divinity also on account of the union is named Christ after the humanity which was anointed, and there exists / of two natures, of divinity and of humanity, Christ, one Son, one Lord; through the union of the divinity and of the humanity the same is Son and Lord and God. For 155 the things which have been called one in the union----a 'one' which exists united in nature----are indeed not predicated distinctly as things which are predicated by homonymy; yet, if thou dividest them, the 'one' is not divisible with them. For in its own nature the ousias are together and it is named after both of them owing to its own nature. Thus [it is] that the soul and the body which are united are named one living being and are not called two living beings. The soul and the body [constitute] one living being, because the |302 body lives not in its own life but in the union with the soul; and for this reason, if they are divided, the life is not divided but there is [left] only [that] of the soul, since both of them are named after its nature one living being.
Let it then be assumed for demonstration also concerning the divinity and the humanity that there is one prosôpon in two prosôpa; that cannot be conceived [as] one without the union, but man [is] man and God God. Both of them [are] one Son, one Lord. For when they are distinguished it is not theirs that the latter should be called that which the former is; for this reason thou too confessest the union of two natures, and of two natures unlike one another; of the divinity and of the humanity, / complete divinity and complete humanity, one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Or callest thou perhaps one nature Christ and [sayest] not one Christ in two natures, and the union without confusion of the natures is superfluous? But if two natures are one Christ, thou sayest, as Nestorius, in [respect to] the union, that one is named after the other. And why hurriest thou outwardly to pursue the others, when thou makest [thy] defence on their behalf and the two [opinions] are found in thee, the former and the opposite thereof?....
And further he 156 shows the same things:
We suppose not in fact, as some of the former heretics have supposed, [that] the Word which [proceeded] from God took a nature, that is, [that] he constructed by means of the divinity a bodily frame for him, but, in following everywhere the Divine Scriptures, we affirm that he took [it] from the holy Virgin. Therefore, as we accept in the understanding those things whereof was [formed] only one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ, we predicate two natures united; but after the union, as though the diversity of two natures was now abolished by him, we confess [that] the nature of the Son is of one, but that he was made man and was made flesh; but if it were said that he who was made flesh or was made man was God the Word, [all] supposition / of change would be far removed; for he remained that which he was; but let the union also without confusion be confessed by us. |303
Nestorius. Thou confessest then those things whereof Christ is [formed], that is, the divinity and the humanity, and thou hast confessed a diversity in the ousias and that they have remained without confusion; but they have remained without confusion, as are the natures; even then in the union they have remained thus. How therefore do the natures remain without confusion, since they remain not after the union such as they are in nature?....'For after the union the distinction between the two is suppressed, and we confess that the nature of the Son is one.' For if the natures have not remained even in the union such as they were, but their own distinctions, whereby they were conceived as two, though remaining even in the union without confusion, are suppressed, there comes about a confusion, a confusion of change and of transformation, a coming to be in one nature. How then seems it unto thee? 'The union which was united in the natures took place without confusion.' Two then [are] they whereof was [formed] only one son and Lord and Jesus Christ, two also in the union; and the natural diversities, wherein they are conceived as two, are not suppressed, since the one is not the other in ousia nor the other the one in ousia. For surely thou conceivest not so, but sayest not as / thou conceivest. How then in thy thoughts acceptest thou two [natures] whereof Christ is [formed], whereas after the union thou predicatest one nature of the Son as though suppressing the distinction between two natures? Above thou sayest that those whereof one son is [formed] are two and later that the nature of the Son is one, as though the union of the natures resulted in the nature and not in the prosôpon. For the natures of both of them which have been united have become one. For this union, being variable and changeable, |304 in that it takes place for the nature and for the completion of the nature, is not of two complete but of two incomplete natures.
For every complete nature has not need of another nature that it may be and live, in that it has in it and has received [its whole] definition that it may be. For in a natural composition it seems that neither of those natures whereof it is [formed] is complete but they need one another that they may be and subsist. Even as the body has need of the soul that it may live, for it lives not of itself, and the soul has need of the body that it may perceive, whereas otherwise it would see, even though it had not eyes and would hear, even though the hearing were injured, so too with the other senses. How then dost thou predicate one nature of two whole natures, when the humanity is complete, needing not the union of the divinity to become man? / For it is its to become man not through the union with the divinity but by the creative power of God, who has brought into being all that which existed not, although the union took place with its very creation.157 Nor was the divinity in need of the humanity as if for the knowledge or as if for the perceiving of human [perceptions]. How then resulted the union of the Son in one nature? Suppress then entirely the [theories pointing to] two natures and there will be room for that of one nature without soul, as Arius said, and without intelligence, as Apollinarius said; and thou attributest unto man one nature outside all the natures and afterwards [thou sayest] this, that God the Word is not without need, because he is not a complete nature in that he needs the nature of man. But now in the same [place] thou sayest the opposite to all this: both [that there are] two whole natures whereof the Son is [formed] and that the union resulted in one nature of the Son. Nor has it therefore been conceived that there is one Son [formed] of these [two natures], and thou hast spoken of two natures united, and further [thou hast said] that [they resulted] in one nature of the Son and dost abolish that of the flesh. And for this reason after the union thou suppressest the |305 distinction between two [natures] in that the nature of the flesh has thereby been suppressed either because it has been corrupted or because it has been changed, and thou believest, however, in 'one nature of the Son who was made man and was found in body'. Whom and what, whereof one Son is [formed], callest thou the nature? And what is / the one nature of the Son? But the things which are united from two natures into one nature are conceived [to be composed] of both the natures which have been united in like manner as [something] composed of simple [elements]. Therefore the one nature of the Son is composite, and for this reason thou hast said: '[He is] furnished however with a bodily frame.' How further will the distinction between both be suppressed, that he 158 may not be conceived [to be] with the flesh? And thou speakest of two and [sayest] that it is not right that they should be conceived [to be] two after the union, as though indeed suppressing the distinction between both. And thou speakest of one nature of the Son and attributest unto them the necessity of being conceived as two, in that thou sayest that he was furnished with a bodily frame after the union; for he was furnished with flesh in the flesh which was by nature flesh. Thou attributest therefore two natures unto the Lord after the union, one the nature of the Son and one the flesh wherein he was furnished with flesh; or before the union two distinct natures, of the divinity of the Son and of his humanity, are to be conceived, and then they were combined for the suppression of one nature. And thus too, neither before the union nor after the union, is the Son conceived as [formed] of two natures; or thou sayest this, that they continue disunited and undistinguished, and the nature of the Son remains alone [apart] from the nature of the humanity, as though suppressing the distinction between both; and thou castest before Acacius himself, as before a dog that is excited and infuriated against thee, the [view] that after the union the distinction between both is suppressed, and thou sayest that we believe that the ousia of the Son is / one; and again [thou proclaimest] before the Easterns that he however was furnished with flesh, in order |306 that they might not be excited. Thou hast also said this, that the union took place entirely without confusion, and thou concedest unto every man as he requires.
Acacius.159 Yet verily and often indeed opponents will say: 'Lo! evidently these, in making confession of the correct faith, name two natures and distinguish the sayings of the theologians according to the diversity of the natures. And lo! how is it that these [theories] are not opposed to thine, for thou art not persuaded that [one ought] to divide the sayings unto two prosôpa or hypostases?'
Cyril. But, O wise man, I say that there is written in the Articles that that man who divides the sayings between two prosôpa or hypostases, some of them as if to the man who is known outside God the Word and others of them as though suitable to God the Word alone, who [proceeded] from God the Father, should be condemned. But we have not in any way abolished the diversity of the sayings, although we have ruled out the [phrase] 'we divide them' as [dividing] the Son alone, the Word from the Father, and again as [dividing] the man known [as] the Son of a woman. For truly the nature of the Word is one, for we know that he was found in body and was made man.
Nestorius. By reasoning and the train of examination did he persuade / Acacius of these words and did he not lead him, as one that was bridled, to follow whithersoever he required? For he said that there was a union of two natures whence there was [formed] only one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ and [that] the union took place entirely without confusion. How then is the nature of the Son one, that which thou hast |307 said is two natures----that is, [is] in the natures, [being] that which is of them. For there is not a nature which should be two natures whence there should be one and not two. 'But', [thou wilt say], 'through the union it is his to become one, and yet he became not one through the union, and [it is right] that we should conceive two without confusion with the diversity of the ousias and further that we should not conceive two but one'.... Who understands confusion without confusion, and [how] to divide the sayings unto two prosôpa or hypostases? These things need much examination, an exact examination of identity and of difference. 'If one divides the sayings unto two prosôpa or hypostases,' [he says], and again: 'Nor [is it right] that we should abolish the diversity of the sayings even in any single way.' He who says that it is not right to divide the sayings into the prosôpa or the hypostases further abolishes not even in any way the two diversities of the sayings. For in what way is it by no means right to divide the sayings unto the prosôpa or the hypostases? From / two thou keepest us afar off; how therefore hast thou not even in any single way abolished the diversity of the sayings? 'Although we have ruled out the [phrase] "we divide them", as [dividing] the Son alone, the Word from the Father, and again as [dividing] the man who alone is known as the son of a woman. For even truly the nature of the Word is one, for we know that he was found in body and was made man.' In what way then hast thou not suppressed the diversity of the sayings; whereas thou sayest that the eternal Son is by nature God the Word? Say [that] thou givest [unto him] also the flesh even in union and not in remoteness, what is the diversity of the sayings which thou hast not abolished? For the diversities are [those] of the operations which are set before us and these diversities are based on the sayings; for when there is no diversity [in the operations], the diversity also of the sayings is suppressed. Thou confessest two natures of one Christ and Son, even two diversities, and thou makest the diversities of the sayings in accordance with the diversities of the natures and thou dividest also the sayings of the theologians. How hast thou joined |308 together the very things which are divided, thou that acceptest with a joyful voice him that divides them? How confessest thou two natures of the union of one Christ and one Son and again one nature of God the Word? For thou hast said that we confess / one nature of God the Word and not two united. Thou sayest one Son, because thou predicatest of the Son two natures without distinction, and thou attributest again one nature only nor yet two without distinction unto God the Word and sayest that he is the Son found in flesh and yet that he is not in the flesh. But, lest thou shouldest predicate one Son of God the Word in one nature found in flesh and another Son of two natures united, of one Christ and one Son thou darest not predicate one nature found in flesh, but thou confidently determinest the one nature of God the Word found in flesh. Why then? There is one Son, God the Word, [with] one nature and another Son with two natures whence proceeded the one Son alone! For the nature of God is not said to be two natures but one nature, in such wise that thou callest Christ one Son in two natures. And thou sayest all these things, [to wit,] both two natures of one Son and one nature of God the Word; and thou speakest of the Son [as formed] of two natures unlike one another and further removest [one of them] from him and attributest one nature alone unto him; and thou removest one [from him]----I mean the humanity----so that it becomes not the Son in the union, and thou art constrained by the word 'natures' to distinguish the properties of each one of them, whether thou art willing or whether thou art unwilling. / For for what reason hast thou spoken of one nature of God the Word and not of two united? And further [for what reason] hast thou dared to say that there is only one God the Word [resulting] therefrom, as thou hast said that only one Son [results] therefrom? Let it be, as thou hast said, that two natures, which men would call united, are accepted in imagination; say thus also of God the Word, that thereby only one God the Word is two. I indeed predicate two natures united, following the Divine Scriptures and the divine teachings, and [I say] that God the Word is indicative of the nature but the Son of the prosôpon, but [that] he is one [and] the |309 same God the Word. Thus [it is] that God is indicative of the nature but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit of the prosôpa. For this reason the divinity indeed [is] one but the prosôpa three; for God is Father and God Son and God Holy Spirit. The prosôpa are not without ousia. But again in the same way----thus also concerning Christ [there are] two natures, one of God the Word and one of the humanity, but one prosôpon of the Son, that whereof the humanity also likewise makes use, and one [of] the man, that whereof the divinity also likewise makes use. It is not of the nature but of the natural prosôpon of the natures [whereof they make use]; for even in the union the natures remain without confusion. Neither [are] the natures without prosôpa nor yet the prosôpa without ousia, nor as in the nature of an animal has the union resulted in the completion of one animal; it has derived from both of them / the [power] to become complete. Yet of two complete natures the one is predicated of the other by appropriation and not in the nature, but in the natural prosôpon of the natures and not in another nature. That which is another is [so] called by nature; for by the nature the Son of God [is] God the Word, in such wise that the humanity also makes use of the same through the appropriation of the union and not through the nature. For Christ the same yesterday and to-day and for ever [is] the same in prosôpon, not in the same nature.
Why congratulatest thou thyself and confessest that the humanity and the divinity are not the very same in ousia or, as thou sayest, in natural quality,----if it is right to call the quality nature? And further thou confessest that the nature of the divinity and [that] of the humanity are united without confusion; thou understandest two which are unconfused and which are combined with one another. Thou confessest also [these qualities] in respect to the natures because they remain without confusion. And by the nature of each one of them they are conceived as one, though thou confessest not by the prosôpon but by the nature. So thou suppressest both that are confessed without confusion by thee; for thou confessest |310 that both were united without confusion, and further two are not to be conceived----as though suppressing the distinction of both----as that which [is] one. If the inconfusion of both the ousias had not been in thy mind, how then sayest thou of that which was combined in one ousia / that one ought to confess this union [to have taken place] without confusion? And again let us suppose that those [natures] which have been united without confusion have not been united without confusion or, like the [view] which thou hast said, that the union took place for [the forming of] one Son from two natures. But after the union thou removest the humanity from the union which [resulted] in one Son, and it has been put far away from the union which [resulted] in one Son and is henceforth conceived apart from the union. But this ousia of the Son is conceived uniquely, nor yet are those [natures] whereof he is [formed] Son, but only one nature, conceived in the Son. Yet thou sayest that there is only one nature.
[Cyril.] But when the manner of the Incarnation is investigated, the human intelligence sees inevitably two things which [are united] ineffably and inconfusedly in one union; yet it distinguishes not entirely what has been united but believes that of two there is [formed] one, both God and Son and Lord and Christ.
Wherein sayest thou 'one'? That they have been united in the prosôpon of the union of the natures? Thus then the human intelligence sees those things which are united without confusion; but they are without confusion in their own natures and in their own ousia and thus they remain and are conceived. The one is not conceived as the other in ousia nor the other as the one. For in the matter of the ousias there is a distinction in the nature of each one of them: it both is conceived and exists. But in the combination of the natures there exists / in the same one prosôpon without distinction and without division. |311 In the natural prosôpon [there is] one nature, making use likewise of the prosôpon of another nature. Thus therefore the natures which have been united are without confusion and are never to be divided in the same, in that in the matter of the natures they are conceived in the distinction of their own natures.
Cyril. But the wrong opinion of Nestorius is [something] entirely other than this; for he proves that he confesses that the Word which is God was found in body and was made man; but, knowing not the force of 'was found in body' he names two natures and distinguishes them from one another, setting God solely by himself and likewise the man by himself, who has been joined unto God in proximity and in equality of honour only, and in authority. For thus he says: 'God is not distinct from him that is visible. For this reason I distinguish not the honour of him that is not distinguished; I distinguish the natures and I unite the adoration....' But these our brothers in Antioch, accepting simply, as though in imagination only, the things whereof Christ is known [to have been formed], predicate the diversity of the natures----because the divinity and the humanity are not one thing in natural quality, as I have said,----as well as one Son and Christ and Lord; and, as indeed he is truly one, they say that his prosôpon / is one but distinguish not in any way at all the things which have been united.
Nestorius. And verily, if this had been truly [said], thou too wouldest have been more confident in this word, while I should not be able to feel confident of being known thereby, but, as thou sayest, I should be making use [thereof] in schema, and thou oughtest to have confuted me before all the Council; |312 nor, when I had required [aught] of thee by request, oughtest thou to have kept it dark but to have waited for the whole Council; and again, when I was summoned to the Council, thou oughtest not to have declined. For how often hast thou not done this very thing and wast refuting my wrong opinion, whereas I was not able to make use of any defence. For he who is confuted of imagining the contrary of that to which he clings in hypocrisy condemns with all condemnations the wrongness of his opinion. Yet perhaps it is not so, but the opposite. Whence knowest thou that I confess that God the Word was made flesh and was made man and yet say not that he was made flesh and was made man? For he who was made flesh was made flesh in the flesh, while he who says that they 160 are divided and distinct 161 from one another does not even confess the incarnation at all; unless perhaps he confesses / the [view] that he who was not made flesh was made flesh. For how are those things made flesh which are apart from one another without being united? If therefore I confess two natures and that he was made flesh, from what [cause] have I been supposed to say that the natures are distinct and far removed from one another, without conceding the being made flesh and the being made man of God the Word?
For thou hast said that I say: 'God is not distinct from him that is visible. For this reason [as regards] him that is not distinct I distinguish not the honour.' How does he who says that God is not distinct from him that is visible distinguish [the two]? For thou hast said that thou distinguishest not him that is visible from him that is invisible, and also that the honour of God is not to be distinguished; nor, if I distinguish not God himself from him that is visible because he is not to |313 be distinguished, do I distinguish also the honour. 'Who', hast thou said, 'is not to be distinguished? And from whom is he not to be distinguished? And for this reason I distinguish not even the honour of him that is not to be distinguished.' But I say that I distinguish the natures but unite the adoration. Just as thou too hast accepted the union of the natures without confusion either in truth or in schema, thou distinguishest also the natures in the matter of the ousias whereof Christ is conceived [to have been formed], whether thou art willing or whether thou art unwilling. Thou predicatest also the diversity and [admittest] / that the divinity and the humanity are not the same in natural quality, as thou sayest. For he that says that the divinity and the humanity are not the same makes by a natural diversity the distinction that the one is not the other nor the other the one. But the natural diversity is a distinction. The distinction therefore in the diversity and in the ousia of the natures is one thing and the distinction in the distance apart of the ousias, which have been combined and united in the combination, is another thing. Therefore I have predicated the union of the combination of the natures, of the divinity and of the humanity without distinction, [saying] that God is not distinct from him that is visible; yet I have said that according to the union without confusion the natures are distinguished by a natural diversity, but I have called the adoration of those [natures], which are thus not to be distinguished and are to be distinguished, one, seeing indeed that they have been combined in one prosôpon and not in one ousia nor in one nature, because the union of the natures took not place in confusion; nor further [did there take place] a confusion for the completion of one nature, because the union resulted not from incomplete but from two whole natures.162
For every union which results by a natural composition in the completion of the nature results from incomplete natures, but that which [results] from complete natures results in one |314 prosôpon and subsists therein. For God the Word made not use of a bodily frame without soul nor / of a soul without will and without mind, nor of a bodily frame and of a soul instead of a soul and an intelligence. But thereby is distinguished the church of the Arians and [that] of the Apollinarians, which accepts not two whole natures which have been united. Neither do I distinguish the natures which have been united by abstraction and by isolation from one another, nor do I speak of an adhesion through love and through proximity, as though it were between those which are far apart [and] those united by love and not in the ousias; nor again do I speak of a union in equality of honour and in authority but of the natures and of whole natures, and in the combination of the ousias I concede a union without confusion; but in respect to one honour and to one authority I predicate the union of the natures and not of the honour and of the authority. Otherwise, prove [it] by what I have said: 'God is not to be distinguished from him that is visible; for this reason I distinguish not the honour of him who is not distinguished.' Where then have I said in these things that I distinguish the natures from one another and speak of God the Word by himself and the man by himself, [saying] that they adhered together by proximity of love and by equality of honour or by authority? For, I have said, I distinguish not God from him that is visible. [I spoke] not of the proximity nor the equality of honour nor of the equality, but I said that I distinguish not God the Word himself in his nature from the visible nature, and by reason of God who is not to be distinguished I distinguish not even the honour; for he is one thing and his honour is another, and his ousia is another / and whatsoever the ousia is is another. But, although I have said that I distinguish the natures and unite the adoration, I have not said that I distinguish the natures from one another by a distinction of distance, as thou accusest me in thy calumniation.163
For if there had not been [any] other manner of distinction between natures than that only of distance apart, thou wouldest |315 have well found fault with me for distinguishing them thus. But if there were many others, and especially [if], in the matter of the natures which all our inquiry concerns, the union of which natures, whereof I have spoken, took place without confusion or change, how is this to thy thinking? And [yet] thou examinest up and down, as though I [had] said in this sense that I distinguish the natures? 164
And thou bringest [word] that the others 165 divide not even in a single way the [natures] which have been united. In the first place thou wast the first to say that they are distinguished. But these our brothers in Antioch accepting simply, as indeed only by reflection, the things whereof Christ is known [to have been formed], predicate the diversity of the natures, because the divinity and the humanity are not any one thing in natural quality, as I have said, but one Son and Christ and Lord; and as indeed he is truly one, so we say that the prosôpon is one. But thou sayest that they divide not even in a single way the natures which have been united, while they have spoken of the diversity, / [saying] that the natural quality of the divinity and the humanity is not the same; and thou sayest that we ought not to divide the diversity, nor is it that there are the same things in nature, and therein thou predicatest the diversity. For in every way thou makest distinction, saying that there is a diversity and that the divinity and the humanity are not the same in natural quality; yet [thou makest the distinction] not in distance apart but in the matter of the natures, nor by means of a distinction consisting in a differentiation of functions, but with an obvious meaning. How then do they not distinguish even in a single way those things whereof Christ is united and predicate the diversities in the ousia?
And further thou sayest:
They accept not even the distinction of the natures, as it seems to have been imagined by the exponent of [these] paltry inventions, but they define and distinguish only the sayings concerning our Lord, saying that [some] of them are |316 suitable not to the Word which [proceeded] from God the Father as to the Son solely and [others] also of them again to another Son who [was born] of a woman, but [some] of them to his divinity and [others] of them again to his humanity; for the same indeed is God and man; but they say that there are also others which [are] common, because they regard both of them----I mean, [the natures of] the divinity and of the humanity....
I indeed suppose that he does not even know what he says: however, what I suppose [is] that he says the opposite / of whatever he says in schema that he confesses with the Easterns. For, if there were not a distinction between the natures, how hast thou said that they have predicated a diversity of natures? And how are not the divinity and the humanity the same in natural quality, since they are divided in nature according to [their] diversity? For therein, if it is supposed of me that I predicate a natural distinction, it belies [me] not; they are not however [derived] from the exponents of [these] paltry inventions, for they are not my own inventions, but the apostolic faith and the teaching of the Fathers and thy own confession also, since thou art constrained and turnest it hither and thither that thou mayest say it without saying it.
And thou hast confessed that those whereof Christ is [formed] are two natures and [that they are] alien to one another in ousia: 'We do not conceive that God the Word has taken [aught] of his own, that is, divine nature and has constructed for him[self] a bodily frame, following everywhere the Divine Scriptures, since we affirm that he has taken [it] from the holy virgin. We accept as by reason those things whereof [there is formed] only one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ, confessing two natures which have been united.' And the natural distinction is not overlooked, for the indication of the natural distinction consists in their |317 being called two; but, in respect to the natures, they are called two, for there is a natural distinction between the natures whereby thou confessest two but [addest] that they are united without confusion; for this reason also [they are] two.
/ Thou sayest again some thing else to the contrary, that after the union [there is] one nature, because the distinction of the two, both of them his own, has already been abolished for him. Therein it is not [possible] for him to come to terms with the Easterns. Thou sayest however that there is even no indication of the distinction between the two, not, [that is], the distinction of the union but [that] for the diversity of the ousias. But thou, O wise man, with all thy wisdom dost even confess two after the union and determinest to confess that after the union there are no more two natures. For thou predicatest two natures united; it is evident that they are united before the union and not after the union. How then confessest thou two natures after the union and forbiddest us to confess two natures after the union? Which should we believe? The first or the second? Or thine? Since thou confessest with the Easterns who confess two natures, but Acacius does not, [saying] that it is not right to confess two natures but one after the union, because the distinction into two has already been suppressed. Thou concedest unto every man as he requires.... 'But they accept not the natural distinction,166 but define and distinguish only the sayings concerning our Lord, saying that they are suitable, yet not saying that [they are suitable some] of them solely to the Word which [proceeded] from God the Father as to a Son and [others] of them again as to another Son / who [was born] of a woman, but [some] of them to his divinity and [others] of them again to his humanity, for the same is God and man.'.... And me, lying, he calumniates as though predicating two Sons; and those things also which he has cited against me therefrom as well as from the letters and from these interpretations |318 which have been excerpted by him proclaim [it]. But [as regards] his having said that now they accept not the natural distinction 167 but define and distinguish only the sayings concerning our Lord, let us see what those that [are come] from the East have said, and in what way he makes use of these things: 'As for the sayings of the Gospels concerning our Lord, we know certain theologians who make [some] of them that [are] common relative to one prosôpon.' Hearest thou how they have confessed? 'Relative to one prosopon' and not to one nature. Why changest thou their confession, when they make those that [are] common, as thou hast said, relative to one common prosôpon? And thou makest naught common.168 Whose do they make those that [are] common, since there is not [anything] common except [in the eyes of] those who make use of one prosôpon? Predicate then a common prosôpon and predicate of one prosôpon the things that they make common. It [is this that] makes his one prosôpon common; for that which is made of things [that are] opposite in anything is made common, so that it is therefore not sole but / common. As then a serpent receives a wound and coils itself up over the wound and conceals the wound itself and unwinds itself anew out of pain and shows it, though unwilling, thus thou also darest to hide what thou hast confessed and afterwards hast confessed, though unwilling, the things which have been confessed.
For hear thine own confession; for they have required thee to confess with them the things which thou hast written.
But as regards the sayings of the Gospels and of the Apostles spoken concerning one Lord, we know that certain theologians make [some] of the things which are common relative to one prosôpon but divide [others] of them as between two natures; those which are suitable unto God they attribute unto the divinity of Christ and [others] of them, and those them that are contemptible, unto the humanity.....169 |319
These things thou hast confessed [in such wise as] to imagine and to teach [them]; why art thou now keeping [them] dark? For thou hast said that the things which are distinct [are] relative to two natures and not to one nature, nor are the divinity and the humanity the same, but the [attributes] of the divinity indeed [belong] unto the divinity and [those] of the humanity unto the humanity. They call not by two names one nature, which is distinct only in the saying and not in the ousia, as thou imaginest. For thou sayest that the diversities of the sayings are not suppressed but they have indicated in saying the natures and the distinction / of the natures. And thou confessest [so far as] to say that there is a distinction of the natures; for thou hast said that they divide the sayings as [relative] to two natures, [attributing 'some] of them, those which are suitable unto God, unto the divinity of Christ' and not unto the same ousia in respect to the humanity but to the nature in respect to the divinity. For they call not the divinity two natures but one nature and the humanity one nature; for two natures are not named after one nature nor one nature after two natures. For concerning two natures they have said that a distinction should be made and not concerning two sayings which indicate one nature but which indicate two natures owing to the distinction of the diversity of the ousia of the two natures.170 'Those indeed which are made common [they attribute] as unto one prosôpon, but others of them they divide as between two natures, [attributing] those which are suitable unto God unto the divinity of Christ.' The common prosôpon of the two natures [is] Christ, the same prosôpon whereof the natures make use even likewise, that wherein and whereby both of them, the divinity and the humanity, are known in ousia without distinction and with distinction. Neither the divinity nor the humanity exists [by itself] in the common prosôpon, |320 for it appertains to both the natures, so that therein and thereby both the natures are known; for it is one in the ousias. For even the ousia of the humanity similarly makes use of the prosôpon of the ousia of the divinity and not of the ousia, and the ousia of the divinity / makes use of the prosôpon of the humanity similarly, and not of the ousia, as thou pretendest. And they 'predicate not [some] of them solely of the Word who [proceeded] from the Father as of a Son but [others] of them again of another Son who [was born] of a woman; but [they attribute some] of them unto his divinity but [others] of them again unto his humanity; for the same indeed is God and man'....
If thou sayest 'solely' in [the sense of] remoteness apart of the distinction of the natures, thou speakest not unto those who confess that the natures are united and that they have been united in one prosôpon and are two natures and indicate therein and thereby two natures which are known [as such]. But if thou callest him [one and] the same in nature so that the divinity, which was born of God the Father is one nature and likewise again [that which was born] of the woman, thou sayest that God is distinct from man only in the saying and [is] the same in ousia. And thou speakest outside thine own confession and further art hastening to wage war with thyself. For how hast thou confessed with the Easterns the division into two natures, [attributing some] indeed of the sayings which are suitable unto the divinity unto the divinity of Christ, and those which are contemptible unto the humanity of Christ, who is by nature the humanity and by nature the divinity. [They said] not unto the divinity of God the Word nor yet unto the humanity of God the Word, for God the Word is not two natures nor [formed] of two natures / or two names or many-named, [bearing names] which are the names of the one ousia itself. And (supposing that] the divinity is not conceived in the nature but only in the saying, wherefore embroilest thou with thyself Acacius, thy loving and intimate [friend], whom thou oughtest to have let go, whatever |321 happened, who only in the simple term and in the saying agrees with thee, who dividest the natures not in their ousias, but in respect to the sayings which subsisted only in the imagination as saying, which indicate no [real] definition and no [real] nature? In nature on the one hand and in the ousias they [would have] had no distinction because also they are not ousias; only in the sayings of the natures on the other hand they [would have] had a distinction, because therein it is theirs to subsist.
Thus also of Christ 171 thou hast predicated two natures, but thou sayest that the distinction between them is not in the natures and in the ousias but only in the understanding and in the sayings. 'Our brothers in Antioch call those things whereby Christ is known a diversity of natures, as though merely accepting [them] in idea alone, because the divinity and the humanity are not one thing, as I have said, in natural quality'.... Thou hast said in quality and not in ousia. But the quality, however, is not the nature of the ousia but either the schema of the ousia or of the nature or of [that which is] not ousia or a view in mere idea 172 only expressed concerning the natures. [As for] this quality, it has not the natural / diversity of the natures but a diversity of the natures without ousia; yet thou sayest that they exist only in the sayings, in reflection3 about the natures, without ousias. And this he says, that they call the things whereby Christ is known the diversity of the natures, as though merely accepting them in idea alone, because the divinity and the humanity are not one thing in natural quality, as I have |322 said.... But they of Antioch are not content either to say this or to hear any man that says [it]; but they say that, touching the sayings of the Gospels concerning Christ our Lord, we know certain divines who make [some] of the things that are common relative to one prosôpon, but divide [others] of them between two natures.... They have said that they surely divide; they have predicated the sayings of two natures and accept not the diversity merely in idea alone. It is not by sayings but by sayings concerning two natures that they draw a distinction in the matter of the ousias. Two natures, which are to be distinguished by the sayings indicative of them, are distinguished. The natures are not without hypostases, nor in idea without the hypostases of the natures do they constitute [them] by sayings in reflection, but by reflection upon the natures with the ousias, if not upon the ousias and the natures, they establish the ideas and the natures.
For the one is very distinct from the other; for the one says that they accept merely in idea alone the sayings about the diversities of the natures / and accepts not the idea of the natures with the ousias, but [says that] they are without hypostases and not subsisting, [and that] their origin indeed is from reflection and [that] they are whole in [its] wholeness. The other says that the idea and the sayings about the natures are indicative of the ousias both at the beginning in the idea and [afterwards] in the natures and in the ousias, in such wise that there are three kinds arising out of the nature of the ousias which are required of him who considers: the ousia itself and the idea of the ousia and the saying indicative of the idea. But whoever says that they [are] merely in idea alone, says two kinds [of things]: merely the idea and its own saying. For this reason he attributes the diversity to the idea alone of the nature and not to the ousia, but to a quality [resting] upon an illusion and upon a supposition of the nature, upon a schema of the nature and not upon the ousia of the nature. For [as to] the quality of the nature and the schema as well as the appearance of the ousia, all these things indeed he deduces and infers that it 173 is without ousia. Who would |323 take account of one who makes use of divine things so disdainfully? He has not one pure and confident idea and he reckons everything in this way and surely makes sport of those who are distressed in heart and [who] are zealous to learn the truth.174 And he is like unto Origen who says everything so that he may be accepted of every one, laying up favour with every one in whatever / he says, and persuades all [men]; [it is] for these things that he is hated of every one, because he turns about and suppresses the things which he has prepared by means of the opposite. For he wants every one to persist in whatever things please any one, and whoever changes them as an enemy is as the enemy of every one. And they rejoice not and are [not] delighted at the things which they have prepared [so much] as contrariwise they surely blush at the very things which they have prepared. The others 175 rejoice not at the things which delight him, for they suppose that they are outside the truth. But he makes [his] defence against those who have exalted themselves against him as against an enemy of the truth, namely on behalf of the faith of the Easterns, and he has not kept their own defence, such as it is, without an admixture [of falsehood].
Cyril. For because the confederates of the impiety of Arius, in impiously adulterating the power of the truth, say that the Word which [proceeded] from God became indeed man but made use of a soulless body,----but they do this craftily, that, in distinguishing human sayings [as] his and proving to those whom they deceive that he was in a state of inferiority to the sublimity of the Father, they might say that he was [of] another nature than he----therefore the Easterns, fearing this that perhaps then the glory of the nature of God the Word might be made inferior by reason of the things which are humanly spoken on account of the incarnation with / the flesh, distinguish the sayings, not dividing the one Son and Lord into two prosôpa, as I have said, but distinguishing [some] of them indeed [as belonging] unto his divinity and [others] of |324 them again [as belonging] unto his humanity, but all of them however [as belonging] unto one.
Nestorius. For if they attribute the divine and the human sayings unto the one nature of God the Word as diverse only in sayings, how do they escape from saying that the human [attributes] belong to the ousia of God the Word? But concerning the human [attributes] thou hast said that they [exist] not solely, [and] that they are indeed alien to the nature of the Father, seeing that he is one. For he is not another in nature in saying [alone], but also in ousia. For the ousia of man, as thou hast said, is the ousia of God: 'He is God and man.' [He is] then alien to the Father in every way whatsoever and he is inferior in everything according to thy own imagination, since thou imaginest that he is man also in the one same ousia. For drive not by force, thinking yourselves wise, though you are not so in the truth. They have distinguished the sayings, that they may be supposed to distinguish them as it were between two natures of ousias, and they are blamed for an attempt against God the Word [in saying] that these are imagined without ousia in respect to the natures in idea alone, as thou feignest to call the ones and the others. But the others distinguish these sayings / as though between two natures which exist by ousia, as in truth they exist. And they reject the calumny of the Arians against God the Word; for he who joins naturally the two [kinds of] sayings to the one nature and the same ousia, aids and abets the Arians in every way whatsoever, [teaching] that God the Word [is] alien to God the Father. |325
Cyril. This is not unknown to thy Saintliness, that, in casting upon my letters the faults of the idea[s] of Apollinarius, they have supposed also that I say [that] the holy body of Christ was without a soul and that there was a mixing and a confusion and an intermingling and a change of God the Word with the flesh, or that the flesh was transformed into the nature of the divinity so that naught was preserved pure and that [the flesh] was not what it is. But with this they have supposed that I was implicated also in the blasphemies of Arius in that I was not willing to acknowledge the diversity of the sayings and to say that [some] of them are suitable to God but [others] of them [are] human and suitable rather to the dispensation with the flesh. But thy Perfection bears witness for me unto the others that I am far from such things as these; but I ought however to defend myself before those who have been scandalized, and for this [reason] I have written unto thy Piety that I have never been reconciled to the [teaching] of the adherents of Arius or of the adherents of Apollinarius and that I say not that God the Word was converted into the flesh nor that the flesh was altered / into the nature of the divinity, because the Word of God is unchangeable and invariable and incomprehensible in all things. Nor again have I ever abolished the diversity of the sayings, but I know that our Lord speaks at the same time divinely and humanly, because he is at the same time God and man. |326
Nestorius. How hast thou said all these things which are supposed against me because thou wouldest not acknowledge the distinction between the sayings, when thou hast not abolished the diversity of the sayings? How art thou supposed, after what thou hast not abolished, to be reconciled to the [views] of Arius or to those of Apollinarius: that God the Word was changed into the flesh or the flesh was changed into the nature of the divinity? For in that thou makest [it thy] defence that some persons suspect thee of being unwilling to acknowledge the diversity of the sayings, by the very cause of [this] defence thou accusest thyself, as though thou hast given cause for them to suspect thee. But in those things, whereby thou defendest thyself, saying 'I have not abolished the diversity of the sayings', thou accusest thine own self both in the eyes of those who suspected thee, and especially in the eyes of Acacius, without any occasion for suspicion, as indeed he had accepted these very sayings which formerly thou usest not to accept. Either how knowest thou of thyself that I have not abolished the diversity of the sayings, while thou art supposed [to have done] / the contrary? Or how hast thou said that God the Word was not changed into the flesh and the flesh not into God the Word and [that] the diversity is only [one] of the sayings and not indeed of ousias, and that the ousia of the divinity persisted in its very nature and the ousia of the flesh persisted in the very ousia of the |327 flesh, if their ousias were not changed? Or how assigncst thou human and divine [attributes] unto the one nature of God the Word, in such wise that God the Word is in the same [ousia] God and man and was not changed into the flesh or into man? For it is impossible that both of them should be in the same ousia, when the one ousia is not as also the other [is], or perhaps becomes not existent. And is it what it became and is it changed into what it became, that is, into the ousia of man, or [is] the ousia of man [changed] into the ousia of God? If God and man are in one and the same ousia and in one nature, while the distinction into two is suppressed, how are the ousia of the flesh and the ousia of God in their being without being changed, since they are not to be conceived in the natures wherein they are without change? Yet if indeed they are conceived without change, how are they which are two not conceived [as] two? How is the distinction into two abolished and suppressed? How would these, even though it were a stone or a demon to whom naught that was pleasing was pleasant, not move and sink / to the perception of their baseness? 176 For he proclaims that the work is his own and, like those that are surely mad, that he does all things and says this and that and other things and all things and nothing. But he makes all men adhere, however, to absurdities such as these, though they understand neither what they are saying nor what they are affirming. For they have not one and the same idea concerning the same thing, but they deny and persist in those things which they deny that they confess, as though they are indeed the true faith and cling in [their] faith to the things which are not of the faith and believe not the things which are evident and are confessed by all men. For the faith is one thing and the nature is another; for he who says that the things which are evident and known in respect to the ousia are something else in respect to the faith, suppresses not the [properties residing] in the nature but seeks to persuade [men] of those which are not in the nature. But that which is in the nature is compulsorily 177 that which the prosopon is. For example, [in] what he says of the bread: 'It is my |328 body,' he says not that the bread is not bread and that his body is not a body, but he has said demonstrably bread and body, which is in the ousia. But we are persuaded that the bread is bread in nature and in ousia. Yet in believing that the bread is his body / by faith and not by nature, he seeks to persuade us to believe in that which exists not in ousia in such wise that it becomes this by faith and not in ousia. If it is [a question of the] ousia, what is the faith worth? For he has not said: 'Believe that the bread is bread,' because every one who sees the bread itself knows that it is bread, nor further does he make it be believed that the body is body; for it is seen and known of every one. But in that which it is not he requires us to believe that this is [so], in such wise that it becomes this by faith to them that believe. Therefore it is not possible that the [properties residing] in the ousia should be one thing and another in one [thing] of which we should believe that it is said to be another, though it exists not in its own ousia, that they may become two and be alien to one another in the ousia. But he who therein suppresses the ousia, therewith suppresses that too which is conceived by faith.
Therefore also it is not in any way pleasing that we should openly make use indeed of what he thus says; for surely he is deceiving [us], since he accepts and suppresses these things so that he proves to every one that there are [views] true and false, both of orthodoxy and of heresy, in him; and I have obeyed him as one [would do] in what he requires. Nor have they been able to prove in any of those things which have been said by me that I am an heretic, but he has proved me / in all the [doctrines] of orthodoxy. And the things which he stirred not up in the beginning, he had stirred up in the [arguments] wherewith he defended himself, as he has now also defended himself on behalf of the Easterns, howbeit boldly and cunningly. But some one will say: 'Why have the Easterns accepted the deposition of thine Impiety whereof they accuse thee, although however thou hast taught nothing at all alien [to the faith]? But they too seem to accuse [him] of the same things whereof thou accusest him |329 and they set aside these things while accepting also those very things, and there is nothing more....' For we ought to ask the one 178 and the others 179 likewise concerning these things. But if you are willing to learn even from me, I will speak of that which [has become known] gradually unto every one, not that I may be accepted and helped by men----for I neglect for my part all human things, since I have died unto the world and I am living unto whom I am living----but I will speak because of those who have been scandalized, not of myself nor after my own [words], but after this man himself 178 whom Christ has constrained to make defence on my behalf. For they have said naught else except that they have been constrained by the command of the Emperor to accept all these things.
Cyril. The bishops at Constantinople have said: 'The pious bishop John must anathematize / the teaching of Nestorius and confess in writing his deposition.'
Nestorius. Therefore until then, according to the bishop of Antioch and according to the Easterns and according to the orthodox bishops, I was bishop.
Cyril. As then the pious Emperor agreed with them very joyfully therein, my lord the admirable tribune and secretary Aristolaus was sent for the correction of this [business].180 But when the command of the Emperor was |330 shown unto the Easterns, as though it had been [issued] by the will of the holy bishops who were assembled in Constantinople the capital, they were assembled----I know not what they thought----with the saintly and pious Acacius, bishop of Aleppo,181 and made him write unto me about the manner of the reconciliation of the peace of the churches; [that] it ought not to take place otherwise except in so far as it seemed good unto them. But this demand was hard and serious; for they were requiring that all the things should be suppressed which had been written [by me] in letters and books and writings.
Concerning what had taken place after the enforced peace. 182
Nestorius. Until then, when they wrote these things, the other 183 also was [to be found] among the heretics, when every one, and not [only] certain individuals, knew and was blaming the things which were written by him. The hand was [the Emperor's] which led them by force, while there was / nought at [my] disposal to be done against what they were requiring. For all those who hear us have understood----for [many a] one used to suffer with us owing to the violence which took place by the command of the Emperor----that they have brought me |331 to [such] an extremity as this. But some one will grow angry, [asking] for what reason they abode not by the things which they once judged. For they are but slightly busied, [in taking measures] against what has been carried out against me for the sake of the correction and the confession of the faith and the agreement of the churches. Like the manner, however, of a tyrant when he comes to capture and cannot take a city, but for the declaration of peace seeks to procure the death of him who is fighting for them against him, that, when he has procured it, it may be defeated, thus the latter too has asked for my deposition to be granted without judgement. Let this be [so]. It concerns not me [to busy myself] with what has been carried out against me, but only that there may be peace among the churches. And I endure all things for the ordering of the churches. But all things have happened to the contrary.
For after he [had] received that for which he was anxious, he both reduced them under his hand for the sake of an apparent peace 184 and knew that he profited naught by what was carried out against me; but the confession of the faith, for the sake of which there was war against me, was confirmed. And it had been evident that there was enmity and violence and that it was a proof of the things which were taking place and that it would be possible for them also easily to be kept secret. But, that this might not take place, and further that my own enemies / might not become his accusers, [namely] those who had formerly aided him in the things which were carried out against me, he began to be drawn towards the confession of the faith, showing himself wise and making sport of the two sides with contrary confessions [of faith]. But they accurately examined and knew that certain among them were become enfeebled and had suffered many things, without even having been accounted worthy of any aid. And for this reason they were not easily breaking the peace which they [had] made as a result of the writings which were written by them from one side and another, desiring to be left in the same [circumstances], that they might think thus. But |332 because he 185 had been accused by those who were clinging to his [side] and were confessing [the same faith] with him as one who went beyond the common opinion and had destroyed alone the zeal of all of them by his authority and by his disdain of them, he feared lest they should be alienated from him or rise up against him, and he was zealous to perform more than they were requiring.
And like the manner of those who are taken in war, [who,] seeking to prove that they are like-minded with their captors, spare not friends nor sons nor fathers in order that they may make them believe that they hate their [own] race, so also he immediately inclined himself to rise up against the Fathers who aforetime had passed away, against Diodorus and Theodorus, who were the common Fathers [of all] both while they were living / and when they [had] passed away, both his own [Fathers] and ours the same. Although he designated them, with whom he used to participate, as the enemies of every man and was clinging to the very Fathers and to the orthodox, yet he had even obtained with all zeal their own labours on behalf of the faith and had commanded [them] to be sent unto all. Yet, while he sought however to persuade [men] that he held not back against me out of hatred, he was seeking to anathematize those against whom no one would have expected nor even [have made bold] to suppose that he would have dared any such thing. And, what is baser 186 than all things, he destroyed the sermons which were published against Apollinarius and supported those of Apollinarius, saying, 'It is the faith of the Church'. [Do you ask] on which party one would lean: on the party of Apollinarius, or that of the holy Fathers in all the world whom also all the world glorifies and whom it has reckoned with the single zeal as [of] a common mouth against Apollinarius and Arius and Macedonius and Eunomius and all the heresies, or on the side of Apollinarius? Suppose that I, who have not been obedient in the things which thou hast required of me, have been an enemy unto thee; for what reason dost thou war on my account with those who have passed away in orthodoxy? Or perhaps thou |333 warrest on account of them who [are] with me? / But, that I may speak the truth, thou warrest with every man because of thine impiety in all things.
Tell me: Were there not Basil and Gregory in the days of Diodorus? Were there not also at Alexandria bishops known for [their] conduct and for [their] words? Were there not at Rome accomplished men who would suffice to stand up on behalf of the churches? And were not they who were doctors in all the world [sufficient] to stand up on behalf of the churches, men who were not [living] in luxury and in glory and in honour and in pleasure, but in persecutions and in distress and in wars and in fear, who had preserved and kept the true faith without wavering, [rather] than he who was an heretic and deceived----that is Diodorus, who was in every man's mouth and is handed down in books and was a [cause of] fear unto heretics, who by the word of doctrine and by divine grace raised himself up against the commands of [his] Majesty for the people of God and let them not perish but increased them manifold, and the whole concord of the churches was won by him? Then he was not an heretic neither for them of that time nor yet for thee thyself nor for thy [followers] nor yet during the disturbance itself which thou madest against me. But after thou wast encouraged and wast entered [on the way] whereon thou wast entered and [hadst] reached this tyrannical agreement, then were Diodorus and Theodorus and the rest of the others / become heretics in thine eyes. For the way was becoming [open] before thee also against Basil and Gregory and Athanasius and Ambrose and against the rest of the others who at the same time said the same things.
Who is there who would not groan that this idea was come [to pass]: that, encouraged by the commands of [his] Majesty and by fear and by punishments, they were constraining the Easterns and, after the peace, were dragging and bringing them like captives and pressing round them to make them anathematize their Fathers? They reached this peace and this unanimity: thus they thought one thought, thus they rested from the suffering of wrongs, when they [had] delivered me |334 over to my enemy. Because they were fearful, they were saying that it was better that one man should suffer injury and [that] the faith should prevail. But would indeed that this had been true! How this would not irk me! But on the contrary I should have surely rejoiced when aught for which they were eager was receiving correction. But on the contrary they had suffered for [the words] which they allowed me [to say] and for the things which they let be said and further [for those] which people allowed them not to say, though I myself was saying them, and for which they had cast me out. And after that they fought against Theodore and after him against Diodorus and then also against every single / one of the rest of the others, and they were intent on the same intention, having set themselves to drive them out with me, as indeed they were saying those very things and naught else. And they ought either to drive them out with me for the same [reasons] or to accept me, even me, and to accept them too. But they dared not say that I should be accepted, because they had once driven me out; and it would have been necessary also for them, though grieving, to drive them out and afterwards for these same [reasons] to drive out also the others themselves, because those others were imagining and teaching the same things, and [saying] that these things were true. And with this boldness he hoped to rise up against all the saints to accept [their doctrine] and thereupon to invert and to alter the things which he [had] received.
For this man himself 187 showed his [true] self after the original confession [of the faith], both gradually adding and subtracting and saying the same things; and he denied therein the compulsion and the authority, acting and scheming until he suppressed [the doctrine] that those whereof Christ is are two natures; and he placed the natures in the names and not in the ousias and imposed the confession of one nature as if by law.188 Then, in striving to undo and to overthrow those who predicated two natures, [he attacked,] not indeed all of them at the |335 same time, but / in the first place certain men, in order that, when he [had] prevailed against the latter, he might go to war little by little against the rest of them, as against persons who were saying these [same] things as the others. For those too of whom they were making use in [bearing] witness to what the others [had] said, were saying those very things----and this is not a new discovery----[and] he was driving them out as heretics. And I too say these [same] things as those [others], and thus they confess as heretics! And they and all of them at the same time were increasing this very depravity of impiety in the face of every one. For he was not citing the [words] of the orthodox and of those doctors who [were] before me so as to prove that I am an heretic, but on the contrary he was taking my own [words] against them that he might prove that they [were] heretics, because the things which were said by them were like unto mine. But let us show also the things which were coming to pass after these things and took [their] beginning therefrom.
[Selected footnotes. Note that all the Greek given from Labbe is omitted]
1. 2 Viz. Cyril.
2. 4 Viz. Candidianus.
3. 1 So marked in the Syriac text as the heading of a new section.
4. 1 Viz. Cyril.
5. 1 Viz. Cyril.
6. 2 No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac text.
7. 3 Viz. Theodotus.
8. 1 Viz. Theodotus.
9. 2 No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac text.
10. 1 Viz. Theodotus.
11. 2 Sc. the bishops.
12. 1 Nau makes certain additions to the text and renders: 'that which thou didst admit when thou wast interrogated thou oughtest [to establish and that which thou didst not admit thou oughtest] to bring to an end.' No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac text.
13. 2 The Syriac scribe adds in a note: 'Here some leaves have fallen out.' Between the quotation from the Creed and that from Nestorius' letter, Nau inserts the title Réponse et comparaison des lettres taken from the Syriac translator's summary. Certainly Nestorius here passes from the historical section to a resumption of the doctrinal discussion based on a comparison of his own and Cyril's letters.
14. 1 For the reading of the Creed and Nestorius' Letter at the Council, see Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1137 and 1169; the text of the letter is in Labbe (Mansi), iv. 892 sq.; Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 173. The passage quoted is in Labbe (Mansi) iv. 893 B, C.
15. 2 Viz. Cyril. Nestorius' point is that the Fathers at Nicaea begin by using the words 'Lord' and 'Son', which are applicable to both natures, while Cyril substitutes 'God the Word', which is not. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 888 d, 893 b.
16. 1 From Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 889 a, c, e.
17. 2 Viz. the hypostasis and the ousia.
18. 2 Viz. Cyril.
19. 3 Viz. St. Paul; cp. Gal. iv. 4.
20. 1 I. e. (presumably) would have objected to the use of 'God' and 'Christ' as interchangeable terms.
21. 1 Altering the punctuation of the Syriac text which puts this stop after 'union'.
22. 2 From Cyril's Second Letter, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 892 b
23. 3 In the Syriac text this sentence is given as a question with a mark of interrogation.
24. 1 From Cyril's Second Letter, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 889 d: Nestorius' argument is obscure in detail, but its main tenor is clear. Assuming that Cyril does not hold an Apollinarian view of Christ's body, he argues that to speak of the Son sitting with his body with the father is open to the accusation of teaching 'two sons' just as much as anything that he himself has said. Hence Cyril is convicted of inconsistency and can himself be quoted as authority for doctrines that he denounces in Nestorius.
25. 1 There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text.
26. 2 Syr. 'thou hast said'.
27. 3 Nau inserts here a negative which is not found in the Syriac text.
28. 1 Syr. 'a prosôpon as a hypostasis', apparently mistranslating the double accusative in the Greek original. See pp. xiv-xv.
29. 3 There is apparently a lacuna in the Syriac text here.
30. 2 Viz. the Soul.
31. 3 Viz. their composition.
32. 1 Viz. (presumably) the human element in Christ, Jesus qua man.
33. 2 A passage such as this seems to show clearly that Nestorius did not teach merely a 'moral union', i.e. a union resulting from and consisting in the fact that the two natures in Christ both willed alike. Like the orthodox he makes that unity of will the consequence of the union, not its ground. Cp. pp. 59, 62, 70.
34. 1 I. e. each other.
35. 1 Loofs suggests that the words 'as indeed are those who are united in nature' have been inadvertently transposed, and are the end of the previous sentence (Nestorius and his Place, &c, p. 91). Apart from such emendation Nestorius is here either inconsistent or more than usually obscure.
36. 2 Viz. St. Paul; cp. Phil. ii. 7,8.
37. 1 Viz. Cyril.
38. 1 From Nestorius' Second Letter to Cyril. See Labbe (Mansi) iv. 893 B.
At the end of this quotation the Syriac copyist adds in a foot-note, 'Here there is a blank space, six lines'.
39. 2 Viz. Cyril.
40. 1 I. e. the term 'Mother of God'.
41. 3 Viz. Cyril.
42. 1 Presumably a mistaken rendering of '318' in the Greek.
43. 2 Viz. God the Word.
44. 2 Viz. Arius.
45. 1 Viz, Arius.
46. 2 We have not been able to trace the source of this quotation. Nau refers to the following two passages: (1) Cyril, ad Acacium (Labbe (Mansi), v. 320 d).. (2) The following extracts from Nestorius' writings read at the Council (Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1201 B).
47. 3 For instances in ancient literature of 'belief in the soporific and narcotic quality of mandragora or mandrake' see Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, vol. ii, pp. 385-6.
48. 1 Viz. Adam.
49. 2 Viz. Christ.
50. 1 See p. 95, n. 1. Nau suggests the addition of the words Refutation des Accusations as the title of Book ii, part i. [Note to the online text: this extra heading indicates that the editors have rearranged the text -- see note for details]
51. 2 Viz. Cyril.
52. 1 Viz. Cyril.
53. 2 Cp. e.g. Cyril's letter to Acacius of Melitene, on p. 180, n. i above.
54. 2 The Syriac text indicates a lacuna here.
55. 3 Sc. the body.
56. 2 The Syriac copyist has here added a note to the following effect: 'From here twelve pages have been torn out and lost from the original by the troops of Bedr Khan Bey, when they captured the district of Das in the year 2154 of the Greeks (= a. d. 1843).' See Introd. p. xi.
57. 4 These words are added, as also by Nau, from the Greek text.
58. 2 I.e. the doctrine of the two generations, (1) that of God the Word 'begotten of the Father before all worlds'; (2) that of Christ, born in time of the Virgin Mary.
59. 3 Literally: 'under beginning and under completion'.
60. 1 Nestorius here uses language drawn from a passage of Gregory of Nazienzum which was read at the Council, and which later he quotes frequently as supporting his arguments. See pp. 195 and 200 for the text.
61. 3 The copyist has added here in the margin the following note: 'Two lines have been left blank in the exemplar.' Nau suggests that they were so left for the title of the following section to be inserted in red ink, as elsewhere in the manuscript; cp. pp. 201, n. 3, 203, n. 2.
62. 2 Viz. Ambrose. The following are the passages from Ambrose read at the Council to which Nestorius refers. See Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1189 d, e.
63. 4 Nau suggests that the space of four lines at the head of this quotation in the Syriac was left for the title to be inserted in red ink.
64. 1 Viz. Gregory and Athanasius.
65. 2 The copyist has here added the following note in the margin: 'These lines in the original are blank,' from which Nau supposes that the title of the following section has fallen out; cp. pp. 196, n. 2, and 201, 11. 4.
66. 1 Viz. the name which he took for the purpose of exalting it above all other names.
67. 2 This is one of the very few passages in which at first sight Nestorius seems to suggest something very like 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood; cp. p. 224, n. 3. But that this was not his intention is clear from pp. 225, 312-15. It is interesting that here, immediately after the suspicious passage, he claims for his doctrine that which 'Nestorianism' has usually been held to lack----the provision for a universal atonement.
68. 4 Viz. Cyril.
69. 1 The phrase 'so that he is not' must clearly be taken as expressing a corollary of the view which Nestorius is rejecting.
70. 2 Here Nestorius refuses totidem verbis to deny the human hypostasis of Christ; but see p. 156, n. 2. This passage surely makes it all the clearer that Nestorius used the word hypostasis in its older sense as practically equivalent to what Cyril called ousia. The two words are evidently synonymous in the sentence below beginning: 'But in name alone he has a body...' See too p. 218, n. 3.
71. 3 Viz. the two natures.
72. 1 Viz. Cyril.
73. 2 I. e. the name 'Christ' as used by Nestorius.
74. 3 These words are added by Nau to complete the antithesis.
75. 4 Viz. the soul.
76. 5 There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text.
77. 1 Viz. the Word.
78. 2 Viz. Cyril.
79. 3 Viz. the Incarnation.
80. 2 Viz. the divinity.
81. 5 Viz. Gregory.
82. 2 Viz. Athanasius.
83. 4 Viz. Cyril.
84. 1 Viz. God the Word.
85. 1 I. e. as Nestorius.
86. 2 Viz. the man who suffers and obeys.
87. 3 Viz. God the Word.
88. 4 Viz. Christ.
89. 5 The previous quotations from Gregory have been from Gregory of Nazianzum. This one is from Gregory of Nyssa, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1193 d.
90. 3 In passages such as this Nestorius seems to approach most nearly to teaching Nestorianism as usually understood; indeed it may be argued that such teaching is logically implied in the language he uses. But that it is not his own intention to imply it he shows clearly almost immediately in the paragraph on p. 225 beginning: 'And thou dost concede...'
91. 1 A gap, not a new paragraph, is marked here in the Syriac text.
92. 2 Viz. Cyril.
93. 2 Viz. the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
94. 3 Part of the passage read at the Council from the sixth Paschal Epistle of Theophilus of Alexandria, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1189 a.
95. 1 Viz. Cyril.
96. 3 Viz. Nestorius.
97. 4 Viz. Christ.
98. 1 Literally: 'by parts' or 'in parts'.
99. 1 Viz. God the Word.
100. 2Inserted by Bedjan in the Syriac text.
101. 1 This sums up Nestorius' dissatisfaction with the Cyrillian conception of the 'impersonal manhood of Christ', and the question at issue is whether he misunderstood that conception, or rightly criticized it as unintelligible. See e.g. Loofs, Nestorius and His Place, p. 73. Consistently with this Nestorius suspects Cyril of treating Christ's manhood as something less than human; cp. p. 260.
102. 4 Viz. 'the man.'
103. 1 This statement of the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum is surely in accordance with that elaborated in Leo's Tome and accepted as orthodox at Chalcedon. For an estimate of Nestorius' teaching on this point drawn from other sources than this work see T. H. Bindley, Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, p. 113: 'Leo drew out this at length in the Tome. Nestorius would not or could not see the validity of this method of speech, nor allow that the Son could enter the sphere of human life while still remaining within the Divine sphere.'
104. 1 The passage in brackets is restored from the Greek.
105. 3 Viz. Nestorius.
106. 2 I. e. of God the Word.
107. 1 Cp. p. 262,1. 27. For Loof's interpretation of this phrase see Nestorius and his Place in the History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 92-4.
108. 2 Viz. Gregory.
109. 3 There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text.
110. 1 The Syriac text gives this sentence as interrogative.
111. 3 There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text.
112. 1 If this, the literal rendering of the Syriac, be retained, 'not God' must be taken together as meaning 'human'. But it is much more probable that the 'not' of the Syriac represents the οὐ of the Greek μὴ οὐ after a negatived verb of denying and should therefore be omitted in English.
113. 1 Nau, following the Greek, inserts: Pierre, prêtre d'Alexandrie et premier des notaires, dit.
114. 3 Cp. Loofs, Nestoriana, pp. 284, 285.
115. 2 Viz. Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria.
116. 1 Viz. the new-comers.
117. 4 Cp. the account given by Nestorius and his adherents in Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1232 E-1236 a.
118. 1 These are the twelve anathematisms appended by Cyril to his third letter to Nestorius, printed in Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1081 sqq. Together with Cyril's letter they were read at the Council, and inserted in the Acts, but whether they were formally approved is doubtful, though the Easterns and the Chalcedonian Council assumed that they were. See Labbe (Mansi), vi. 937, 972.
The anathematisms, with Nestorius' counter-anathemas, the comments of Theodoret and the Easterns, and Cyril's replies, are printed in Bindley, Oecumenical Documents of the Faith ( nd ed.), pp. 144 sqq.
119. 2 Syr. 'anaphora.
120. 1 Literally: 'with which the operations of the churches are full'.
121. 4Syr. masyonin = Lat. mansiones, one mansio being equivalent to ten parasangs.
122. 1 A monophysite account of such phenomena as these, written in Syriac between 512 and 518 A. D., has been edited by Nau with a French translation; sec Jean Rufus, Eveque de Maiouma, Plerophories (Patrologia Orientalis VIII. i, Paris, 1912).
123. 2 Literally: 'trusted ones', 'intimates'. Nau renders eunuques (see Payne-Smith, Thes. Syr. i. 233-4).
124. 3 Literally: 'ministering', of which the precise connotation is shown by the Greek original, ψάλλοντες ἀντίφωνα. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1428 c. For the part played by Dalmatius, see Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1257-60, 1397-8, 1427-30, and Lupus, Var. Patr. Epist., p. 419.
125. 1 I. e. he was bribed.
126. 1 Viz. John.
127. 3 Viz. John.
128. 1 The story of Cyril's bribery is continued below, p. 349. The other evidence for it is contained in the letters of Acacius of Beroea and Epiphanius the Archdeacon and Syncellus of Cyril; see Labbe (Mansi), v. 819 and 987-9. The list of gifts referred to by Epiphanius is reprinted from Florilegium Casinense by Nau in an appendix. These documents are discussed in Hefele, History of the Church Councils, §§ 130 and 156. Nestorius uses the following language in a sermon reported by Marius Mercator: Quid me latenter sagittis aureis iacularis? quid in me sagittas aureas absconditus mittis?... Noli me sagittis aureis vulnerare; non sunt mihi sagittae aureae (Loofs, Nestoriana, pp. 299, 308).
129. 3 I.e. Timothy I, bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 381.
130. 4 I.e. of Nazianzum.
131. 5 I.e. Chrysostom.
132. 1 For the names of those chosen by the Orientals see Lupus, Var. Patr. Epist., p. 65; Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1400 a, h. In Labbe the number is eight.
133. 2 Viz. the Emperor.
134. 1 Cp. Lupus. Var. Patr. Epist., p. 70.
135. 2 Viz. Cyril
136. 3 I.e. Maximian.
137. 4 Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1401-7. No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac text.
138. 1 Viz. Cyril.
139. 2 Viz. the Emperor.
140. 1 Altered rightly by Nau into 'after', on the grounds that Nestorius has just spoken of the dispatch of the seven bishops to Chalcedon and that this section deals with the agreement of Cyril with John of Antioch.
141. 2 Literally: 'seven of the one and seven of the other'.
142. 1 Syr. burkta, 'blessing', a euphemism for 'presents' or 'gifts'; see Payne-Smith. Thes. Syr., col. 614 b.
143. 2 Cp. Kidd, History of the Church, vol. iii, pp. 256-62. In April 432 the Emperor sent Aristolaus, a tribune and notary, to John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and St. Simeon Stylites. He was to endeavour to make peace by persuading the Easterns to abandon Nestorius and Cyril to give up his Twelve Articles. After some negotiations, in which Paul of Emesa joined Aristolaus, Cyril and most of the Easterns came to an agreement before the end of the year, Nestorius being abandoned but without the explicit withdrawal of Cyril's Articles. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), v. 277-84, 312, 347-51, 663-6, 827, S28; Lupus, Var. Patr. Epist., pp. 385, 386. Introd. pp. xxii, xxiii.
144. 4 Viz. Cyril and John of Antioch.
145. 1 Although the first actual quotation from the correspondence between Cyril and Acacius does not occur till about two pages further on, the section dealing with that correspondence seems to begin at this point. There is therefore no need to follow Nau in regarding this heading as a later insertion in the text.
146. 2 Viz. John.
147. 3 Viz. Cyril.
148. 1 Viz. Cyril.
149. 1 Viz. Nestorius.
150. 5 Viz. Cyril.
151. 6 Viz. the Eastern bishops.
152. 1 There is surely here a confusion in Nestorius' thought. Would not the divine nature, which prevents us from thinking of God the Word as being born, prevent us also from thinking of Him in any way as moving through space, e.g. passing through the Virgin?
153. 1 So the Syriac text; but the true sense is given by the Greek, where the verb is in the plural, the subject understood being the Easterns with whom Cyril has come to agreement. See pp. xiii, 401.
154. 3 Viz. the Easterns.
155. 2 The rest of this paragraph seems to be a statement of the characteristics of a 'natural union' designed to show that that form of union is inapplicable to the 'Union of the Nature' in Christ.
156. 1 Viz. Cyril.
157. 1 I.e. the union of Christ's divinity with his humanity took place simultaneously with the creation of the latter. Cp. p. 237.
158. 1 Viz. the Word.
159. 1 The whole passage is taken from Cyril's letter, and follows immediately on p. 393, n. 2; Nestorius has added the name 'Acacius'.
160. 2 Viz. the natures.
161. 3 The specific meanings of the words 'divide', 'distinguish', 'separate', etc., cannot be pressed in this translation. The editors have appropriated one English word to each Syriac word, but the result is at times unsatisfactory, as here. The sense required is clearly 'separate', while the Syriac word is that rendered throughout by 'distinct'. See the definitions on pp. 313-16. The Syriac translator seems to have used these words very loosely and without any precise discrimination of meaning. Cp. p. 154, n. 1.
162. 1 Here Nestorius gives the most concise summary of his position. He then goes on to contrast it with 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood; see p. 314, n.1
163. 1 Here Nestorius most directly repudiates 'Neslorianism' as usually underStood; see notes on pp. 205, 224.
164. 2 There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text.
165. 3 Viz. the Eastern bishops.
166. 2 I.e. the distinction of natures; see p. 316, n. 1.
167. 1 I. e. the distinction of natures.
168. 3 I.e. because Cyril only allows of one nature.
169. 4 From the letter which John of Antioch sent to Cyril by Paul of Emesa, Labbe (Mansi), v. 292 C.
170. 1 Cp. the passage from Cyr. ad Nest. iii quoted on p. 325, n. 1.
171. 1 ' Thus also of Christ....' This passage seems to reveal an important difference of terminology between Cyril and Nestorius. Nestorius spoke indifferently of two 'natures' or two 'ousias' in Christ, but he objects to Cyril substituting 'natural quality' for 'nature', assuming that a 'quality' is not necessarily a real element in an object of thought, but may be something said or thought about it existing only in the mind of the thinker. But if for Cyril 'nature' was the sum of the 'natural qualities' (φυσικαὶ ποιότητες) and they shared its reality, it is easy to see how there was room for confusion.
172. 3 Both 'idea' and 'reflection' represent the same Syriac word.
173. 2 Viz. the natural quality.
174. 2 Note that Nestorius here charges Cyril's teaching with implied docetism.
175. 3 Viz. the Easterns.
176. 1 Or 'absurd behaviour'.
177. 2 Or 'in might'.
178. 1 Viz, Cyril.
179. 2 Viz. the Eastern bishops.
180. 4 The Syriac text ascribes the words 'As then the pious... of this [business]' to Nestorius, making the second quotation from Cyril begin at 'But when the command...' The correction, accepted by both Bedjan and Nau, is based on the Greek original, of which the whole section is here printed; cp. Labbe (Mansi), v. 309E.
181. 1 Nau points out that the name 'Aleppo' is due to the Syriac editor; for the Greek has 'Beroea'. The See of Beroea only changed its name to that of Aleppo in a. d. 638. See p. xi.
182. 2 According to Bedjan and Nau, these words are to be regarded, not as the closing words of the extract from Cyril's writings, but as the Syriac editor's heading of the following section. Bedjan proposes to place here the beginning of Bk. II, pt. ii, instead of on Syr. p. 459.
183. 3 Viz. Cyril.
184. 1 Literally: 'a peace of schema'.
185. 1 Viz. Cyril.
186. 2 Or, 'more absurd'.
187. 1 Viz. Cyril.
188. 2 This is Nestorius' most concise summary of Cyril's position as he understands it.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_5_book _part .htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 336-380. Book 2 Part 2.
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 336-380. Book 2 Part 2.
BOOK II. PART II
Concerning what was done in the time of Flavian.
Now after Proclus Flavian became bishop of Constantinople, a man who was used to comport himself with uprightness and with reverence, but had not the ability to speak in public and to expound his discourses. He then who was accusing all the bishops, he who / was left behind alone of the rest of the others who had passed away, that is Eutyches, took heart, and, because he was not a bishop, set himself by means of the authority of [his] Majesty [to behave] otherwise----as bishop of bishops. For he was taking charge of the affairs of the church, making use of Flavian who, by reason of the greatness of his humility knew not the things which were being prepared, as of a minister in [the execution of] the things which were being commanded at Constantinople, while he was driving out of the church as heretics all those who were not holding these views of his; but those who were aiding him he raised up and aided. But apart [from this] he was making use of the authority of the Emperor, a reliable authority, and he was unwilling that two natures should be predicated of Christ even in saying, and was mocking at the Fathers who spoke thus, blaming them as hypocrites who by hypocrisy were dissembling the truth or [who] like heretics expressed these [views] of mine, since the doctrines of those men ought not to be embraced in the judgement of the faith. Thus, while he was confirming and preparing these things by the authority and by the commands of [his] Majesty, all the East was disturbed at these things and there was no place that had not been stirred up, because he had set aside all things as things / that were happening in schema; and already he was openly constraining them either to say things which they wanted not or to suffer wrong and to receive punishment.
For Flavian had heard that the churches were disturbed |337 anew over these things and the monasteries were divided and the people were rising up in parties, and that already the fire was kindling in all the world owing to those who were going and coming and were preaching various things that were full of impiety. And he 1 sent unto him,2 as they say, requesting him and beseeching him to spare the churches of God which were much distraught by the disturbances which had taken place aforetime and for which those things sufficed which had been settled while there was peace, and not to stir up against him 'that which was not stirred up against those who were before me, lest it should be supposed that it was not stirred up against them out of fear, whereas [it was so] in my own days because of the greatness of [my] negligence; for I confess that I am a miserable man. But what couldest thou have befall thee more than others? Yet, on account of my humility, even thou directest the episcopate and I have done everything that thou hast commanded without declining.'
But the other 2 on the contrary was saying: 'I aid thee / in the episcopate and thou oughtest to rejoice in the change: that these things, as they were being [done] out of hypocrisy, against them that [were] before thee will take place in thy days without hypocrisy. For now, to be sure, it is supposed that men have been purified from these [heresies] of Nestorius, whereas they have clung to his [views]; and we are supposed to have had a personal enmity towards the man and not [one conceived] on account of his impiety, since we have indeed condemned him but have let his faith flourish. Yet we ought entirely to drive out the things which he has said and confessed; for he was not sent away as confessing two natures distinguished from one another and [that] each of them was by itself Son, but because he confessed two whole natures and one prosôpon of two, which of constraint are called two natures in that the Son is named Son in each of the natures.' 3
But when Eusebius of Alexandria, who was bishop of Dorylaeum [and] who was regarded as a confessor because of |338 the words which had been said [by him] against me,4 had come unto Eutyches, he 5 indeed praised the freedom of speech which had been [taken] by him against me in the things which were done against me. He said: 6 'It would be suitable to thy freedom of speech itself to extirpate those who are encouraged by the impiety of Nestorius, and for this reason God himself has sent thee, not indeed as though thou lackest aught, for everything has been prepared beforehand by the Emperor, but indeed so / that thou shouldcst exult in thy affliction, if this too should come to pass by means of thee. But thus, if thou dost approach the Emperor in blaming those who need to accept two [natures], either therefore, thou sayest, that the things which were taking place at the Council in thy days may not be suppressed....'
But the other, supposing that he was neither disturbed nor yet angered at these things, but that he was quite calm, says unto him: 'Be thou silent, and labour not in vain, ye who want impossible things to take place, while neither all the Council which was at Ephesus nor Cyril himself, howbeit he was in agreement with the Easterns, has suppressed them. And afterwards again an agreement was [reached] concerning these very things, and one let be the things which were well [able] to be retained. For it is not possible that there should be taken from the church [the right] that two natures should be predicated of Christ without confusion, [those] of the divinity and of the humanity, consubstantial with his Father in the divinity and consubstantial with us in the humanity....' And Eutyches became perturbed against him and said: 'God confound thee, who [affirmest] that even formerly Nestorius had said naught against God, but that [he was] turbulent and vainglorious! For how [is it] that he who says the [same] things as Nestorius, can rise up against Nestorius? For these |339 words are his whom you have delivered up with much labour.' But Eusebius said / unto him: 'I know not what thou sayest: for I dispute not with him because he has predicated two natures, [n]or has the Council blamed him for this, but because he distinguishes and places [them] in sundry parts, God by himself and man alike by himself who make use of and are spoken of similarly only in honour and in equality alike. And in this way thou sayest [that there are] two natures and that the holy Virgin is not the mother of God, because God made the very birth of his flesh his own.' 7
And Eutyches says: 'Thou liest concerning it, because you hold his views without being supposed to be clinging unto his [views]. For he was proclaiming ten thousand times: "I say not two sons, I say one; I say not two natures, nor two sons, for the Son of God is twofold in the natures. For this reason she bare not the Son of God, but she bare the humanity which is Son because of the Son united thereto." And again: "Since God is not to be distinguished from him who is visible, how therefore do I distinguish the honour of him who is not to be distinguished?" It was not then because he had said simply two natures nor because he [had] said that the natures were not united, for [he said]: "I confess the twofold [nature], but I adore two in one because of the union", but that even after the union / he says [that there are] two natures and that the Son is twofold in the natures and says that the union resulted in one prosôpon and not in one nature. But you also, acting impiously, say this and nothing more; and all hypocrites ought to be extirpated. For I acknowledge after the union not another ousia in our Lord nor even do I surely conceive that our Lord, who is our Lord and our God, is consubstantial with us; but he is consubstantial with the Father in the divinity.'
And Eusebius says unto him: 'Does Nestorius speak thus, as thou sayest, or not? I am not now for my part concerned to investigate, but this I say: that he who says these things speaks correctly and thou, who confessest not with the |340 orthodox and, speaking of the flesh which is consubstantial with ourselves, either suppressest it or changcst it into the nature of the divinity, [dost not.] For this reason we ought to subject to inquiry those things which thou sayest [are the views] of Nestorius and whereof thou accusest the Council and Cyril of surely lying against him, since they imagine so; and thou confirmest the accusation of that man, that he imagines that the truth is so. Every one anathematizes this opinion as impious, and I shall prove [it] at a convenient time; for, if there is not a [human] nature in our Lord, / neither is he also consubstantial with us; the very ousia of the flesh has thereby been suppressed.' And Eusebius accused him of these things before Flavian and before the Council which was assembled with him at Constantinople and [Eutyches] confessed them and continued making a show of his impiety, confessing that the body of Christ was not consubstantial with us as though [resulting not] in two natures but in one nature.
This had stirred up the Emperor, and he had not wanted him 8 to be thrust out by deposition, but he was not heard. He therefore prepared all things for the deposition of Flavian and for the restoration of Eutyches. He commenced by attaching to him[self] the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Rome by written accounts of what was done against Eutyches;9 and one agreed and one agreed not [with him]. For the bishop of Rome had read the things which were done against Eutyches and had condemned Eutyches for impiety; but, when I found and read this account, I gave thanks unto God that the Church of Rome was confessing correctly and without fault, although they 10 were otherwise [disposed] towards me myself. But he 11 caused also the rest of the bishops to secede from him 12 and made them hasten unto Eutyches, insulting those who [remained] with Flavian, and without having vouchsafed liberty of speech before him[self] and before the chiefs; and they were surely rebuked, yet were they surely not heard / touching that for which they were |341 rebuked; but men were rising up with insult against them and seizing them and constraining them. And he caused the clergy also to secede from him, constraining and persecuting them in what was not given unto them for their sustenance; and the [charges], which he had commanded should not be exacted of the churches when he respected the church and God, in furious anger he commanded should be exacted of them with implacable abuse. And prelates were openly seized and rebuked before the crowds, and every bishop who was not of the party of Eutyches was seized; and he commanded every tax upon the possessions of their churches which had been remitted unto them by him and by the emperors before him, [even] the tax of all these years, to be exacted of them at one time; and of those who were nobles or of the family of noble persons he exacted openly, in return for the honour which was theirs, a quantity of gold----by which very [means] he commanded vengeance to be exacted of Eusebius, the accuser of Eutyches, without mercy. For these two [means] were employed [together] with all the assaults of hunger and of usury and of captivity, things which were innumerable, and he made the Roman nobility fall at his knees and groan.
/ And while Flavian was overwhelmed with all these things, he was keeping the feast of the Passover, during which the Emperor entered into the church. But he 13 looked not upon him as an enemy and he took the holy Gospel to have mercy upon them, while all the bishops and clergy were assembled with him and the [newly] baptized in their attire, while the people were crying [aloud] with him. And he fell upon his face and prostrated himself in the church, beseeching them to accept him making his defence, since he supposed that he respected the Gospel. But the other 14 dismissed him with scorn, menacing him as having acted insultingly in that he did it, while the bishops and clergy besought [the Emperor] with him and the [newly] baptized prostrated themselves upon the ground amid the voices of the people; and they persecuted |342 them as if [they were] acting insultingly towards [the Emperor], and he withheld himself from that time from entering into the church, and he commanded that whatever was due should be exacted with insult and [that] no respite should be granted unto him, so that he was consequently constrained to send [word] unto the Emperor that he had not possessions of his own, because he was poor, and that not even the possessions of the church, if they were sold, would suffice to [pay] the quantity of gold which was being exacted of him. But he had the holy vessels of the church, which he and the emperors his ancestors had placed [therein], and [he said]: 'I must melt them down, because I am driven [to do so] / by force.' But the Emperor then said: 'I want not to know [this], but the gold I do want in any way whatsoever.' And because of this he took out the vessels of the church and they were melted down openly, so that there was weeping and outcry among all who took part for these exactions that were being made, as though [they were being] subjected to persecution.15
But after the Emperor heard the things which were taking place, he was angered exceedingly and bitterly and furiously and as though indeed he 16 [had] brought about these things to scorn him. And he commanded that an Oecumenical Council should be assembled against him and that the deposition of Flavian himself should be undertaken. But Flavian, after he had been closely pressed by all sides and had seen that everything that he was doing and saying he was doing to his own blame and to his rebuke, and [because] he had no aid from [his] Majesty----for since, as they say, that came through the choice and zeal of his sister,17 [and] she was unwilling to show authority in aught in internal affairs, he had been [filled] with suspicion that on her account he was being wronged----he purposed to resign from the episcopate and go unto his monastery and dwell there; and he drew up a document of abdication and |343 gave [it] in. And after the Emperor knew that he had done this, he sent for him to come back unto him, as though he had done it to slander himself and to blaspheme against him; and [he sent word] that, if he should not return unto his church, he would fall into danger, [saying]: 'For I have not / commanded a Council to be held as if to wrong thee, but for [the purpose of] a true examination and the satisfaction of the truth in the things that are required.'
But, when he came back, he 18 immediately suborned accusers to say that the records which had been [drawn up] in Constantinople [of the things done] against Eutyches were false. But the accusers were those that took refuge with Eutyches [and] who were they that had written down the things which were done against him, and they were accusing themselves much more than Flavian, so as to be rather praised and not judged. By means of the liberty [accorded] by the Emperor they were doing all things by force, so that suddenly there came about the decease of Flavian, distressed so that he had no respite in all the accusations against him and was amazed and perished. But because he was capable of resisting, he 1 gave himself up to various absurdities and was doing all things desperately. For he anticipated also the bishops, who were undecided and who ought to have sat on the bench of judges, and he won them over and made them his own, such as the Bishop of Ancyra [and] him of Caesarea in Cappadocia, sending for them and, as though he was vexed at what was done against / Eutyches, interrogating them whether what was done against him was in truth done; and he said that the things which were done by the Council were deficient and that they remained accusers, and [he added]: 'We want to examine them before the governor and before your Pieties,' and he made them take heart thereby, so that they should not accept what was being [done] but should submit all things for arbitration to the wisdom of the Emperor.
But all these things were being done so that there might be no examination of the faith but [that] Flavian might be |344 deprived as a result of what was prepared outside [the Council] and [that] they might accept the [doctrines] of Eutyches, without examination. If Flavian then had said unto him these things, and that Christ is of two natures, and that the natures subsist after the union as things that have been united without confusion, and [that] he is consubstantial in the divinity with the Father and consubstantial in the humanity with ourselves through [his] mother, these then abbreviated his sayings and changed what the judges ought [to have heard], and condemned him as one that imagined the contrary. He was a man [worthy] of aid on account of his having been surely calumniated. But if they had deprived him as one that said not these things but as one that even then still persisted in these very [views] of his, confessing that he imagined thus and was attached unto the heretics who imagined not thus, wherefore do you abandon the examination concerning him and put into [the minds of] them that are outside [the thought] that there is in them / [cause for] suspicion, because they were brought about by the accusers? For they it was that wrote [against him] and they showed great zeal in what was being examined.
For suppose that something was deficient in the sentence of judgement by these or by those; perhaps even his 19 having been deprived by them was surely deficient. For what reason then have you not examined it in regard to its having been deficient, in [that for] which they have truly deprived him and in what he has not in truth agreed with them? For he who says: 'They have surely failed against me, who have been surely calumniated,' denies that he has said the things on account of which he has been accused and deposed. But if he has confessed that they were not two natures that were united and further [that] the bodily frame of our Lord was not consubstantial with ourselves, and even now is showing that he abides by the same [views], what is its having been defective, as though indeed these things are not sufficient to prove him possessed of a strange opinion? But by any means on the one hand he had denied the things that he said, on the other |345 hand he strengthened himself thereby against his accusers who deprived him. This then was already examined and he [had] also accepted the judgement. What other judgement or examination ought there [to have been] more than that which the bishop of Rome had pronounced? For he, when he had accepted what was done by the two parties, praised indeed the one but condemned the other by divine / inspiration, and had not simply passed sentence on them. And because they felt scruples before the bishop of Rome, they turned back to the bishop of Alexandria as to one who liked to run with them and was an enemy of the bishop of Constantinople.
Concerning what was done in Ephesus against Flavian.
For again indeed they had reached Ephesus, which is appointed and destined for the deposition of the bishops of Constantinople; and further the bishops of Alexandria and of Ephesus consented together and were aiding one another against the bishop of Constantinople. The bishop of Rome was not [there], nor the See of Saint Peter, nor the apostolic honour, nor the primacy dear to the Romans, but he of Alexandria sat in authority and made him of Antioch also to sit with him; and he of Rome----and we mean Julian, who represented the holy bishop of Rome----was asked if he was in agreement with the holy Council and wished to read in this account what was done at Constantinople. He,20 as / one that had authority, then asked and spoke as though even passing sentence against them. Yet they 21 conceded however unto him their intended purpose, not that he should accept that which they wished nor yet that he should give unto them the primacy, but that, if the bishop of Rome should agree with him, he should accept him as an addition to his party, and otherwise, supposing he were found [to be] against them, he might remove him afar as one that had not authority even in a single [thing], wanting to prove unto every man that they should not look unto the bishop of Rome, since he was not able to aid him of Constantinople. For after Julian had said: 'For this |346 do we wish, that the deed which was committed should be read out, if the letter of our father Leo has first been read,' afterwards indeed Hilary the deacon of the holy bishop of Rome said: 'After these records which you now want to read had been read before him, he! then sent that which he sent.22 When he had heard these things and there was naught that he ought to say, he 23 passed the opposite sentence concerning them: that 'this indeed was a procedure pleasing [unto him], that the things which were done should be read out and then the writings of the pious bishop of Rome.'
Wherein then is the procedure pleasing indeed that in the first place these things / and then the others should be read and, when they are read, the decision that thou wantest should be passed upon them? For what [reason] hast thou afterwards commanded things to be read when thou leavest no room to read them? Then thou commandest them to be read whose purpose thou wantest to make void! For thou didst know, thou didst know accurately what was sent concerning these things unto the Emperor and unto the Empress 24 and |347 unto Flavian himself, and contrariwise thou wentest by the road which led towards the Emperor and whercunto thou wast subjected, and left that which conducted towards God, and didst concern thyself very little therewith. But I have said too little: that is, [I have omitted to say] that thou didst not reckon it anything at all and didst despise him.25 And thou didst even sweep aside the adjurations of the bishop of Antioch26 who adjured thee with frightful adjurations, by the holy mysteries, not to show thyself zealous for the deposition of Flavian nor for his harm. 'It is right to look not to what would be for the consolation of the Emperor but to what will arise therefrom.' For I will examine and I will gratify the Emperor; [it is for us] to be eager not for defeat but for victory, because otherwise we cannot aid him, however much we show ourselves eager, when the Emperor strives with him and is angered [against Flavian]. And he is so altogether angered that he will turn unto chastisement unless we give [him] this room to appease his rage.' Thus by these words / he deceived him 27 and brought him under his control, and so he led him by this word which he had said as though with a bridle. And he27 accepted him and took part with him in the rest of the other [affairs], and he warred on his side and also [helped him to] deprive him 28 and the others and whoever in whatsoever manner was supposed to think the [same things] as Flavian. And concerning these things it seemed thus unto the Emperor. For I pass over the things, which were being directed against my own person 29 and [that] of Flavian, and all that they were wanting in order to drive out those who wanted not at all to anathematize us. However, they deprived him28 too by the same [means as me]. But others, who were injured, were deprived without judgement; for they saw not the judgement nor the place of judgement, nor was [the right of] defence nor speech granted unto them. Except him who had been pleasing to the Emperor and to Eutyches, these were depriving and driving them out of their cities. And |348 those who [were followers] of him of Antioch, had much defence [to make] before men concerning him to whom this was not conceded; for he was therefore sore beset without [hope of] aid by the very [means] wherewith he [had] acted against others, suffering for the same things and not on behalf of others. And [conduct] which had not even any reverence, from which there was no escape, that is his injury and the transgression of his adjurations, brought him to all these things. For he1 made him of Antioch, / who indeed was of such an opinion [as Flavian], an instrument against the bishop of Rome and against the bishop of Constantinople, since it was not quite forgotten by him 30 whether he held such an opinion; for they had written many times to one another concerning these things. Yet he made use however of the holy bishop of Antioch, such as he was, and he made use [of him] until he made him useless and unworthy of the work of the episcopate, and he cast him aside and deprived him, while [his] adjurations were still on his tongue, either [as] one that was useless to him or because he was frightened of him, seeing indeed that he had fallen into the temptation of having transgressed [his] adjurations. For this reason he had deprived him in this very [way] whereby he might be able even otherwise indeed to exact his vengeance. But he was frightened not only of him,31 in case he had this [same] opinion [as Flavian], but also of the Emperor, and he was doing all things [possible] lest, after carrying out by [means of] him all these things according to his wish, he should afterwards turn round and hate him as untruthful and transgressing [his] adjurations and [as one] who was committing all things unjustly to appease him who was in authority, and then would also work against him and cast him aside.
For it was even like this [that he was behaving] for the sake of him whom he was appeasing [and] whom he was drawing nigh unto him[self], and he was both / aiding him and advancing him in what he wanted. And he was doing all things [possible] and persuading every man to believe that he had undying love for him, and, when he was supposed |349 to love him the more when he was gathering the fruit of whatever he wanted, straightway he cast the man aside and then came to hate him 32 and turned away from him and wronged him; and he delivered him unto his enemies to be insulted as a man that had done very wrong and had sinned against his will, and he insulted [him] and transgressed against his adjurations. And for this reason, since he had known him, he had also wished to tempt him that he might be sinned against [by the very means] whereby he [had] sinned, in such wise that he might thereby become [his] master and slander the man before every one. And a trial of these things was made by this very man; for these things took place no long time before.
Concerning what happened about Cyril when the gold was exacted from him.33
For Cyril, who had given many things because of us, when he had gathered the fruit for which he had given [them], because the Emperor knew that he still had money, was indeed pledged in written documents [to pay] two thousand pounds [in] gold, as they say, that what was done against me might be confirmed. But because they had been confirmed / and he who had imposed upon him the condition that he should give [this sum] unto him,34 that is, John 35 had passed away with insult and in contempt with him who had laboured with him for what was done against me at Ephesus, and because some thing which he had done in his writings [had] come unto him, that he should take also that which was left, and should release the man,36 what did he34 do, according to what men say? He wrote unto him 36 a friendly letter,37 beseeching him to hear him and to come with him as far as Ephesus, because he was under a vow touching himself and touching what was done at Ephesus, to bring [it] and to complete [it] within [the church of] Saint John, |350 for the sake of an [holy] death through his intercession. And [he said]: 'If there is aught that I have not done well because I knew not, I want to be rebuked by thee and I will render unto thee the honour which I owe unto thee,' indicating his 38 flight from Ephesus and what he had done against him; and he wanted him to correct these things because of those who were rejoicing at his flight from Ephesus and who were supposing that he hated him and was striving on behalf of Nestorius. And he 39 required his return [unto Ephesus], so that every man might be convinced and not suspect these things, 'lest they that oppose [thee] should be [buoyed up] by a vain expectation, [and that] we may make them subject unto thee'.
But the other,38 since he knew naught thereof, had zealously / done the work, and he filled ships with all [kinds of] things and presents, as though for the Emperor and for the Imperial family and for the chief persons as much as was sufficient according to their rank and according to their honour. And he had come unto Ephesus and had given his presents and was honoured and caused every man to be amazed, and according to his honour he was in the mouth of every man. He was so honoured with all honour that he sat with the Emperor upon the first throne----and I mean [that] of the Emperor----while the Emperor sat on the second; and this happened also within the palace and in the [imperial] chariot and in public, so that the seat of the Emperor might be sanctified by his sitting [therein]. And for this reason he caused him to enter also into Constantinople, so that the brothers of the Emperor and the household of the Emperor and the city might be sanctified by his coming. But after he had here also satisfied the cupidity of men with presents and consequently had nothing [left over], he 39 then commanded that the gold should be exacted, the two thousand pounds, which he was pledged by written documents [to pay] and which he could not deny without being further deprived of his honour if he were to deny [them] and be convicted. But after he knew and perceived that the suffering which |351 had come upon him [was] a great wrong, he gave pledges for these [two thousand pounds] and sailed across the sea amid storms and in a great disturbance / and fled, lest he should fall in with other wrongs by reason of the accusers who were accusing him....
But again I revert there to the just judgement of Dioscorus, who had received from Cyril the primacy and a hatred for the bishop of Constantinople. For their aim was not this, to attain the truth, but in every way whatsoever to strengthen themselves. For before Flavian had entered into the assembly, as they say, the other * had taken the seat and the place of the bishop of Constantinople and had made the others precede him, so that he sat at the end, as if [treated] with contempt. But he thought indeed nothing like this and sat down; but the other himself,40 wanting to make a show of his tyranny, in the first place made this stir----and thou didst it that it might cause suffering unto him of Rome, as they say----and he arose and constrained him 41 and made him come and sit upon his own throne. And then the Counts, who had been charged with this, restrained the bishops who were assembled and were wanting to speak for him2 outside what was asked of them by the bishop of Alexandria, who had the power of authority. / And those that had come from outside to [bear] witness to all the things which happened aforetime and [who] were able, in respect to the conviction of Eutyches of having said these things also before his accusation, to prove that there had been no calumny----and I mean the enclosed [monks] in the monasteries and all those who were supposed to have come on behalf of Flavian----they made to hide themselves and be in alarm because of their coming, as though they had vainly and boldly given themselves up on behalf of him who had been deprived by the Emperor from Constantinople.
But all of those with Eutyches----they were monks----were in [the enjoyment of] great liberty and authority, in such wise that whatever men wished to be [done] by authority |352 was done by means of them, so that also they delivered unto the chiefs themselves and unto the inhabitants of the city all those who were indicated unto them. For every man was made subject unto them, and they were ministering unto them whether they were willing or whether they were unwilling. For what was being done was displeasing unto many of them, but they were constrained and [were] weeping. And by every means they were doing the things which were commanded; and they were carrying off men, [some] of them from the ships and [others] of them from the streets and [others] of them from the houses and [others] of them while praying from the churches, and were pursuing [others] of them / that they fled; and with all zeal they were searching out and digging after those who were hiding in caves and in holes in the earth. And it was [a matter] of great fear and of danger for a man to speak with the adherents of Flavian on account of those who were dwelling in the neighbourhood and keeping watch and were as spies to see who entered in unto Flavian.42 And on account of this they were going and taking part with the adherents of Eutyches, [some] of them indeed since they feared to bear ill-treatment, and [others] of them since they had been the first to depend upon his own aid, and were speaking and lying much; and all that they were saying unto him against the other 43 was approved and [such things] were said unto him as if for [his] pleasure.
But they had dissociated from him 43 Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, who was the accuser of Eutyches, and they had neither let him come in nor defend himself;44 and they had also dissociated [from him] all the Council which had heard [him] and which had set him 45 aside at Constantinople [and] which ought to have spoken with him and established the things which it did. And they isolated him from all sides and made all of them his accusers, who suffered from fear lest they should bear ill-treatment; for both if a man were not |353 persuaded and if he were persuaded, it was by all means certain / that he would bear ill-treatment if he did not belie Flavian and become a partisan of Eutyches. But thus they were beforehand in settling him 46 and stripping him on all sides and placing him [in a position] without hope and without freedom of speech, so that there was even no speech [left] in him. For all of them prepared themselves as if not to hear him but by all means to condemn him, and they brought him into the assembly, insulting him and not letting him defend himself against [the things for] which he was rebuked. And before the presence of the Counts, who were in charge, they were stirring him up and instigating him, commanding him not to speak. But hear however this speech also which was [extorted] by force and by constraint for [a proof of] the mockery of the trial of this man.
For when the records [of the things] which were [done] in Constantinople against Eutyches and the agreement and the signature[s] of the bishops opposed to Eutyches, and especially [that] of Selcucus, bishop of Amasia, who had condemned him, were read, they examined him neither by any judicial process nor by any [regular] procedure, so as to exact of him the acknowledgement 47 of his signature, [in order to discover] what his view was 48 and whether it had been correctly put by him; but they passed sentence without examination and as if as the result of a labour confused / [and] indiscriminate, which was uncontrolled and unruly. They were crying out '[These] things are not [the concern of] the bishop of Amasia; divide thou not the indivisible!' in such wise as thereby to dismay the man and so that he should agree with those who were accusing him.49 And by this demonstration |354 they [wished also to] make others fear and deny the sentence which they [had] passed and calumniate Flavian in one and the same manner; for this [treatment] was common unto all those who accepted him and agreed with him.
There ought therefore to be also a common judgement [both] of those who had condemned him l and [of those who] agreed with him and had repented of the signature which had been signed against Eutyches, but they were however doing these things in order to show that they ought by all means to condemn Flavian, as though he had modified their words and the decision of their judgement, nor was it [possible] for them to make [their] defence otherwise. But, that they might accuse Flavian, Dioscorus, the instigator of this examination, while putting to silence the unruly crowd, was crying aloud in his [own] unruliness: 'Be silent awhile; let us hear also the other blasphemies. Why do we blame only Nestorius? There is many a Nestorius.' Not one convicted him of holding these views of mine, nor yet did he allow [any one] to calumniate him in me, / but indeed he 50 spoke of me as well as of him; for the other too----he was of them that speak correctly----was however saying: 'I speak in one way and he in another,' and was denying that I said these very things, either because thou knewest it not or out of fear. Without therefore having given unto him a chance to defend himself, he anticipated [him] and condemned him, lest, when he defended himself, the truth should be established concerning the things whereof he was accused: [that is,] that they were not the doctrines of Nestorius but of the Divine Scriptures and of the holy Fathers who [had lived] before the three hundred and eighteen and of those after them. For it was possible through him in all respects to prove that they 51 were orthodox. |355
So therefore that these things might not be examined, in that they could not deny that they were [the views] of the orthodox, and that, in accepting them as [those] of the orthodox, they might not again let go that which they were zealous to do, [that is,] to condemn Flavian and acquit Eu-tyches, they passed over these words and went on to accuse him of other things, as though he was surely modifying the decision of the judgement. And they gave him [permission] to defend himself on this charge and not on that on account of which and by means of which Cyril and the Council of Ephesus were exposed. For among the things which they had said, the adherents of Cyril and of Eutyches culled / what was in agreement with them and chose what was pleasing unto them, and the partisans also of Flavian [acted] similarly in opposition to the former. But Cyril was the father of many heresies and used to say this and that and otherwise at the same [time], in such wise that, when they made use of what was contrary, [it was impossible that] they should not distort those things which happened in the time of Cyril and what happened at Ephesus. And of necessity they 52 supported my own words [so as] to suppress what was done against me and that there might be no chance for [the execution of] what was being done against Flavian on account of the accusation of Eutyches. For these reasons they 53 would not allow Seleucus himself to make [his] defence, nor even support what was written by him. But in short they had recourse to such an outcry that no one else dared to make a defence but [only] to say what they wanted against Flavian, [that is] that the things which were brought about by the decision of the judgement of Eutyches were [being] modified by him [and] that they would accept such a signature without a word. For thereby has their aim become known unto every man, but [even] is it known from the signature of Atticus.54
/ Now Atticus 54 was a countryman and a rustic unable even |356 to [understand] evident things; for he was a confidential servant,55 and had been brought up within the house like slaves, and had been given to the great palace of the imperial household; and, since he had thus the licence of influence and greatness, he had been elected among the bishops, though he was not learned in nor understood ways and triflings and schemings such as these. And they had constrained him lyingly [to] say that it was surely modified, and he constrained them to say and to make known unto him the violence, since he understood not what they were saying unto him. For Atticus the bishop had said: 'Immediately I entered Constantinople and looked upon the hearers and the monk who was saying: " Sign, my lord," I said unto him: " [Wait] awhile; allow me to see." And I heard him reading something lying. And after these things he said unto me: " Sign, my lord." I said: " I cannot sign; truly indeed I know, but I cannot say aught; I say however that if any one believes not as the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nicaea and those at Ephesus, let him be anathema in this world and in that to come." ' And Dioscorus, as before a child that is accused, commanded Atticus to deny [these charges] and to belie himself, and he said what he wanted [him] / to say, [that is:] 'These things therefore which have been read are lies and trifling.' And Atticus knew not what he wanted him to say and said: 'I know not,' because they had suggested unto him to say [that] they were lies and trifling, and Atticus knew not. Again he asked him otherwise, suggesting unto him: 'Hast thou not said these things?' and hardly, as they goaded him on, did Atticus know what he wanted him to say; and Atticus said: 'No.' And again they wanted to confirm what he wanted him to say. Dioscorus grew confident to ask him about the same things [and] he even said: 'I have heard what has therefore been said by thee.' He said what he wanted [him] to say and to teach, because he was afraid lest he should reply to him one thing for another. And Atticus says: 'I have heard.' And |357
Dioscorus suggested unto him, saying: 'Then thou hast not said them?' And Atticus, suggesting [the same thing] as he who was prompting him, said also the same things: 'Have I not said [it]? ' Thus both before the Emperor and before other men he made use of the same artifice so as [to ensure] that they would deny their own signature and act against Flavian irreverently and unjustly. He accepted indeed the things which [were said] by them / without examination and the things which had been said under [stress of] evidence, [that is] that they 56 had been modified, he accepted without hesitation.57 |358
But he wanted Flavian to speak against them, and they allowed him not, since he was quite [overcome] by constraint such as this and by violence, but they wounded him, as the Counts say, so that he should surely not speak until the signature against him was complete and the [affairs] of Futyches were thus confirmed, and that for which they were zealous wholly attained; for they were therefore assembled as for a dead man. For when that which was done against Eutyches was read in the records and Flavian had spoken against them, they said: 'He Is surely lying about our own signature,' and they wounded him, as men say. Then, after the decision of the judgement and the sentence against him had been promulgated, as was pleasing unto them, Dioscorus had commanded him to speak, and he said: 'If the godly bishop Flavian knows aught that would aid him, let him say [it] in written documents.' What ought he, who knew that in all things his just words had been repudiated with violence such as this, to have said? And they were therefore commanding him as in sport to say, in addition to what he had said: 'Thou hast inhibited my just words, in that thou hast accepted every calumny against me without hesitation.
/ Yet in order that this too might be proved to have been [done] in sport, they had set down in the records for [our] instruction, even though they were unwilling, in what way they [had] checked all his just words: that Dioscorus said unto Flavian: 'The holy Council knows if I have inhibited thee,' and Flavian spoke openly of the violence which had been [done] unto him, [saying:] 'I have not been let alone nor is it permitted unto me even to speak,' so that it was also known that these things which were said were [said] in mockery. He 58 said: 'Say what would aid thee,' and he said that there |359 was no trifling or lying in the affair of the records; and 'both my lord Eusebius and my lord Thalassius, who signed and examined [them] with me knew [it]'. And Thalassius and Eusebius repudiated his statement, [saying] that they had not examined [them]. Then consequently, in that they were addressed only in mockery, namely, after the sentence, Thalassius said these [same] things as Dioscorus: 'There is no one restraining thy Saintliness from speaking,' and Dioscorus mockingly replied unto each one of the bishops who perceived this artifice, saying: 'My lord Eusebius, say whether these things have not taken place, and examine, so that he may be found guiltless. But hast thou indeed restrained him from speaking, and, further, dost thou urge him to speak? ' And, after he had spoken unto him, he 59 again said the same things: / that this affair had been before my lord Thalassius and my lord Eusebius, when also my lord Magnus the privy councillor 60 was present, and had been examined, and naught such as this was found [in it]; every single one of the bishops who were there present [and] those who heard [the case] would say as before God whether it had been said lyingly.
Dioscorus again mocked him, [saying] that this to be sure was no defence, and the other supposed that he was in truth offering him [leave] to speak, having let him examine these things. And again, deriding, he 61 turned to face Stephen and said unto him: 'Hast thou prohibited him?' and unto all of them: 'Speak, all of you.' And thus he made sport of the man himself who was not versed in nor knew the wickedness and the wiles of the Egyptians but supposed that they were [filled] with piety and were eager to speak more than the truth in the interests of those who were misrepresented by slander. And consequently, after he 59 knew what they were doing and that there was not [any] urgency at all for defence nor for proof, he became quiet and bore witness before every man, saying: 'By the aid of God I am not affected by aught of what you have done unto me; for I have neither confessed aught and thought at all otherwise, [n]or do I confess [otherwise now].' And he then was silent [and ceased] to answer / a word unto |360 him as if unto an evident heretic. And for this reason he had incited him to speak, and he 62 persisted in this confession. He suffered naught that he ought not, nor was he like unto the bishops of this world of his time who agreed in all that men were demanding of them, nor did he even change the likeness of his opinion but persisted in giving himself up to suffer; nor was he resolved nor even purposed to say: 'I am a simple man and I am far from this exactitude; and also aforetime we were instructing and persuading Eutyches, and I have condemned him as indeed I was persuaded [to do] by his accusers who were supposed to know something, having been persuaded by the opinion of many and not by myself; and now, if it seems [good] unto all of you together and you have examined [and found] that these [opinions] of Eutyches are [those] of orthodoxy, I too am persuaded of that whereof all |361 of you are persuaded, and I will sign with you in order to cling to those of orthodoxy; and reckon me also with the party of those bishops who need to be condemned!'
For all things would have been brought to an end by this discourse, as well as the anger of the Emperor who clung to the slander and was zealous for tyranny, for which reason indeed he had caused the Council to assemble. But he had not been persuaded, even in Constantinople, when all of them / were persuading and beseeching him to do this, nor yet in Ephesus, where consequently the wrong was nigh at hand, when he was on the verge of death and it was being said by every man that only this was for him [a means of] escape from death, while he saw all of them fleeing from him and taking part with Eutyches and being rescued thereby. And I was a proof for him that neither deprivation from the bishopric of the city nor yet silence sufficed for me not to give them a cause for change, but [that] the cause wherefore I was suffering wrong [was] altogether that I was heard to be [still numbered] among the living. For, as long as thou art alive, expect death from the wicked; therefore, that thou mayest not surrender the faith, let all these things for [thine] endurance be [ever] before thine eyes. For immediately after [his] deposition was suspected, he was carried off as if by bears and by lions by the Counts before whom this deprivation took place in such a way that he was both dragged away and hurled down, and some were saying and even doing [one thing and others] another. And he was isolated and perturbed by all of them, and his spirit was vexed. And they delivered him up to the soldiers and commanded them to lead him away and remove him from the holy places. And they led him away and incarcerated him, / a man who was fainting, in prison. And before he came unto himself and was revived and was breathing fresh and pure air and taking nourishment that strength might be a little [restored] in him, they delivered him up unto the officer and threatened to send the man away, bruised.
And he was unable to endure the hardship of the journey. The Emperor was as one that desired not his life but wanted |362 to punish him and not to keep him alive. And thus they brought him down by force and gave him to a man [that was] a murderer so as to destroy him and to send him without mercy, in word indeed unto his [own] place, but in reality unto destruction. And thus he was dragged away and led off, [with strength] sufficient only to survive four days, as men say, while every day his soul was being released from his body, and they counted his decease [as] a festival for them[selves]. And wrongs were being increased against all of them who agreed with him and his fellow believers. And further I [was] among the first in severe persecutions and in flight and in exiles and in commands whereby authority was given in every place unto them to do what they were purposing; since I and Flavian certainly thought the same things. And authority was given unto the people to lead off and to hale away and to deliver up. Slaves / were accusing their masters by the same [means], and authority was given unto them [to do so] by the command of the Emperor;63 and all their eagerness was to lead their own souls into error as well as the souls [of those] who conceived or thought that God the Word is immortal. And they were saying things more impious than these in such wise as to constrain [men] to say that it was his ousia, [that] of God the Word, which died. And he 64 had given unto them authority against every man while the chiefs were not trusted nor the bishops nor all this world nor enemies nor slaves; but, as though they fell short of their cupidity and their zeal in regard to those who called God the Word immortal and impassible, they set up those who were more eager to scrutinize and to search out, to seek for those who were fleeing. And all these [terrors] overtook them; and the suspicion and the expectation of sufferings were worse for them than the sufferings; and it was evidently a Pharaonic struggle against God.
/ Enumeration of some part of the ills which happened in the world because of the transgression against the true faith of God impassible, with a prophecy.
But after these things began to take place concerning the |363 faith and in respect to the discussion against [the doctrine] that God the Word was not immortal and impassible, it therefore [came to look] as though the immortal God the Word himself had no care for them;65 for those [who thought] therefore that God the Word was not immortal had begun to be overthrown and brought to subjection in one way and another and some of them in all ways and there was none to turn aside the wrath.
What happened in [the way of] earthquakes and wars.
1. They had been worn out with pestilences and famines and failure of rains and hail and heat and marvellous earthquakes and captivity and fear and flight and all [kind of] ills, and they came not to perceive the cause of ills such as these; but they were the more inflamed and embittered against any one who dared to call God the Word impassible, as though they were suffering these ills because men called God the Word himself impassible and immortal; and there was no place of refuge.
/ 2. A twofold upheaval on the part of the barbarians and the Scythians, who were destroying and taking every one captive, had shaken them and there was not even a single hope of rescue; and hitherto they understood not that all this was not simply human.
3. And therewith he 66 had also shaken the earth with earthquakes, the like of which there was none that remembered. 67 For thus the earth was shaken, as a thing that was being overturned and burst open or inevitably destroyed. But when again it ceased [from trembling] and was firm as aforetime, it was like unto a thing that a man had grasped, [torn] out of its natural place; he indeed who shook it was also shaken therewith. [It was] not only to the eyes that it showed its shaking which shook it and the stability that established it [anew in its place], but it brought all men themselves to perceive [it] and through the greatness of all |364 [these] things it brought knowledge to the minds [of men] more than speech [would have done].
4. The barbarians indeed had drawn nigh and had assailed the Romans and reduced them to all despair.
5. But in Constantinople, the imperial city, the towers of the wall which were built with it had collapsed and left the wall [isolated], though it had not suffered any [injury] from the things whereby it had been shaken, and they remained as things that have not been shaken, while there was not / even a single indication in them of the earthquake; and even [in some] of the places in the midst of the walls the stones had started out of the whole building and from the parts adjoining the building; even the lime had been shaken out.
6. And some things appeared openly in one part of the city [in one way, and others in another part] otherwise, and things had not been shaken by a common earthquake but to convince men that he who was doing these things was immortal and had authority over them.
7. About the Forum of Theodosius the Great. For even the stones which were bound with iron and lead had been torn up, being borne up into the air and remaining suspended awhile and then falling; and, when those that were about to meet them were coming out, they immediately fell. And ten thousand other things and many [there were] which were happening in other countries and were being heard of and were a great cause of trepidation and fear, so as to bring men, though unwilling, to supplication and to the beseeching of God to have mercy upon them, not however as he wished; for some were beseeching him [for some things and others] for others, according to their [own] calculation, and were praying unto him for what they possessed. And this one was saying: 'God that has suffered and died for us' and was beseeching [him], while yet another [was praying] otherwise, as though they were saying that which was honourable unto them. For they were [filled] with wrath and with anger against / those who dared to call | him] immortal and impassible; and for this reason did afflictions and fears which |365 were very fearful crowd the more upon them, while their wrong deeds recoiled upon them, so that there was no time for them to have leisure to act wrongly towards the pious who were among them.
Concerning 'Holy God'.
But, since he wished to bring them to perceive their blasphemy and to desist therefrom, because they came not thereto, God himself gave unto them a manner of intercession ----for he who should do this had not been found----whereby they should say: 'Holy God, holy [and] mighty, holy [and] immortal, have mercy upon us.' 68 And every one assented with one mind thereto and left off the things for which they had yearned [and] for which God had not yearned. And they wrote this down in the basilica and in public 2 and set it up thus: 'Glory and thanks to the holy one and to the immortal, God the saviour of all'; and they had almost succeeded in confessing God immortal; and that to which they clung they denied not, but this was sung in every place. But after the earthquake had ceased and a few wars were arising, they roused themselves again and revealed themselves against God; and they were dissembling the confession [of faith] in God, as persons that remembered not the [formula] 'God the holy one and mighty and immortal', who was able / to bring wars to peace even without human might, wherein was his might and except for which there was not [any kind] of preparation [for war]; and they have made trial of this thing in fact. Now indeed they have ceased even from [this] supplication.
But a little before their war with these barbarians the very cross alone used to teach them and bring them to believe in God, who more [than all] swept warriors away without a weapon. But before this, when the barbarian was stirred up by an army, he threw himself into holes and fastnesses. For, |366 because the people of the Scythians were great and many and formerly were divided into peoples and into kingdoms and were treated as robbers, they used not to do much wrong except only as through rapacity and through speed; yet later they made them a kingdom and, after they were [established] in a kingdom, they grew very strong, so that they surpassed in their greatness all the forces of the Romans. And God showed them that he was not become weak, against whom they had already agreed together and whom they had made subject unto suffering and unto death. And they strengthened the persecutions against them that confessed God holy and mighty and immortal, and they let be him in whom they hoped and [by whom] they were rescued from death; and he gave them the knowledge / to repudiate the death of God but to acknowledge him and to confess that he is immortal.
But, because this had taken place and they had not been converted to glorify the God who rescued them but blasphemed and constrained every man to confess the death of God but shunned [the term] 'immortal' as impiety, the barbarian again was stirred up against them, massacring and swarming over all the land of the Romans and overturning everything. And they had no means [of escape] nor refuge but were stricken with fear and had no hope. And he had closed them in and made them insufficient in everything that they were doing for their salvation; and, because they understood not their former salvation, he had sent this man whom he had taken from pasturing sheep, who had protested against the privy [purposes] of the heart of the Emperor. And already he had been stirred up by God, and he commanded to make a cross; and as though indeed he 69 believed him not, he made [it of] wood with his own hands and sent [it] against the barbarians. But he had planted another cross also within the palace and another in the forum of Constantinople in the midst of the city that it might be seen of every man, so that even the barbarians, when they saw it, fled and were discomfited. And the Emperor himself, who was already |367 making ready / to flee, gained confidence to remain, and the nerves of the city, which was enfeebled, grew firm and all things happened thus.
For when the barbarians had fled in discomfiture, while none was pursuing them, and the Emperor was mightily heartened to engage in thought for his empire, and the city was mightily filled with encouragement, they found none other cause of [this] sudden change----because there was none else doing this: to discomfit the one and encourage the other ----except only the cross, which had been set up, of him who was crucified in nature and in truth, that is, [of] the bodily frame which had been crucified naturally. And it is known unto us that we should not be ashamed to say that he died, and not God who made mighty the bodily frame, weak and passible and mortal, which suffered and died by lifting up [upon the cross]. For this reason also the wood whereon he was crucified was [a means] to salvation. For, as though for one that believed not and repudiated the crucifixion of the mortal body which can save, he commanded to make the cross of wood, to effect thereby salvation such as this in the city and amidst the barbarians, in such wise that it is not doubted that it is a crucifixion of the body which has given life to all the world, and not of God who by the lifting up of the body and the cross has effected such a miracle as this.
/ But because they had feigned themselves wise in this, as though the divinity was crucified and not the body, they were still left in opposition to the pious, who were saying that the crucifixion was not of the divinity but of the body of the divinity and [that] for this reason he saved us through the cross. Again God raised up anew the vehemence of the barbarians and earthquakes against this Pharaonic intention. And again, because he sought to restrain them from [the persecution of] the pious and from [inflicting upon them] the sufferings which they caused them to bear----for then only were they revived and set free----by both of them he taught [them] that the impious thought, wherein was [contained] the confession of [his] death, was not pleasing unto him. |368 For, although they supposed that that which [had been caused] by the barbarians was death [caused] by men, yet they could not suppose this of that which was being [caused] by the earthquake. But, after they had not even so come to a perception of the glory of God incorruptible, and were imputing death and suffering and weakness unto him in manliness and immortality such as this, he had then taught them by the words themselves 70 not to impute blemish and decay unto God, because he is holy and free from all sufferings and even without weakness, he who by a weak cross quitted himself manfully like a man and was [endowed] with all manliness. So then impute not death / unto him who is alone immortal and by our own death has proved that he is immortal by means of the confession of the holy and of the mighty and of the immortal.
But because they abode not by what they had been forced to confess and had not believed in God the mighty and immortal, who is able to make even wars to cease, they had [not only I become the slaves of the barbarians and been subjected unto slavery to tribute unto them by the confession of written documents, but were also giving [it] unto those who were warring on his side. And there was naught that he, who showed the barbarian [to be] master and the Romans slaves, did not. And thus the supremacy had changed over unto the barbarians, as though the Romans themselves had not God who [is] over all, holy and mighty and immortal. For this reason the rest also of the peoples fled unto him but fled from the Romans, so that they were not even able to rescue themselves. And because they had thus set up the supremacy, as though they had no urgent need for divine aid and had not come to themselves, they remembered not even the very confession of the holy one and the mighty and the immortal which they had taken into their mouths; but contrariwise they were again maintaining the sufferings of the divinity, by means of which they were showing that not one of these [attributes] was his. For with the sufferings and the death this also was assumed: that he was neither holy / by |369 nature nor immortal by nature nor mighty by nature, until God had again restored [some] of them, whether they wanted or whether they wanted [it] not, for the reputation of their impiety and for the defence of those who had suffered wrongfully and for the instruction of those who in anticipation were praying unto Flavian and Eusebius, whom they would have killed.71 Because men made compensation unto God, having confessed him [to be] both holy and mighty and immortal, both by law and by commands and by penalties they confirmed [their actions] against those who confessed God the Word [to be] holy and mighty and immortal and [punished them] with despoilment and exile and death, until Theodosius, who had raised himself up against God, was taken from [their] midst; and the mouth [of every man] was opened to confess and to glorify and to adore God the holy and mighty and immortal, speaking without fear.72 For not he who calls Christ God passible and mortal confesses Christ [to be] God, but he who speaks of Christ in his divinity which he is in his nature and confesses God impassible and immortal and mighty and holy in his nature but passible in his humanity, in that he confesses that he is by nature man.
But some will say: 'What participation hast thou with Flavian and with what has been done against him and on his account? For / thee every man has anathematized and denounced, and what thou addest after this thou toilest to thine [own] evil name and to thine [own] accusation and not to a simple and just defence.' That which I say unto him above and below and always is that it concerns me not to |370 have mercy upon any man such as these, but to be very anxious whether through my own anathema they are rescued from blasphemy and [whether] those who are rescued confess God holy and mighty and immortal, without changing the image of God who is incorruptible unto the image of man who is corruptible and mixing paganism in the midst of Christianity, but confessing God himself as is his image and confessing man as is his image, in such wise that the passible and also the immortal arc confessed in the image of their natures, so that Christianity confesses not a change of God nor yet a change of man, [after] the likeness of the impiety of paganism. But let yea be yea and nay nay in truth, so that Christ in truth and in nature may be confessed to be the saviour and the saved, God and man, who is in nature immortal and impassible as God and mortal and passible in nature as man. He is not God in both the natures nor yet man in both the natures. Therefore my own aim and my zeal is that God may be blessed and glorified even on earth as in heaven. / But may Nestorius be anathematized; but may they say what I pray them to say concerning God. For I am of those who [are] with God and not of those who [are] against God, who scorn God himself in the schema of piety and make void [the fact] that he is God. For he was for the things [for] which I war, and they that war with me against him; and for this reason on his account I am pledged to endure and to suffer everything, so that by my own anathema would that every man might be [ready] enough to be reconciled unto God, because there is naught greater or more precious unto me than this. Nor would I have declined to say the contrary of what I used to say, if I had known that they were wanting [me] to say the contrary of these things which I used to say in everything whatsoever and [that] they were of God, and [that] I should thereby be honoured before God on account of the [attributes] of God which I have regarded as God and not as man....
But otherwise again [it is the case ] that I have not merely said the things touching Flavian, but I have cited them for a proof of what was done against me with impiety and with |371 injustice, in such wise that certain men arc not deceived by the name 'Council ' but seek [to learn] the things which took place with all truth and judge [some] of them before God, although they took place otherwise. For Satan is disguised in the schema of an angel of light 73 and deceives / men [in order] to remove them afar from God. But further, since I have judged in my mind that to hide the dispensation which came about through the might and the wisdom of God without showing and revealing them unto all men is a great peril and [fraught] with all impiety and ingratitude----for he had done them on their account, that he might undo the schemes of them that were confirming their impiety and causing it to shine forth, and expose them bare, while I was not believed in what I was saying, whereas they were doing and had also done this in their assembly in the Council----all of which [it was] that I was suffering, and they believed me not. But it was not possible to refute and to undo these things which had been done in the Council, but the will to impiety was [stronger] than the will of God, by means of which the impious were convicted of being impious and the pious of being pious; and they contended unto death and preserved that sincerity of mind which was owing unto God. For when the time [was] not that under discussion which came by the patience of God [and] wherein some suffered and others caused them to suffer, the impious were not revealed [as] impious 74 nor they that were worthy of such forethought as this [as worthy thereof, forethought] which had turned them aside from the contest against God, in which operations he was warring and fighting against them and restraining them from kicking against / the pricks of God; and yet not even so were they converted from their iniquity, while the pious had not been dispersed nor yet discouraged, while God was patient, from suffering throughout their whole lives, having adhered unto the purpose of |372 God. For this reason one finds that diligence and aid have been relaxed by those who had taken it 75 up, and they have neglected what has been [entrusted] to them and diligence has been [only shown] by them in making pretence without knowledge concerning what ought to have been corrected, things which were disregarded and set aside by them. For it would have been right to cut short the things which were wrongly [done] and not to hide them. Those things then which [came about] as for correction were of God; what concealed them was not of God but of those who were undoing his [work].
For for what reason do you suppose that they who possessed the inhabited world [as] their home became the spoil of the barbarians? Was it not because they made not use of the supremacy which was given unto them as was right, that the peoples might know the grace which was given unto them, in such wise that they might learn as slaves what was required, because they learnt not as masters? For what reason again heard they the word of the Gospel, not from the orthodox but from the worshippers of creatures? 76 They were / brought into subjection neither to the supremacy of the Empire nor yet under the religion wherein they were, that they might know that, when they took the supremacy of the Empire, they preserved not even in the Empire the supremacy of their religion in God; for this reason also they were not supreme in aught else, in that the supremacy changed over to [their] enemies. For whereby they neglected the Gospel, by these very things were they rejected from the supremacy; and they took part also in the faith of the worshippers of creatures and were distinct [only] in name and in the use of the term 'consubstantial'. As these3 confess the created and the uncreated and say 'consubstantial' in one way as if in praise and attribute the nature in another way by the distinction of the created and of the creator, thus also those 77 |373 attribute the nature in one way unto the passible and unto the impassible, the created and the uncreated, and say 'consubstantial ' in another way in name alone as something [said] in praise, since they hold supremacy and religion in opposite senses without straightforwardly confessing the nature. For until even the [term] 'in nature' is freed from suspicion and has taken away the supremacy from the fear and the fear from the supremacy, [the supremacy] being supported by God, so that he may be glorified in heaven and on earth and [that there may be] glory in heaven and peace on earth in the government of the affairs thereof, God ceases not to guide us and to teach us, just as those / who teach children, making use of plagues and of protests which ought to teach us and to convince us that we err, and defending the silent and proving their victory.
For what have I done of these things which have happened as they have happened and not God himself? For because they have betrayed the tradition of the Fathers and have closed the mouth[s] of those who exacted the rights of the Fathers, so for this reason [some] of them have inclined unto Arianism according to what has been confessed [by them], and [others] of them unto Manichaeism, and [others] of them unto Judaism, and [others] of them unto other [errors, both] new and old. God has raised up of them and among them their own [judges], as he used to raise up judges from among the Jews, to confute them for their transgression against God, that is Flavian, who was representing me [in that] whereby he ought to have been my enemy, as indeed he was unto me both unwittingly or for some other reason, and Eusebius, who used to war against me. They have confessed without any cause for alarm, having warred against the adherents of Cyril, who were blaspheming and seeking to gain their ends. And God abandoned them not until they showed hostility unto Cyril; since these indeed were citing his words against those, and those again were choosing those things / which were opposed to these and setting them against |374 them; and they were mutually disputing, the one [side] with the other. And these were saying that they were Manichaeans since they referred all things, even the properties of the flesh, unto God the Word. But these too were accusing those of holding my opinions, since I too say these [same] things, and of referring the properties of God to the nature of the divinity and the properties of the humanity to the humanity; and they admitted that the union took place in prosôpon and not in the nature. And every man was within a very little of disputing with his neighbour, protesting against him on my account, as though I was surely calumniated. And these my [words] were quoted with all zeal; and these were refuting them that were saying that I predicate two sons, as indeed was never said by me; and those were confuting them that were predicating one nature for calling God himself passible, as I was saying that they said.
Who was it that constrained them to say these [same] things as I, when through the commands [of the Emperor] their reading was prohibited,78 since they were warring of themselves to discuss them with all zeal? And, when I was silent, and the authority to say them [had been] taken away from me, and I was not believed, God raised up those [men], who were believed when they said these [same] things as I, / which were the truth, without there being any suspicion therein of their having said these things out of friendship or out of love for me. And God brought not these things about on my account. For who is Nestorius? Or what is his life? Or what is his death in the world? But [he has brought them to pass] because of the truth which he has given unto the world, which was suppressed from deceitful causes, while he has also confuted the deceivers. And because they were [filled] with suspicion about me and were not believing what I was saying, as one that dissembles the truth and represses exact speech, God appointed for this [purpose] a preacher who was guiltless of this suspicion, Leo, who used to preach the truth undaunted. And, because the anticipation of the Council caused many to wonder and even the Romans |375 themselves,79 [so] that they believed not the things which I was saying and which were left without examination, God allowed these things to come to pass contrariwise, that he might cause the bishop of Rome,80 who was exercising the direction of the plotting of the Council in Ephesus against me, to pass away, and [that] he might make him 81 agree with and confirm what was said by the bishop of Constantinople.
And he who was able | to do] everything, that is Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, was reckoned as naught. I say indeed, as naught, since he had recourse to flight and was looking out [means] not to be deprived and banished into exile.82 [These things took place] that through what they suffered / they might believe also what had been committed against me by the Egyptian in the former Council. And, because of the sham friendship of the Emperor and of the chiefs of the imperial household [toward me], I was suspected of constraining the Council, which stirred me not to be remiss in the truth, and of being constrained to agree with the Emperor because of what was committed against me, since, because they had held no examination about the truth, they suspected me of being a blasphemer. But God, in order that he might prove that the love which the Emperor had for me was treacherous, and [that it was felt by him] not for the truth but for the sake of [my] possessions, proved it by his 83 aid in [the affair of] Eutyches and in [that of] Flavian, whereby it was seen that he gave not [permission] for an assembly to be held, and those who were assembled permitted not aught to be said except what they were commanded [to say]; but they condemned themselves also in fear and in ignominy.
Again, because they supposed that my [doctrine] had been summoned to examination and to judgement, but [that] I was surely trifling [in saying] that they [had] summoned me not to judgement but to deposition and to a snare of destruction |376 and of death, God, in protesting against them as being murderers, [even] God allowed Flavian to enter the Council and to suffer what he suffered at their hands; for it is evident that these were those things which the other had also committed against me aforetime. And, because it was supposed that those who had been bishops were disposed / to do naught outside the judgement which was pleasing unto them, either on account of the Emperor or out of fear or because of disturbances, God again exposed them as doing the contrary and confuted them before every man; and they let nothing be to which they bore not witness, but by all of them he had refuted the causes of error and preached them upon the roofs in such wise that there was not even a single excuse [left open] to those who feigned themselves without knowledge. Yet, just as Pharaoh was confuted by God by means of all things, and remained without excuse for not having been willing to be convinced either by the logic of words, or by the deeds themselves, or by the protest[s] of men, or again by the things of God, and for having died in his blasphemy, so also they remained without excuse....
When therefore I had seen that these things were brought to pass by God, would you have wished that I should be silent and hide such a dispensation of God as all this?.... The prophets of God, who had been cursed as lying prophets by lying prophets as if by [true] prophets, would not have been distinguished [from the latter], unless they [had] consented to be cursed by lying prophets for the sake of God; the sons of those men would not have been worthy of the glory and the instruction of the prophets if they [had] kept agreement with the lying prophets. Nor would those of the Jews who became / Christians have been saved and rescued if they had kept to the oppressive judgement of their fathers against Christ as if [it had been delivered] by holy and righteous men. They would not have become the apostles of Christ if they had adhered 'to the whole crowd of Jews and to the priests and to the teachers of the law and to the chiefs as [unto true] teachers of the law and prophets. They would not have believed in Christ nor even have died |377 for Christ, if they had supposed death and contempt [to be] not honour but contempt, nor yet would they have now been honoured by the crowds and by chiefs and by lords, if they had not endured death and shame at the hands of chiefs and peoples; they would not have been worthy of such as this on the part of emperors and chiefs and of powers, if they had kept the commands and the laws of emperors and of judges and of chiefs. Our fathers would not have been reckoned orthodox in this and doctors, if they had sought to flee from the condemnation of the Council of the heretics and to say the things which they were saying, and had been hypocrites. We should not have been worthy of the instruction resulting from the labours of these men, if we had accepted without examination the agreement [which was reached], as if by a Council, against them.
And, that I may speak briefly, Meletius and Eustathius 84 would not have been bishops of Antioch, if they had accepted the choice and the judgement / of the Council of the heretics against them, nor would Athanasius 85 be bishop of Alexandria if he were to accept the judgement of those who deprived him without hesitation and as [if it proceeded ] from the orthodox. John 86 would not be bishop of Constantinople, if he were to accept the judgement and the deprivation which was [promulgated] against him without examination as [if it proceeded] from a Council; nor again would Flavian have been bishop of Constantinople, if he were to agree to the pronouncement of the Oecumenical Council which deprived him as a pronouncement [proceeding] from an [Oecumenical] Council. Every one, of whatsoever city it may be, who has suffered therein on my account, would not be giving light, even as the sun, if I |378 had looked towards my accusers and not towards God and [if] also I had not been deemed worthy to be [given a share] in those things, every single one of which had been [brought to pass] by God; for this affair was not mine but Christ's who made me mighty. But every man will give account unto God concerning the things which he has said or brought to pass or done to cause scandal, or [wherein] he has been zealous with all zeal to make scandals to cease; but if, when a man does everything, he who is scandalized is not to be persuaded, let him be scandalized on his own account and not on account of him who says and cries out unto him and is not heard by him.
But, because many were blaming me many times / for not having written unto Leo, bishop of Rome, to teach him all the things which were committed, such as came to pass, and the change of faith, as if unto a man who is correct in his faith, especially when there had been given unto me, [even] unto me, a part of the letter relating to the judgement concerning Flavian and Eutyches, wherein it was revealed that [he feared] not the friendship of [his] majesty, for this reason I wrote not, not because I am a proud man and senseless, but so that I might not hinder from his running him who was running fairly because of the prejudice against my person. But I was content to endure the things whereof they accused me, in order that, while I was accused thereof, they might accept without hindrance the teaching of the Fathers; for I have no word [to say] concerning what was committed against me. And further I wrote not for the purpose that I, to whom for many years there was not one [moment of] repose nor human solace, might not be suspected of surely fleeing from the contest, fearing the labours [thereof]; for sufficient are the wrongs that have come upon the world [and] which are more able than I to make the oppression of the true faith shine forth in the eyes of every man.
But, because thou blamest me as though I have failed to say clearly the things which have occurred, O chief of the saints, / Sophronius, hear therefore also the things which thou |379 knowest and testifiest concerning the truth of the things which are said. For immediately, as indeed thou art persuaded, thou hast first seen that death has carried off the daughter of him who was then reigning,87 and thereafter, thou seest, that demon, the chief of adultery, who cast down the empress with insult and contumely.88 Again [thou seest] that the cities of Africa and of Spain and of Muzicanus and great and glorious islands----I mean Sicily and Rhodes and many other great ones----and Rome itself have been delivered over for spoil unto the barbarian Vandal. 89 Yet there will however be in the first place and at no longer distance [of time] a second coming of the barbarian against Rome itself, during which also Leo, who has indeed held well to the faith but has agreed to the things which these have unjustly committed against me without examination and without judgement, will deliver up with his own hands the divine vessels of the sanctuary into the hands of the barbarians and will see with his [own] eyes the daughters of the emperor who is reigning at that time led into captivity. 90 But I have endured the torment of my life and all my [fate] in this world as the torment of one day and lo! I have now already got me / to [the time of my] dissolution, and daily every day I beseech God to accomplish my dissolution, whose eyes have seen the salvation of God.
Conclusion. Rejoice for me, O desert, my beloved and my foster-parent and the home of my habitation, and my mother |380 [the land of] my exile, who even after my death will guard my body unto the resurrection by the will of God. Amen.
Finished is the writing of the book which is entitled the Bazaar of Heracleides, composed by [him who is] illustrious among the saints and all-blessed, my lord Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, a witness every day and the pride of orthodoxy, a true preacher of the glorious Trinity. And unto Yahweh [be] unfailing glory. Amen.
[Selected footnotes]
1. 2 Viz. Flavian.
2. 3 Viz. Eutyches.
3. 4 There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text,
4. 1 See B. J. Kidd, A History of the Church to ad. 461, iii. 202; Cyril, Adv. Nest. i. 5 (Migne, P.G.L. lxxvi. 41 d); and Evagrius, H. E. i. 9. For the text of Eusebius's alleged protest see Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1008.
5. 2 Viz. Eutyches.
6. 3 This is presumably the conversation to which Eusebius referred at Constantinople; see Labbe (Mansi), vi. 656 a. No other record of it seems to have survived.
7. 1 Here clearly Eusebius ascribes to Nestorius the teaching commonly known as 'Nestorianism', and is shown to have been mistaken in so doing.
8. 1 Viz. Eutyches.
9. 2 The letter to Rome is mentioned in Leo, Ep. xxiv, Labbe (Mansi), v. 1341 b.
10. 3 Viz. the Roman
11. 4 Viz. the Emperor.
12. 5 Viz. Flavian.
13. 2 Viz. Flavian.
14. 4 Viz. the Emperor.
15. 1 Cp. Evagrius, H. E. ii. 2; Niccphorus Callistus, H. E. xiv. 47.
16. 2 Viz. Flavian.
17. 3 Viz. the emperor's sister, Pulcheria. She was consistently favourable to Flavian, but from 441-50 she was out of favour with Theodosius who was under the influence of the eunuch Chrysaphius. Flavian had neglected to bribe Chrysaphius, as Eutyches was careful to do. Cp. p. 97, n. 1.
18. 1 Viz. the Emperor.
19. 1 Viz. Eutyches.
20. 3 Viz. the bishop of Alexandria.
21. 4 Viz. the Romans.
22. 1 Viz. Leo.
23. 2 Viz. the bishop of Alexandria.
24. 5 Presumably Eudocia. See Nicephorus Callistus, H. E, xiv. 47.
25. 1 Viz. God.
26. 2 Domnus, nephew and successor of John of Antioch.
27. 3 Viz. the bishop of Antioch.
28. 4 Viz. Flavian.
29. 5 Syr. parsôpha.
30. 1 Viz. Dioscorus.
31. 2 Viz. the bishop of Antioch.
32. 1 Literally: 'and then was (or became) hating him'.
33. 2 See above, pp. 279-82.
34. 4 Viz. the Emperor.
35. 5 Viz. Count John.
36. 6 Viz. Cyril.
37. 7 Literally: 'a letter of love'.
38. 1 Viz. Cyril.
39. 2 Viz. the Emperor.
40. 1 Viz. Dioscorus.
41. 2 Viz. Flavian.
42. 1 Cp. the speech of Eutyches quoted on p. 346, n. 3.
43. 2 Viz. Flavian.
44. 3 Cp. Labbe (Mansi), vi. 644 B-645 B.
45. 4 Viz. Eutyches.
46. 1 Viz. Flavian.
47. 2 Literally: 'establishing'.
48. 3 Literally: 'how it was supposed by him'.
49. 4 Cp. Labbe (Mansi), vi. 685 b.
50. 3 Viz. Dioscorus.
51. 4 I.e. the views which he was accused of holding.
52. 1 Viz. the adherents of Flavian.
53. 2 Viz. the adherents of Eutyches.
54. 3 So the Syriac text, reading 'Atticus' passim for 'Aethericus '.
55. 1 Literally: 'trusted', i.e. (probably) a eunuch; see p. 272, n. 2.
56. 2 I. e. the ὑπομνήματα of Flavian.
57. 3 The following account of the conduct of Aethericus at the Latrocinium is given in the Minutes of the Council of Chalccdon in Labbe (Mansi), vi. 688-9:
58. 3 Viz. Dioscorus.
59. 1 Viz. Flavian.
60. 2 Lat. Silentarius.
61. 3 Viz. Dioscorus.
62. 2 Viz. Flavian.
63. 1 Cp. the Sacra Lex Theodosii in Labbe (Mansi), v. 417 a.
64. 2 Viz. the Emperor.
65. 1 I. e. for those who denied that God the Word was immortal.
66. 2 Viz. God.
67. 3 For these earthquakes see Evagrius, H. E. i. 17; Philostorgius, H. E. xii. 8-10; Nicephorus Callistus, H. E. xiv. 46.
68. 1 The account of the miraculous revelation of the Trisagion is given in John of Damascus, De Orth. Fid. iii. 10, and in Niceph. Callist. H. E. xiv. 46, in a form consistent with Nestorius's references to the matter. For the use of the formula at Chalcedon see Labbe (Mansi), vi. 936 c.
69. 1 Viz. the Emperor.
70. 1 I. e. the Trisagion.
71. 1 Nau translates 'qu'ils avaient tués'; but see Nöldeke, Syriac Grammar, § 277. Eusebius of Dorylaeum had been deposed, but not killed. He was exiled and escaped to Rome where he was welcomed by Leo, who mentions his deposition in Letters lxxix and lxxx, dated 451. See Labbe (Mansi), vi. 907-36, 107 B, 110 B; Liberatus, xii (Galland. xii. 140); Gest. de Nom. Acac. (Galland. x. 668).
72. 2 Theodosius died on July 28th, 450, and was succeeded by his orthodox sister, Pulcheria, who took Marcian as her husband 'vir gravissimus, et non solum reipublicae, sed etiam Ecclesiae necessarius. Huius edictis apostolicae sedis auctoritatem secutis, synodus Ephesina damnatur, et apud Chalcedonem celebrari concilium episcopale decernitur; ut correctis venia mederetur, et pertinaces cum haeresi depellerentur.' Prosper, Chron. in Migne, P. L. li. 602; cp. Chronicon Paschale in Migne, P. G. xcii. 812.
73. 1 Cp. 2 Cor. xi. 14.
74. 2 The Syriac has: 'as not impious', but the repetition of the negative is probably due to the influence of the Greek original. See p. xiv.
75. 2 I.e. the discussion of the faith.
76. 3 Viz. the Arians.
77. 4 Viz. the Monophysites. Nestorius's point seems to be that in ascribing sufferings to God the Word, the Monophysites deny him consubstantiality with the Father, and thus resemble the Arians. So Nau.
78. 1 Cp. Labbe (Mansi), v. 413-20.
79. 1 Literally: 'the prosôpon of the Romans'.
80. 2 Viz. Celestinus. Nestorius apparently ignores Sixtus III.
81. 3 Viz. Leo.
82. 4 Dioscorus was deposed and exiled at the Council of Chalcedon. Nestorius shows no knowledge of this, but only mentions earlier precautionary measures. See introd. p. x.
83. 5 Viz. the Emperor's.
84. 1 Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, 324-31, returned from Nicaea a strong supporter of the Nicene faith, and was deposed and exiled through the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea in 330 or 331. He died in exile at Philippi in 337.
Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, 361-79, was deposed by Arian influence; the Arian Euzoius was appointed in his place, and schism followed.
85. 2 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, 326-73, was exiled in 336, 340, 356, and 362.
86. 3 John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, 398-404, was exiled in the latter year through the intrigues of Theophilus of Alexandria.
87. 1 This cannot be Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius and Eudocia, for she was still living in 455 (see the Cltronicon Paschale in Migne, P. G. xcii. 817 a), but must be her younger sister Flaccilla, who died in 431. See Du Cange, Hist. Byz. (Paris, 1680), p. 71.
88. 2 Theodosius had Paulinus executed in 444 on suspicion of adultery with the Empress Eudocia; see the Chronicon Paschale, Migne, P. G. xcii. 801-5.
89. 4 According to the Chronicon Paschale (Migne, P. G. xcii. 797 c, 801 a, d). The Vandals entered Africa in 428 and Sicily in 439.
90. 5 John of Malala is probably wrong in placing the capture of Eudoxia and her daughters before the death of Theodosius (Migne, P. G. xcvii. 545). According to the Chronicon Paschale, they were taken by Gensericus who entered Rome in 455 (Migne, P. G. xcii. 816-17), but he was persuaded by Leo to spare the lives of the citizens and the buildings, though the city was plundered and the sacred vessels carried off which Titus had brought from Jerusalem (Prosper, Chronicon, Migne, P. L. li. 605-6).
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_bazaar_99_appendices.htm
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 381-398. Appendices.
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 381-398. Appendices.
Appendix 1: Fragments
Letters
Miscellaneous works
Homilies
Fragments of uncertain location
Appendix 2: Critical notes (omitted) pp.398-402.
Appendix 3: The word πρόσωπον (omitted) pp.402-410.
Appendix 4: The metaphysic of Nestorius (omitted) pp. 411-420.
Index (omitted) pp.421-425
APPENDICES
I. Fragments
The translation of the fragments is made from the text given on pp. 365-88 of F. Loofs, Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius (Halle, 1905).
A. LETTERS
XI c. Fragm. 258. From the letter to Alexander of Hierapolis. But the property which [exists] in the nature of the divinity and [that which exists in that] of the humanity is indeed distinct from everlasting. For this reason Paul, the teacher of the churches, not in placing 'God' first and then adding 'in flesh', but in saying either 'Son' or 'Christ' first, makes 'in flesh' follow at the end: 'Concerning the Son who was of the seed of David in flesh' and again: 'Of whom [was] Christ in flesh,' nowhere at all saying God first, making 'in flesh' follow, but Christ or Son.1
XII. Fragm. 276. From the letter to Theodoret, wherein he blames what was written by Cyril to the Easterns. For what does he say? Although the diversity of the natures, from which the ineffable union was brought about, is ignored, this [phrase] 'from which' again [is] as if he were speaking in respect to the Lord's natures of parts of one another which became one. For he ought to have said not 'from these' but 'of those [it is] that we say that an ineffable union was brought about'. For the ineffable union is not of the natures but the things of the natures.2
Fragm. 290 is identical with Fragm. 276, except for slight differences in orthography.
Fragm. 310. From what he wrote unto Theodoret from exile, speaking thus about Cyril. For what does he say? Although the diversity of the natures is known, from which |383 we say that an ineffable union was brought about: Behold! again 'from which' as if he were speaking concerning our Lord's.... which became one. For he ought to have said not 'from them' 3 but 'of those'.... for not of the natures...4
Fragm. 226. For he wrote from exile unto Theodoret, blaming what had been written by the Holy Cyril unto the bishops of the East. And thus Nestorius concludes: For what does he say: Although the diversity of the natures is known, of which we say that an ineffable union was brought about....5
Fragm. 243. But then Nestorius, rebuking from exile the patriarch 6 Cyril, wrote unto Theodoret: Here with a view to dissembling [the truth] he confounds the properties of the natures.7
Fragm. 253. After the deposition of Theodoret took place, Nestorius wrote thus to him. Surely I have borne what thou hast become; I have not left [it] alone. For not when I was far removed from the assembly of the impious did I then show myself an enemy to the throne of the fear of God. For not even Paul, when he was stoning Stephen with the stoning Jews, was then an Apostle but when he removed himself afar from stoning. When thou too seest proof herein, although thou wast brought up in godly learning, exult, I counsel [thee] and deck thyself out in this time which now is, being head and all with them that are victorious on behalf of religion and, exulting, say these [words] of David: 'Mine is Gilead and mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the support of my head.' But lay hold of the departure from Egypt and believe, since thou nearest, in God who now calls unto thy Piety with a loud voice: 'What hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Gihon?' 8 For the people [that is] striving with God is from the beginning and is warring with the holy fathers.9 |384
B. MISCELLANEOUS WORKS
II c. Fragm. 208. Records which were forged by him in Ephesus, concerning which he wrote thus: About what took place at the Council at Ephesus and the cause which brought about its assembling Nestorius says these things: This was not supposed by any one of the [followers] of Apollinarius or of Arius just as also these [believe: namely] the [fact] that they mingle the quality of the natures in one nature.10
Fragm. 305. In these records which were forged by him at Ephesus he wrote thus; This was not supposed; and not by any.... they mingle.11
III. Fragm. 225. For in the book which is inscribed 'Unto the Theopaschitans or Cyrillians' he wrote in the form of question and answer things which have been taken up by us in what was investigated before, Nestorius [says]: The Theopaschitan says: Now as we are rebuked [on account of] the dual composition of the natures, we who predicate one nature of Christ which is [that] of God made flesh----in regard to the reprimand [uttered] against thee thou hopest not for any defence against the reprimand which is uttered; for thou hast confessed that you obtained for Christ one nature out of what is without bodily form and [what is without] body and a one-natured hypostasis of the becoming flesh of the divinity. But such is the mingling of the two natures, that those natures are deprived of the hypostases which they solely possess, being mingled with one another; and yet above, as the foolish theory which he has forged necessitates,12 he introduces the Theopaschitan who says these things: 'For the nature of the flesh is passible and changeable newly created;13 yet [it is] thus on the contrary the godhead's very own, as both of them subsist14 in one and the same nature.15
Fragm. 307. And in the homily [called] 'the Dialogue' against the Cyrillians, as he required, he introduced the |385 Theopaschitan who says thus: For I have confessed.... mingled with one another. And again before this, as was pleasing unto him, he brought in the Theopaschitan who says thus; For the nature of the flesh is passible....16
Fragm. 304. Likewise, and in the work which [was addressed] to the Theopaschitans, namely the Cyrillians, he wrote thus: If our dividing of these properties of the flesh or the Son and of his divinity is named a kind of addition of quaternity on our side, what prohibits also the incarnation itself of the Son from being passed over in silence as far as concerns you, because the Trinity accepts not the ousia which makes the man as any addition. For without the ousia which was made man no one understands that which has made the man. And again: To confuse the properties of the nature of that which was made and of that which made the man is very impious.17
Fragm. 239. Unto the Theopaschitans or Cyrillians in the form of question and answer Nestorius [wrote] thus: There is indeed one Son, equal in ousia to the Father, just as thou hast well said before; but the natures of the Son, in accordance with the identity of ousia of the Father and of ours, are divided by the distinction in the mind.18
Fragm. 220 is identical with Fragm. 239, except that the introduction is only: 'Nestorius [wrote thus]'
Fragm. 309. The homily [called] 'the Dialogue' against the Cyrillians: he wrote thus: By 'Christ' or 'Only-begotten' or 'Jesus' or 'Son' or by other [terms] such as these we preach the term of the union, but by 'man' the ousia which was assumed and by 'God the Word' the property of the hypostasis which was made man.19
VI. Fragm. 205 a. Again, from his distinct Chapters against those who say that Christ is God alone: They say that Christ is God alone, and behold! God is the Trinity; therefore Christ is the Trinity. But, if Christ is God alone, while the Father |386 is not Christ, we thus distinguish them in the nature. [So much the more is it] that Christ is the name not of the essence but of the dispensation. And Christ is God, but God is not Christ.20
Fragm. 205b. Again, his [Chapters]: Unto him who asks who it was that walked upon the water we answer that it was the feet that were walking and the concrete bodily frame through the strength that dwelled therein. This [it is] that is a [cause of] wonder. For if God were walking upon the water, that is not astonishing, as also [it is] not in the air. And the [fact] again that the concrete body came in through closed doors----this too is [matter] for astonishment. But, if the divine nature came in, it is nothing that I should desist from what belongs to the infinite.21
Fragm. 205 c. Again, his [Chapters]: They ask, [saying] that it is written: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' What is this? Does he speak the truth or does he lie? If he is left alone, where then is the infinity of God? If he is not left alone, he has therefore lied. What then do we say----that he neglected to let it 22 suffer for its 22 sake, in order that he might leave him to adhere to us that the dispensation might be fulfilled?23
C. HOMILIES
VI. Fragm. 254. From the books of Nestorius; blasphemies. From the homily against the Jews, of which the commencement is this: 'How great is the might of him who was crucified,' cry out the devils who possess not that which they used to possess.
And after other things: Dost thou not hear what these say.... who are warring and falling and they convince him that is abhorred of the judgement concerning the people? We indeed rebuke not in anything; [but] dost thou not tremble to surpass the proper measure? Dost thou not judge that excess of praise exaggerated beyond what is proper is worthy of censure? Dost thou not hear what a child, |387 praising [thee], says on thine account? For they saw not him who was concealed in the visible.24
VIII. Fragm. 270-272. From another homily, of which the commencement is this: There is nothing harder to the souls of men than the sickness of ignorance.25
Fragm. 270. And after other things: But I know not how of a sudden they, being sick with ignorance, have been found [as those] who are equal with them that have not heard; and somehow they err with an astonishing error, not being placed with the heretics as were the lovers of the church, and have fallen away as heretics from the teachings of the church. But these are wretched rather than heretics; for these indeed make God the Word younger than the essence of the Father, while they even make bold to blaspheme with similes; for in the nature of the divinity youngness of existence and age of days are not.26
Fragm. 271. Of the mediator then the mother is she that bore Christ, the Virgin; but the divinity of the mediator existed before she bare the mediator. How then did she bear one older than her[self]? Why dost thou prepare God the Word for the creation of the spirit? For, if God the Word is he who was born of her but he who was born of her exists according to the word of the angels from the Holy Spirit, God the Word is to be celebrated as a creation of the Spirit.27
And again: If thou conceivest of him who in the nature was born of the Virgin in the course of months, so [is] he man who was born of a virgin according to the word of him who was born, who said: 'Why seek ye to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth among you?' And again: 'One is God, one also the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, a man who was born of the race of David.' 28
Fragm. 272. And after other things: Hear both things: Paul preaching: 'Of the Jews is Christ who was in flesh.' |388 What then? A mere man is Christ, O blessed Paul? No; but 'a man on the one hand is Christ in flesh, in the divinity on the other hand God over all'.29
X. Fragm. 300. An homily delivered by Nestorius against the Theopaschitans: As in regard to the abuses [uttered] against the true and natural union----as that which we 30 say: that the flesh vanished and was transformed by the nature of the Word, as an eddy of water which the sea swallows up----as Nestorius himself says: A statue without bulk of water, which vanishes at once in the vastness of the sea.31
XII. Fragm. 297. And in the homily which is inscribed 'The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a banquet for his son',32 and so on; and about the Incarnation, of which the commencement is: Fearful and pleasant is the trumpet for the reading of the Gospel. This he wrote.
The union then of the natures is not divided: the ousias of these, which are united, are divided. This [consists] not in the annulling 33 of the union but in the understanding of the flesh and of the divinity.34 Hear the same clearly:35 Christ 36 is indivisible in that [he is] Christ 37 but double 38 in that [he is] God and man; in the sonship simple, [but] double 39 in that which he has put on and in that which is put on; sole in the prosopon of the Son, [but], as in [the case of] the two eyes,40 dissimilar in the natures of the divinity and of the humanity; for we know not two Christs or Sons or an original and a new only-begotten, nor a first and a second Christ, but one and the same who is visible in nature created and not created.41
Fragm. 308. For we know not two Christs or Sons or only-begottens or Lords; nor one and another Son nor an |389 original and a new only-begotten nor a first and a second Christ, but one and the same who is visible in the invisible and the visible nature. Can a man, when he hears these things, say that something else was said by him and by those at Chalcedon and by Leo? For openly he is bold and knows the same Christ who is visible in the invisible and the visible nature nor has said two Christs and two sons and Lords. And the Council of Chalcedon said: 'One and the same Christ, son, lord, only-begotten, in two natures, not changeably, not confusedly, not divisibly.'42
Fragm. 312. For we know not two Christs or two sons or Lords nor original and new only-begotten nor a first and a second Christ but one and the same, who is visible in the uncreated and the created nature.43
Fragm. 292. Christ in that [he is] Christ is not divided; for we have not two Christs or two sons, for there is not with us a first and a second Christ nor one and another, nor again one son and again another; but the son is double not by authority but by nature. And again: Preserving then without confusion the adherence of the natures.44
Fragm. 285. Who is visible in the created and the uncreated nature.43
Fragm. 287 is identical except for the omission of one enclitic pronoun.
XIV. Fragm. 262-264. From another homily which is called 'the Explanation of the Teaching', of which the commencement is this: Not with clamour do I judge the love which is toward me but with longing for the teaching of the faith.45
Fragm. 262. And after other things: Again, I say it clearly: not an ordinary danger is ignorance of the teaching of the faith. And I see that many indeed in our assemblies have modesty and ardent piety but slip out of ignorance respecting the teaching of the faith. But this is no rebuke for the people but----[to speak] as one who will say it suitably----[it is] because |390 the teachers have not time to set before you the exact teaching of the faith. Our Lord Christ then in his divinity is consubstantial with the Father and the creator of the blessed Mary; for he is the maker of all. But in his manhood he is the son of the blessed Mary; yet he is our Lord Christ, who is double in his divinity and in his manhood. But for this reason also I turn aside from ornate speech because [so] I shall be understood by [my] hearers. Our Lord Christ, who is double in his divinity and in his humanity, is one Son by adhesion. One then is he [who] was born of Mary that bare Christ, the Son of God. Many times do I say the same things, because [so] thou wilt not again, when thou goest forth, calumniate the Word. Remember, I pray, what is said by you; for there are many calumniators. I extol praise for piety, but I require the Trinity. He then who was born of Mary that bare Christ is one Son of God; but the Son of God is double in the natures: God and man. Here sharpen for me your hearing. For here is a [cause of] trespass for them on whom is laid the prosopon of piety; for they say that the bishop calls Christ a mere man. Then behold! how many witnesses [there are] to what is said! Our Lord Christ is God and man. I call not Christ a mere man, O excellent [man], but one adhering to God the Word.46
Fragm. 263. And after other things: That then which I was saying: 'I believe in one God'----that belief possesses the common name of the natures: 'in one God Almighty, maker of all things made, visible and invisible.' Give heed therefore from here [onwards] with [all] exactness: 'and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God.' Give heed, I would persuade |you], to what is said: The fathers were able to say: 'I believe also in one God the Word the Son of God, who was begotten of the Father.'47
And again: The blessed and holy company of the Fathers takes up the name of our Lord Christ and calls him the creator of all, consubstantial with the Father. None was able to rebuke [thee] and say: 'Thou sayest that he who |391 was born yesterday is consubstantial with the Father. But the title which has been laid down, which indicates both the divinity and the humanity----but we mean that of "Christ"----makes the fathers hold both of them true. Consubstantial with the Father is Christ: this is true; for in the divinity he is eternal. Consubstantial with us [is he] naturally: this is true; for he too was a man as we also [are]. Again how many times is exception taken to the saying, if an heretic is near and says: "Behold!" he says " man as we also [are] " and introduces our Lord [as] a mere [man]!'48
Fragm. 264. And after other things: I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God; for God the Word is not distinct from him.
And after other things: Many times am I forced to say the same things. For I fear those who change the words 'in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God who was begotten by the Father before all worlds'. Behold! thou hast [there] a birth before all worlds. Can what was born before all the worlds be born another time?
And after other things: Give heed to the words. Believe; I lie not in what I say. These things have been said of me by some of the reverent clergy: 'My lord bishop is blaming God.' Until I came none of us took notice of the words of the bishops of Nicaea, that we are saying these things.
And after other things: For this reason, where the Word is laid down, the birth from a woman is not laid down, but [it is laid down] thus: 'And the Word became flesh'; he says not: 'And the Word was born through the flesh.' For this would have been for us to introduce a second birth of the divinity.49
XXI. Fragm. 306. 'About the Faith' or 'the Deposit of the Faith'. But if those Theopaschitans, while holding true the religion of Apollinarius, were to say that one nature showed itself after the union, is it proper for us with much indignation to turn our faces from them because they impiously alienate the two natures from their properties in consequence of the |392 mixture and the confusion? They therefore as far as concerns them let neither the divine [nature] in that it [exists] nor the human persist in that each one of them falls away from its own ousia through the mixture and the confusion and is altered into the other. But if they say that the natures are of necessity neither mixed nor confused, they are constrained to concede not one nature of Christ but two, impassible and passible; and there is established the dogma, accounted true: [that the nature] of the Trinity is of the same ousia with the impassible divinity.50
Fragm. 216. Not one nature but two are we constrained to concede in Christ.51
Fragm. 215. One and the same which is visible in the nature not created and created.52
And again: Not one nature but two are we constrained to concede in Christ.53
Fragm. 209. But also in the homily which is inscribed 'About the Faith' or 'the Deposit of the Faith': that which is the commencement thereof we confess, [namely] the dogma 'of one ousia'. He wrote thus: But if we were to say... of both of them that there are before the union as in a story two natures. They are to be understood as if in a temporal comparison. This [it is] which was said by the holy Cyril to Nestorius.54
Fragm. 291. 'About the Faith', namely 'the Deposit of the Faith'. Because in all of them those two natures also, complete and not transformed 55 nor distinguished, are seen in our Lord Christ and every nature acknowledges these things [as] its own....
And again: In consequence of these which are known as one Christ 56 in two natures, God and man, the visible and the |393 invisible, he will hold the future judgement. As there is one judge in the two natures,57 so also in every one of the natures is there one Son, because according to the decision of the Apostles that invisible [nature], God the Word, is about to hold the judgement in a visible man whom he has raised even from the dead; and there is one judge in every one of the natures, just as also [there is] one Son in the two natures.58
Fragm. 277 is identical with Fragm. 291.
Fragm. 224. And each one acknowledges these things as its own. And in another place: What we have also laid down among the things which have been examined before: one and the same which is visible in the uncreated and the created nature.59
Fragm. 223. One and the same which is visible in the uncreated and the created nature; and because in everything those two natures also, complete and not confused and not far apart, are seen in our Lord Christ and every one acknowledges these things [as] its own....59
Fragm. 228. But one and the same which is visible in the uncreated and the created nature.59
Fragm. 229. And again in another homily which is inscribed 'On account of the Faith ', namely 'the Deposit of the Faith' of which the commencement is: 'We confess the dogma "of one ousia",' Nestorius [says]: Because in all of them... 60 (continued as in Fragm. 291).
Fragm. 280. Concerning Nestorius having said 'one prosopon out of two [natures]': his own words, from the homily which is called 'Concerning the Faith'. For harm was not done to the uniqueness of the Son by the diversity of the natures, But in such wise as the corruptible body is one thing and further the immortal soul is another thing, yet one man is constituted of them both, so from the mortal and the immortal, from the corruptible and from the incorruptible, and from what is subject to beginning and from the nature which |394 has no beginning, that is of God the Word, I confess one prosopon of the Son.61
XXII. Fragm. 256. From another homily which is inscribed 'Concerning the Learning', of which the commencement is this: Behold! already the time of the holy mysteries is nigh. And after other things: One is the temple which was made by the Holy Spirit and another is God, who sanctifies the temple; and the one indeed can be destroyed, while the other accepts not [its] destruction but even restores that which is destroyed, him who is hung upon the cross and after three days is built anew.62
XXIII. Fragm. 314. From the homily which is inscribed 'When the [passage]: How many times, if my brother sins against me, shall I forgive him? is read:'63 But I, that is the person of the Church for all of them,64 unto whom I speak, before every man,65 lay down66 one and the same, naming Christ a whole67 God and a whole67 man, natures which are not mixed68 but which are united.69
Fragm. 289. In the homily which is inscribed 'About the [passage]: The kingdom of heaven (was) is likened unto a certain king' and so on, he said thus: But I, that is the person of the Church, for all of them unto whom I speak say the same unto every man, naming whole man and whole God, natures which arc not mixed but which are united.70
XXIV. Fragm. 265-267. From another homily, of which the commencement is this: Although there is among men some great vehemence of impiety.... |395
Fragm. 265. And after other things: For there was seen by him, I say, an angel from heaven which strengthened him; but it strengthened him as many times as the picture of agony was stirred up in our Lord who alone could [suffer] in the sufferings of him who was visible. And after other things: This one thing thou lackest only, that thou shouldest be led as a lamb to the slaughter and be silent as a sheep before the shearer. This is the summit of thy [qualities] illustrious and divine and the height of honours worthy of adoration and the great mystery of the victories over Satan. For when thou tastest death, thou dost cause death to die, when thou goest down to Sheol, thou dost liberate the dead; when thou art crucified with robbers, through these thou dost seize the day of sinners. Thou desirest not, O Lord, death which is victorious; the cross [it is] which fills a short time, death fills a time, the grave three days. But the lordship of an everlasting kingdom in heaven----these are after the grave. All these things, O Theopaschitan, thou makest into parables and into 'he suffered an impassible suffering', as thou sayest. For he who suffers impassibly has no need of things to strengthen him; for why should it have been required that he who suffers not with suffering should need strengthening? 71
Fragm. 266. And after unimportant things: For just as is my opinion concerning the suffering, such also is it concerning the resurrection; as [is the doctrine] that thou givest death to be destroyed, which is the truth, so is this: that thou givest also the resurrection which has destroyed death. For if the suffering of the divinity is an impassible suffering, so is the destruction of the suffering an indestructive destruction. For with the newness of the words [spoken] by them concerning the teaching of the faith I am forced to coin new words for new terms.72
Fragm. 267. And after other things: Why are you disturbed and [why] do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my |396 hands and my feel, that [it is I who] have come; touch me and see. A spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see that I have. Why then, in letting the hands and feet of him who suffered be felt and teaching therefrom the resurrection as he has commanded, dost thou touch the nature that cannot be touched as though it has suffered? Why changest thou the sacrifice of the Lord? Why dost thou sacrifice instead of the lamb him who has raised up the sheep that was slain? Instead of the sheep thou slayest the divinity which has accepted the sacrifice of the sheep. If thou slayest the divinity as a sheep, thou makest the power of the sacrifice a dead thing. For this reason had John, when he saw our Lord, said: 'Behold! the Lamb of God,' not: 'Behold! the lamb God.' For he who is visible is the lamb and he who is concealed is God. These [properties] of the natures are distinguished.
And after other things: As lord of the hosts of the angels with God the Word is he who is visible; for he has given him, he says, a name which is more excellent than all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of those in heaven and of those on earth, and so on. But with him who [was] visible God the Word was not strengthened by the voice of an angel at the season of the suffering. The flesh possessed with God the Word the authority of a judge; for God, he says, has appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in justice in the man whom he hath appointed, giving the faith to every man in that he has raised him from the dead.73
XXV. Fragm. 257. From another homily,74 of which the commencement was:75 All hearts which longing for God has seized beforehand and which none of the things which are of this world either afflict or elate....
And after other things: If he said: 'Who was born of Mary?' I return answer unto him at once: 'The man who adheres to God, the man who is honoured above all men on account of God who adheres to him. |397
And again: I have said 'the Son' and I have confessed the two brief [phrases], both 'the created nature' and 'the uncreated'. The power of the Lord's flesh and of his divinity [is] the same;l the same is the adoration of him who appears and of him who appears not.
And after unimportant [things]: But both of them76 have one and the very same authority. The angels therefore see him who appears and with him adore him who is concealed in him who appears; for there is no distinction [of him] from him who appears with honour but only in the property of the nature.77
Fragm. 302. For that unjust man in the exposition concerning the [passage]: 'I have not spoken of mine own will'78 and so on, wrote thus: The Son is not to be entitled 'God the Word' distinctly nor yet man distinctly; for this is indeed nothing else than to construct two natures. But the term 'sonship' is common to both the natures. I have said 'the Son'; two natures have I indicated. I have said 'Christ' and have not divided either of the natures in the sonship.79
D. FRAGMENTS OF UNCERTAIN LOCATION
XIV. Fragm. 231. He who said: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' was human nature,80 O wise man.81
Fragm. 237 b. And again in another place he said, as I have deposed above: He who said.... was human nature, O wise man.82
XV. Fragm. 210. In the homily 'On account of the Incarnation' Nestorius wrote thus: I hold then to the two natures in the one title 'Christ', because the one 83 is not known apart from the other.84
XVI. Fragm. 242 a. For if we were to have said, as Nestorius: A man who, complete in his own hypostasis, in honour and by mercy only adheres to the Word.85 |398
XVII. Fragm. 244 a. But, as Nestorius, in predicating two natures in one Christ, began: It is known to all of them who hear and are willing to speak the truth.86
[XVIII]. Fragm. 296. And simultaneously he shows in what capacities he calls Christ one, that is, in authority and in greatness; for they define the gift of sonship [as] the source87 of authority.88 |399
[Appendices 2-4 have been omitted]
[Selected footnotes]
1. 1 See op. cit., pp. 196-7 and 365.
2. 2 See op. cit., pp. 197-8 and 365-6.
3. 1 Frag. 219: from those.
4. 2 See op. cit., p. 366.
5. 3 See op. cit., pp. 197-8 and 366.
6. 4 Syr. 'father'.
7. 5 See op. cit., pp. 198 and 366.
8. 6 Cp. Jer. ii. 18; the Hebr. text as well as the Pesh. have 'the waters of Shihor'.
9. 7 See op. cit., pp. 201-2 and 367.
10. 1 See op. cit., p. 208.
11. 2 See op. cit., p. 368.
12. 3 Literally: 'wishes'.
13. 4 Fragm. 307: and the nature [is] newly created.
14. 5 Fragm. 307: 'in an identity of natural quality' (sc. ἰσοφυία).
15. 6 See op. cit., pp. 209, 210, and 369.
16. 1 See op. cit., p. 369.
17. 6 See op. cit., pp. 210 and 369-70.
18. 7 See op, cit., pp. 210 and 370.
19. 8 See op. cit., pp. 211 and 370.
20. 1 See op. cit., pp. 218 and 371.
21. 2 I.e. possibly 'the infinity '. See op. cit., pp. 218-19 and 371.
22. 3 Fem.
23. 4 See op. cit., pp. 219 and 371.
24. 1 See op. cit., pp. 243 and 372.
25. 2 See op. cit., p. 372 (cp. p. 245, ll. 1-2).
26. 4 See op. cit., pp. 245 and 373.
27. 5 See op. cit., pp. 247 and 373.
28. 6 See op. cit., pp. 247-8 and 373.
29. 1 See op. cit., pp. 248 and 373.
30. 2 Viz. the Monophysites.
31. 3 See op. cit., pp. 131 and 374.
32. 4 Matt. xxii. 2 (Pesh.).
33. 5 Fragm. 221: divided, not in the annulling.
34. 6 Fragm. 221: in the consideration of the divinity and of the humanity.
35. 7 Fragm. 221: very evidently indeed.
36. 8 Fragm. 241: and Christ.
37. 9 Fragm. 221: in that he is Christ.
38. 10 Fragm. 221: twofold.
39. 11 Fragm. 221 and 241: but double.
40. 12 Fragm. 221: as in [the case of] two eyes.
41. 13 See op. cit., pp. 279-80 and 374.
42. 1 See op. cit., p. 375.
43. 2 See op. cit., p. 376.
44. 3 See op. cit., pp. 281 and 376.
45. 4 See op. cit., pp. 282 and 376.
46. 2 See op. cit., pp. 282-4 and 377.
47. 3 See op. cit., pp. 284 and 377-8.
48. 1 See op. cit., pp. 284-5 and 378.
49. 2 See op. cit., pp. 285-8 and 378.
50. 2 See op. cit., pp. 329 and 379.
51. 3 See op. cit., p. 379.
52. 4 See op. cit., pp. 330 and 379.
53. 5 See op. cit., p. 379.
54. 7 See op. cit., pp. 329, 11., and 379.
55. 8 Fragm. 224, 228, and 229: confused.
56. 9 Fragm. 228 and 229: one son.
57. 2 Fragm. 228 and 229: in each one of the natures.
58. 3 See op. cit., pp. 330 and 380.
59. 4 See op. cit., p. 380.
60. 5See op. cit., pp. 380-1.
61. 1 Or: that is, I confess that God the Word [is] one prosopon of the Son (Loofs). See op. cit., pp. 330-1 and 381.
62. 2 See op. cit., pp. 331 and 381.
63. 3 Matt, xviii. 21 Fragm. 228 (as introduction): for he said in another book of his. Fragm. 217: as Nestorius has written.
64. 5 Fragm. 228: those; Fragm. 230 and 294: these.
65. 6 Fragm. 228: before all of them.
66. 7 Fragm. 228: I propose; Fragm. 217: I prove.
67. 8 Fragm. 228: complete.
68. 9 Fragm. 228: divided.
69. 10 Fragm. 228: not mixed but united. See op. cit., pp. 332 and 382.
70. 11 See op. cit., p. 383.
71. 4 See op. cit., pp. 332-3 and 383-4.
72. 5 See op. cit., pp. 333 4 and 384.
73. 4 Acts xvii. 31. See op. cit., pp. 334-5 and 384-5.
74. 5 Fragm. 313: from the homily.
75. 6 Fragm. 313: is.
76. 1 Fragm. 286 and 313: is the same.
77. 2 See op. cit., pp. 335-6 and 385.
78. 3 Jn. xii. 49.
79. 4 See op. cit., pp. 336 and 386.
80. 6 Fragm. 233: the nature of the humanity.
81. 7 See op. cit., pp. 360 and 387.
82. 8 See op. cit., p. 387.
83. 9 Viz. the Word.
84. 10 Viz. the man Christ. See op cit., pp. 361 and 387.
85. 11 See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388.
86. 1 See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388.
87. 2 Literally: head.
88. 3 See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388; according to Loofs this fragment is a reference to, not a quotation from, Nestorius' own words.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: nestorius_two_letters_01.htm
Nestorius, nd and rd letters to Pope Celestine (2005)
Nestorius, nd and rd letters to Pope Celestine (2005)
Second Letter
Third Letter
The Second Letter of Nestorius to Celestine of
Rome
Written in the early part of 430, Nestorius once again asks for information on the Pelagians taking refuge in Constantinople after being excommunicated by a synod in
Rome
. He tells of his own troubles with heretics in Constantinople, and gives a brief account of their views: confusion of the human and divine natures in Christ. Translated from the th century Latin version of Marius Mercator (Loofs, Nestoriana, 169-172); the original Greek is not extant.
Here begins the second letter of Nestorius to Celestine.
1. I have often written to Your Beatitude on account of Julian [of Eclanum], Orontius, and the others who have usurped for themselves episcopal dignity and made an appearance before the most pious and commendable emperor [Theodosius II], and have succumbed before us to frequent lamentations as though they were [orthodox men] expelled from the West in orthodox times. But we have still not received from Your Worship anything written about them. If I had such documents, I would be able to respond to them and give them a response commensurate to their weeping. As things stand, apart from the uncertain things they say, there is nothing to which one might turn [to understand the situation]. Some call them heretics and say that on that account they have been expelled from the western regions. But they themselves swear that they are the targets of false accusations and because of surreptitious activity they have endured this trial for the sake of the orthodox faith. Our ignorance of them is a heavy burden, whether their account is true or not. For it is a crime to commiserate with them if they are truly heretics, but it is harsh and impious not to commiserate with them if they are the targets of false accusations. Therefore, let Your Soul, most beloved by God, deign to inform us who are still pulled in two ways by the weight of each impulse, that is, toward hating them and having mercy on them. We wish to be taught what opinion we should hold about them. For day after day we defer giving a response to these men, disguising the fact that we still hope and wait on Your Beatitude. For this is not for us, Your Worship, an insignificant discussion of a pious faction, nor is the examination of those who do this a trifling matter for us.
2. For we have also expended much energy here [in Constantinople] striving to root out from the
church of God
that most despicable impiety, the most harmful opinion of Apollinaris and Arius. For I do not know the extent to which some ecclesiastical men have become sick with the sickness of the aforementioned heretics, on account of their acceptance of the idea that the divinity and humanity of the only-begotten are blended (contemperationis imaginem ex deitate et humanitate unigeniti). These heretics both dare to make the bodily passions pour over into the divinity of the only-begotten and pretend that the divine immutability has passed over to the bodily nature. They confuse each nature through the mutability that arises through the blending, even though in reality each nature is adored through an unconfused conjunction of the highest sort (per conjunctionem summam et inconfusam) in the single person (in una persona) of the only-begotten. Blind men! They do not remember the account of the holy fathers who openly contradict them: We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. For this statement [is made] with the title which signifies each nature, Christ... lacuna> [the Holy Spirit?] is co-essential (homoousios) with the divinity of the Father. But the humanity born in these latter times is from the holy Virgin; on account of its conjunction with divinity, the humanity is worshipped by angels and humans together.
Therefore, have consideration for the one who is here wearied by so many labors on account of factional depravity, what he will unavoidably suffer, if he should not know what the men mentioned above are doing and has a great fear of causing through ignorance of the heretics more problems in addition to those already here. Therefore I ask that Your Holiness be diligent in every respect in granting knowledge of the men mentioned above, especially since the most loyal carrier of the letter, the cubicularius Valerius, can himself give to Your Beatitude an account of how they vex. I and those who are with me greet most heartily all the brothers in Christ who are with you.
Translated March, 2005 by Mark DelCogliano
The Third Letter of Nestorius to Celestine of Rome
Written in the latter part of 430, Nestorius claims that the controversy over the term Theotokos (Mother of God) has been concocted by Cyril to forestall judicial proceedings against himself. Nonetheless, Nestorius defends Christotokos (Mother of Christ) as a scriptural term that is preferable because it avoids the heresies to which a misunderstanding of the terms Theotokos and Anthropotokos (Mother of a human being) can lead. Translated from the th century Latin version of Marius Mercator (Loofs, Nestoriana, 181-182); the original Greek is not extant.
To Celestine the Pope, from Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople.
I have learned that Cyril, the most distinguished bishop of the city of Alexandria, has become worried about reports against him that we received, and is now hunting for subterfuges to avoid a holy synod taking place due to these reports. In the meantime he is devising some other disturbances over terms and has chosen [as a point of controversy] the term Theotokos and Christotokos: the first he allows, but as for Christotokos, sometimes he removes it from the gospels, and sometimes he allows it, on the basis of what I believe is a kind of excessive prudence. In the case of the term Theotokos, I am not opposed to those who want to say it, unless it should advance to the confusion of natures in the manner of the madness of Apollinaris or Arius. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the term Theotokos is inferior to the term Christotokos, as the latter is mentioned by the angels and the gospels. And if I were not speaking to Your Worship who is already so knowledgeable, I would need to give a very long discourse on this topic. But even without a discourse, it is known in every way to Your Beatitude, that if we should think that there are two groups opposed to each other, the one using only the term Theotokos, the other only Anthropotokos, and each group draws [others] to what it confesses or, if they have not accomplished this, puts [others] in danger of falling from the church, it would be necessary to assign someone to such an affair if it arises who exercises concern for both groups and heals the danger of both parties by means of the term taken from the gospels that signifies both natures. For as I said, the term Christotokos keeps the assertion of both parties to the proper limits, because it both removes the blasphemy of Paul of Samosata, who claimed that Christ the Lord of all was simply a human being, and also flees the wickedness of Arius and Apollinaris. Now I have written these very things to the most distinguished bishop of Alexandria, as Your Beatitude can tell from the copies I have attached to this letter of mine, as well as from the copies of what he wrote to us. Moreover, with God's help it has also been agreed to announce a world-wide synod in order to inquire into the other ecclesiastical matters. For I do not think it will be difficult to investigate a uncertainty over words, and it is not a hindrance for a discussion of the divinity of Christ the Lord.
Translated March, 2005 by Mark DelCogliano.
This text was translated by Mark DelCogliano, 2005. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: theodoret_commentary_on_romans_01.htm
Theodoret, Commentary on Romans (1839) Part 1
Theodoret, Commentary on Romans (1839) Part 1
COMMENTARY OF THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS IN SYRIA, ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
|34Theodoret was born at Antioch, A.D. 386. His studies were pursued under Theodore of Mopsuista and Chrysostom, from the works of the latter of whom the present commentary is by many esteemed little more than an abridgement. This, however, on comparing the writings of both those Fathers, can hardly perhaps be admitted in its fullest sense, but rather in that in which Theodoret himself represents it, when in his preface to St. Paul's Epistles, speaking not of Chrysostom, or Theodore, who himself also had composed an exposition of those Epistles, but generally, he says, Τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἐκ τῶν μακαρίων συλλέξω πατέρων, συντομίας δὲ ὅτι μάλιστα φροντιῶ.
At the death of his parents he distributed his whole inheritance to the poor, reserving nothing for himself. About the year 420 he was, against his own will, appointed to the bishopric of Cyrus, to which diocese he became a great benefactor, both spiritually and temporally; extirpating heresy oftentimes at the risk of his life; in private charity and public improvements expending almost all his church revenues; neither receiving himself, nor permitting his domestics to receive any thing of any man to conciliate favour; but throughout fulfilling the part of a good and active shepherd in all his doings and conduct. Although in those troublous times of mutual accusation and recrimination, suffering awhile under suspicions in the matters of Nestorius, his innocence and orthodoxy were finally established at the council of Chalcedon, under the emperor Marcian, A. D. 451, from whence retiring to his diocese he passed the rest of his life in quiet, engaged in his labours on the holy Scriptures, and at length died A. D. 457.
"Of all the Fathers, who have composed works of different kinds, Theodoret is one of those," says Dupin (tom. iii. part 2,) "who has been very happy in every one of them. There are some who have been excellent writers in matters of controversy, but bad interpreters. Others have been good historians, but bad divines. Some have good success in morality, who have no skill in doctrinal points. And very rare is it for those who have addicted themselves to works of piety to be good critics. Theodoret had all these qualities, and it may be said, that he has equally deserved the name of a good interpreter, divine, historian, |35 writer of controversies, apologist for religion, and author of works of piety. But he has principally excelled in his compositions upon the holy Scripture, in which, according to the judgment of the learned Photius, be has outdone almost all other commentators. 'He passes over nothing,' says that writer, 'which needs explication, nor can we find any who unfolds all manner of difficulties better, and leaves fewer things obscure.'"
It may be remarked, in conclusion, that the points of divinity which he chiefly urges, and of which indeed he seems never to lose sight, are those connected with that leading mystery of our religion, the divinity and consubstantiality of our Lord, both because this was the specific point on which the heretics of his day chiefly erred, and against the denial of which consequently he directed his arguments: and that he distinctly maintained the procession of the Holy Spirit from the [Greek]. Rom. viii. 11. [Greek]. Answer to Cyril's Anathem. &c. Pearson on the Creed. Art. VIII.
ARGUMENT.
Various and comprehensive is the doctrine which the holy apostle unfolds in the present epistle. Its general scope is this:—worthy of all awe and adoration to the sincere believer as is the mystery of the divine incarnation, clearly manifesting, as it does, the loving mercy of God; they nevertheless who are involved in the darkness of infidelity, and have not admitted the light of intellectual illumination, scorn that which not even the company of angels can worthily celebrate, as the inspired apostle distinctly says in his Epistle to the Corinthians (I Cor. i. 18). "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to them that are saved it is the power of God." In this Epistle to the Romans, therefore, he exhibits the indispensable necessity of this saving gospel, together with its utility and advantage to all mankind, Jews or Greeks. In order to which, in the first place he convicts the Greeks of having palpably corrupted the moral sense of good and evil, implanted in their constitution by their Maker, and transgressed the natural law; and secondly, the Jews of having, although in the enjoyment of the written instructions of the divine laws, yet rejected the benefit arising from them, and rendered themselves thereby obnoxious to the heavier retribution. After this, he shows that our God and Saviour came not for the condemnation and punishment of sinners, but to bring pardon for their offences, to promise victory over death, and proclaim eternal life.
Again, perceiving that the Jews clung but too much to the law, and those who savoured of the errors 1 of Marcion and Valentine, with the |36 Manichees, too much altogether undervalued and condemned it, as an expert general surrounded on all sides by his enemies strikes down first one, and then the other, so does the holy apostle break in pieces, by divine grace, the band of the heretics, and all the array of the Jews. For how does he conduct the argument? By neither elevating the law too high, because of the extravagance of the Jews, nor giving any occasion for reproach to the profane heretics, but demonstrating that it taught all that was needful, and brought in the doctrine of justification, although incompetent to convey justification itself by reason of the infirmity of those under it; and showing that faith brings to effect the design of the law, and what it fain would do, but cannot, it perfects through the grace of the thrice holy Spirit. By all which we learn, how continually regardful of mankind is God our Creator, in that not only did he implant in our nature the power of discriminating between good and evil, but also by the very works of his creation led such as were willing to piety and holiness, for although all were not thus willing to see the truth, they who were had full enjoyment of it, as they desired.
He next further instructs us, that the God of all turned not to this plan of our salvation, as though in a change of council from any of his former designs, but as having long ago foretold it in the ancient prophets; he sets forth the cause of the rejection of the Jews; and admonishes the believing Gentiles not to boast over them; exhorting them to lead the way in the gospel. With these doctrinal lessons he joins recommendations to practical virtue, at once displaying the truth, and reforming the morals. Such then is the general argument of the epistle, all the particulars in which the interpretation of the separate passages will now clearly make known to us.
Chapter I.
1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an Apostle. Governors and generals superscribe their letters with the designations of their respective dignities, priding themselves thereon, and puffed up in fancied greatness by each fresh tide of honour; the holy apostle is content to call himself "one born out of due time,"2 and "the chief of sinners," and to pronounce himself " unworthy the apostleship;" while yet, for the benefit of such as should receive his epistles, he prefixes to them the appellations which by grace he had obtained, that so, by seeing the honours belonging to the writer, they might the more readily and zealously welcome them. And he begins by Paul, not as having been so named of old by his parents, but as preferred to it after his call, as was Simon to that of Peter, and the sons of Zebedee to those of Sons of Thunder, Jacob to that of Israel, and Abram to that of Abraham. Next, servant of Jesus Christ, whom infidels reviled as dead and crucified, and a mere carpenter's son, and yet whose service the apostle notwithstanding chose above any sovereignty.
Then he speaks of himself as called, alluding to his divine call, and |37 adds the name an apostle, teaching us that this also he had gained. For since our Lord gave this designation to the twelve, so the holy apostle here also places it, not as in a presumptuous self-assumption thereof, but as having had it bestowed upon him by his Master himself. "For depart," said he unto him, "because I will send thee for hence unto the Gentiles," (Acts xxii. 21;) and this be farther proves by what follows, namely; separated unto the gospel of God. I am not self-elected, exclaims he, but have been entrusted with the ministry of the word by God himself. Now it was the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who thus set him apart; for that the Father did so, he himself declares in his Epistle to the Galatians (i. 15, 16). " It pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me; that I might preach him among the heathen and that, again, the only- begotten Son did this likewise, is evident where the apostle tells us in the Acts (xxiii. 21) how the Lord was seen of him in the temple, commanding him to hasten and go out, because the Jews would not receive his preaching, adding, "Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles."
And the very same thing he said to Ananias, when he was hesitating and drawing back, (Acts ix. 15;) "Go thy way, for this man is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." And so St Luke also tells us, (xiii. 2,) that "as the prophets were ministering unto the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Evident therefore from hence is the equality of the Trinity. And so also the gospel he now speaks of as the gospel of God, and a little onward as the gospel of the Son, saying, " for God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son." This I have not noted on idly, or to no purpose, but in order to point out how indifferently the teachers of the truth mention the same things, sometimes as those of the Father, and sometimes as those of the Son.
The doctrines also preached he designates as the gospel, because they promise the supply of so many blessings, announcing reconciliation with God, the overthrow of the devil, forgiveness of sins, conquest over death, the resurrection of the deceased, eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven. Having then thus stated that he had been separated to the gospel of God, the holy apostle next proceeds immediately to prove in the first place its antiquity, lest any should be foolish enough to except against it as a novelty, and so reject it; and says, 2. Which he has promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures, for the Old Testament is full of predictions concerning the Lord. Nor does he call them holy for no reason, but firstly to show that he acknowledged their inspiration; secondly, as excluding all other writings, for the inspired book alone contains all things we can need. And he adds the nature of the promise,— 3: Concerning his Son, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh. By all the prophets, says he, God has prophesied of the things relating to his Son, who, in his nature begotten of him before all eternity, yet made himself the son of David, inasmuch as he took his human nature, of the seed of David. Having then thus mentioned David, it was necessary that he should subjoin, according to the flesh, lest he should be considered as by nature the son of David, and by grace only |38 the Son of God; for the addition, according to the flesh, indicates that as to his divinity he is in truth the Son of God the Father. For indeed this phrase we can never find applied to those who simply are such as they appear; as St. Matthew the evangelist witnesses, when saying, Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah, and so going through the whole genealogy in order, he never yet uses this expression, according to the flesh, seeing that it suited not them which were mere men; and so then the divine incarnate Word of God being not only man, but God also from eternity, the apostle, having mentioned David, necessarily adds according to the flesh, clearly to teach us how he was indeed the Son of God, and how yet made to be of David; 4. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Before his cross and passion, not only to the other Jews, but even to the apostles themselves, our Lord Christ did not seem to be God; for they were misled by his perfect humanity, when they saw him eating and drinking, and sleeping, and becoming fatigued; nor could even his miracles bring them to this conviction; and thus, for instance, when they beheld the miracle at the sea of Tiberias (Matt. viii. 27,) they cried out, "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!" In full accordance with which, our Lord said unto them, (John xvi. 12,) "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them yet. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth and again, (Luke xxiv. 49,) "Tarry ye here in this city, until ye shall be endued with power from on high, the holy Ghost coming upon you."
Before his passion, then, such were the ideas they entertained of him; but after his resurrection and ascension to heaven, and the illumination of the thrice holy Spirit, and the various miracles which by the invocation of his sacred name they performed, all the faithful knew that be is God, and the only-begotten Son of God. This then the holy apostle teaches here, that he, who according to the flesh was designated as the son of David, was proved and set forth as the Son of God, in the power exercised by the thrice holy Spirit, after the resurrection from the dead of the same our Lord Jesus Christ; 5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name. For he himself sent us forth as teachers, committing to us the salvation of all nations, and giving grace suitable to that preaching, that they who hear it may hearken unto us, and believe the word. 6. Among whom are ye also called of Jesus Christ. Of which nations, whose husbandry is thus entrusted to me, ye are part; for think not that I am appropriating what belongs to another, or seizing on fields allotted to some one else, for the Lord hath constituted me the minister of all the Gentiles; 7. To all that are beloved of God in Rome, called saints.
He at the same time honours them with such high and divine appellations, and represses every rising of arrogance. For, in the first place, instead of making any distinction between them as the masters of the world, and the other nations, he joins them with them; and, secondly, he writes to all, without respect of persons, addressing together, servants, beggars, and working-people; the wealthy, and the powerful; for that there were some of the latter who believed, he shows in the Epistle to |39 the Philippians, (iv. 22,) saying, "They that are of Caesar's household salute you." It is evident, indeed, that he writes not to the unbelieving, but to those already converted, wherefore he calls them both called, and saints, exalting them with such spiritual appellations, and inflaming thereby their love towards their great Benefactor. Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus then he completes the introduction to his letter, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, to all that in Rome are beloved of God, called saints; grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ;" the rest which intervenes he threw in between, in order to mark whose messenger be had been constituted, and what were the tidings wherewith he had been entrusted, and to whom he had been commissioned to bring them. And he invokes on them first God's grace, because by this it was that believers obtained salvation; and next peace, by which he indicates the full establishment of virtue, since he alone has peace with God who has embraced an evangelical course, seeking ever to serve him in all things. And of these gifts he shows that not the Father only, but the Son also is the giver, in saying, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ; by which expression he plainly teaches the equality of the Father and the Son. 8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
The apostle speaks not thus to flatter them, but in strict truth. For it was impossible that what happened at Rome should not be known throughout all the world; since there anciently the Roman emperors had their palaces, and from thence the monarchs proceeded, and the collectors of tribute throughout the different cities, and there resorted all who sought the favour of royalty, by all of whom it was spread abroad, that Rome bad received the doctrine of Christ; which was of the greatest benefit to those who heard it, on which account the holy apostle returns thanks to God for the same. |93
And now, since he had declared that he had been appointed the teacher of all the gentiles, and yet during so long a time had neither come himself unto them, nor instructed them in the truth by letters, he is constrained to speak in his own defence, and calls God to witness his affection towards them. 9. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10. Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
There are many kinds of service; for he who prays to God is serving him, and he who fasts; and he who applies himself to the diving oracles; and indeed even he who busies himself in providing hospitality to strangers; and here then the holy apostle speaks of serving God in bringing the gospel of his Son to the gentiles, and serving in the spirit, that is, in the spiritual gift conferred on him;3 so pleasing to God did |94 he feel was the glory of his Son. And, expressing himself critically, he does not simply say that he begged for this entrance unto them, but according to the will of God, that is, if it so please the Ruler of all things. If then where the salvation of so many thousands was concerned, the apostle yet asked not any thing absolutely, but to his petition joined the Divine will, how inexcusable must ourselves be, if busied about, and praying for, the mere objects of sense, we rest not at once all things concerning us on the Divine good pleasure. 11. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift. What he says is full of humility; his words are not, that I may "give," but that I may "impart;" that is, of what I myself have received I may communicate unto you. Inasmuch, moreover, as the great Peter had already conveyed to them the doctrines of the gospel, he necessarily adds, to the end ye may be established; for I desire, says he, not to bring you some other doctrine, but to confirm that already preached among you, and to water trees already planted.4 And full of modesty again is what he adds, 12. That is, that I may be comforted together with you, by the mutual faith both of you and me; for not only do I wish to give, but to receive also from you, for the zeal of the disciple comforts and invigorates the master. 13. Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that often times I purposed to come unto you, but was prevented hitherto.
He shows what he had intended, and how Providence had overruled that intention; for Divine grace, says he, orders me even as he will; and having thus thrown in the "I have hitherto been prevented," he shows the more clearly on what account he had been anxious to come to them— that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other gentiles. 14. I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians; both to the wise and to the unwise; 15. So that as much as in me lies, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. I have been appointed the teacher of all nations, wherefore I owe the debt of an evangelist not to the Greeks only, but to the Barbarians also. For this was it that the grace of the Spirit conferred on us the gift of other tongues; and it behoves us to discharge our debt both to those who boast in their wisdom, and to those who are unlearned likewise. By wise he means those who prided themselves on their eloquence; by unwise, those who for their ignorance were so denominated by such as were called philosophers, or wise men. And, as not all would receive the preaching of the gospel, fitly has he added, as much as in me lies; for it is mine to preach, but the believing depends on the hearers. And as he frequently calls this preaching by the name of the gospel, and the gospel contains an account of our Lord's passion, cross, and death, all which to the unbeliever seemed full of dishonour, he seasonably adds, 16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. I look not, says he, to the apparent disgrace, but to the blessing arising therefrom, namely, that from it believers obtain salvation. |95
And thus of mere outward objects many have their own property bidden within them; as pepper, for instance, has a cold appearance, and to those that are unacquainted with it shows no sign of heat, while he that bites it with his teeth perceives its fiery nature; on which account physicians rank it among hot things as to its quality, as though not looking so, and yet capable of being proved to be such. And thus also corn may become the root, and the stock, and the ear, which yet it could never seem, until it has been sown in the furrows of the field. Justly then does the holy apostle call the saving gospel the power of God, as exhibiting its power, and bestowing salvation, only on believers. And this he says is offered to all, both Jews and Greeks; and the Jews he puts first, before the Greeks, inasmuch as our Lord Christ sent the holy apostles as preachers to them first; for thus God proclaims by the prophet (Is. xlii. 6,) "I have appointed thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the gentiles calling the Jews the people, since of them he sprung according to the flesh. 17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; not to all is it revealed, but to those who have the eyes of faith.
The holy apostle here teaches us how from of old God has thus provided for us, and predicted the same by the prophets; and even before the prophets, had his own determination concerning these things secretly within himself, for this also he states in another place, (Eph. iii. 9,) saying, "The mystery which hath been hidden in God, who created all things; "and again, (1 Cor. ii. 7,) "We speak the wisdom hidden in a mystery, which God foreordained before the world, unto our glory." And here therefore he says not that righteousness is given, but revealed; for that which had been so long hidden is now made known to believers. From faith to faith, says he; for we ought to believe the prophets, and by them be brought to the faith of the gospel.
But this may bear another sense also; for he who believes in our Lord Christ, and has received the grace of the most holy baptism, and enjoys the free gift of adoption, is led on to believe in yet further coming blessings; the resurrection of the dead, I mean, eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven. By the righteousness of God, revealed in the gospel, he speaks not only of that which is hereby supplied to us, but that also which is so plainly set forth in the mysterious scheme of this his dispensation. For he effected not our salvation by mere power, nor destroyed the strength of death by his mere voice and command, but by combining pity with justice. For the very only-begotten Word of God, by putting on the nature of Adam, and keeping it free from all sin, obtained this for us, and paying the debt of nature, discharged the common forfeit of mankind.
But all this the holy apostle teaches more clearly below, and it were better for us to follow on our exposition passage by passage. Having then said that this salvation was offered to both Jews and Greeks, provided they were themselves duly disposed towards it, he confirms the assertion by the testimony of Scripture, saying, Even as it is written, The just shall live by faith. This he subjoins for the sake of the Jews, in order to teach them not to cling still to the dispensation of the law, but listen rather to their own prophets, who from of old set forth salvation |96 through faith. And here, quitting his first point—the censure of the Jews, he commences his charge against all the gentile nations, that they had recklessly violated the law implanted in their nature by their Maker. And this blame of them includes a vindication of the Creator; for when he formed them, he suffered them not to live like the irrational creation, but dignified them with reason, and gave them judgment, and established in them the power of discriminating between good and evil; which position is evidenced by such as, before the coming of the Mosaic law, were illustrious for holiness and virtue, as well as by such as followed the opposite course. For so Adam, the instant he had transgressed the commandment, and eaten the forbidden fruit, attempted to hide himself, under the stings of conscience; and when called to account, neither denied what had been done, nor pretended ignorance in his defence, but threw the blame of the accusation on the woman; which plainly shows that our nature possessed the power of discerning the true character of things. And thus again Cain, having privily slain his brother, when examined, "Where is thy brother Abel?" denied it, and attempted to conceal what had been done, but when convicted, confessed that his punishment was just, and owned the equity of his judge, acknowledging that he had sinned beyond pardon; and a thousand other similar instances are to be found in the holy Scriptures: wherefore the holy apostle adds, 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in ungodliness. For nature taught them both that God was the Maker of all things, and that they ought to avoid unrighteousness, and seek righteousness; but they used not the instructions which it gave as they ought to have done; wherefore he threatened them with future punishment.
He here puts the word revealed, in that disbelievers who hearkened not to those threats were the very persons who should experience the truth of what he said. And vengeance he calls the wrath of God; not that God punishes with any passion of mind, but that by giving it so awful a name he might alarm the gainsayer. And he says, is revealed from heaven, because our God and Saviour will appear from thence, as the Lord himself declares, (Mark xiii. 26,) "Then shall ye see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." 19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: who then gave them this knowledge? for God hath showed it unto them. 20. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead. Creation, says he, and all things made in that creation, the succession of time, the change of seasons, the alternations of day and night, the labourings of the clouds, the blasts of the winds, the fruitfulness of plants and seeds, and the various other similar phenomena, plainly point out to us, that God is both the Maker of all things, and that He wisely holds the keys of the creation; for He who framed all things of His alone lovingkindness, can never leave neglected what He hath brought into being; wherefore the holy Apostle says not the invisible thing, but invisible things; that is, His creation, His providence, His just sentence on each person, and all His various dispensations; most unpardonable then are they who, enjoying such a multitude of teachers, yet have received no |97 improvement from so many lessons, for this he adds, so that they are without excuse, for the works of creation themselves almost cry out against them, that they have nothing to plead in arrest of the threatened evils. 21. Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful. For that they were aware of the existence of God, they themselves testify by their continual use of His adorable name, while yet rejecting all suitable sentiments concerning him. But became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened, for they followed senseless notions, and welcomed in the darkness of infidelity. 22. Professing themselves wise, they became fools. He increases their reprobation by the very name they gave themselves, in that, while calling themselves wise, they proved by their works that they were void of understanding. 23. And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man. For not choosing to perceive that the Maker of all things is superior to decay, and far above all that is seen, they called the likenesses of their own bodies, gods; for indeed it was not intelligences, which are invisible, (ch. i. 23-27,) that their statuaries, sculptors, and painters, endeavoured to convey representations of, but perishable mortal bodies; nor was this impiety enough, but they must needs, moreover, worship the images of birds, beasts, and creeping things; and while they should rather have considered that some of these men eat as food, some loathe as unclean, and some avoid as noxious, in their excess of madness and folly they made the likeness of these very things —which men thus ate, loathed, or killed—into gods. 24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. He puts gave them up for permitted; and he means, that, seeing them willing neither by the works of creation to be led up to the Creator, nor by the judgment of reason to choose the better and avoid the worse in practice, he deprived them of his special providence, and suffered them to be carried about like an unsteady vessel, no longer enduring to direct those, who had fallen into the grossest impiety, productive of a lawless life. 25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Impiety, he says, was the foundation of their iniquities, and by both they became stripped of the Divine grace. The name "God" is what he here means by the truth of God, an idol made with hands by a lie; because that when they ought to have worshipped the true God, they offered the adoration belonging to Him to the creature instead. And to the same reproach do they lie open, who call the only-begotten Son of God a creature, and yet worship Him as God; for they ought either, admitting His divinity, to rank Him not with created things, but with God who begat Him; or else, pronouncing Him a created being, not to pay adoration to Him as divine.—But let us pursue the order of our exposition. 26. For this cause, God gave them up to infamous passions, for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another, men with men working that which is unseemly. Iniquity walks hand in hand with impiety, so that as they had changed the truth of God into a lie, so did they in like manner exchange the proper object and exercise of the |98 passions for that which was abominable. And receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. For infamy is the severest penalty of such affections. And thus, what not even a victorious enemy had ever attempted to inflict on them, they themselves willingly ran into; and punishment thereby, heavier than that which any judge would impose, do they voluntarily bring on themselves. And what then was the cause of all these evils? 28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. For if they had been willing to know Him, they would have followed the Divine laws; but now, choosing to deny their Maker, they were altogether stripped of his protecting care, whereby they wrecklessly ventured on every kind of wickedness. 29. Being filled with all unrighteousness. By unrighteousness he means that (disposition) which is diametrically opposed to righteousness, for from this springs every kind of reprehensible conduct. And he proceeds to detail its natural fruits. Fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31. Without understanding, covenant- breakers, without natural affection, faithless, unmerciful. By fornication he signifies intercourse independent of marriage. By wickedness, a savage disposition. By covetousness, the desire of getting more and more, and the carrying off of what does not belong to oneself. By maliciousness, the bent of the mind to evil, and the planning of injury to a neighbour. Full of envy. Bitter is the passion, and unable to bear the prosperity of a neighbour. It is the parent of murder, and conceives deceit. Wounded by envy, and calling in deceit as an helpmate, Cain led his brother forth into the field, and feared not to slay him. By malignant, he means such as exercise their thoughts in laying snares, and designing mischief to those around them. By whisperers, such as privily murmur into the ear abuse of others standing by. By backbiters, such as recklessly indulge in the scandal of the absent. By haters of God, such as are inimically disposed towards him. By despiteful, such as are given to petulance and insolence. By proud, such as are overmuch elevated by every superiority they possess. By boasters, such as are vainly puffed up, while haying no just cause for so exalted self- complacency. By inventors of evil things, such as not only fearlessly run through all existing ordinary evil, but devise yet further means of ill-doing in addition. Disobedient to parents; and baseness indeed is this, of the grossest kind, nature herself condemning it. Without understanding; for they who have fallen upon so lawless a life have lost all marks of reason. Covenant breakers; such as have embraced an unsocial and depraved state. Without natural affection; such as will not learn the laws of friendship. Faithless; such as fearlessly break through all engagements. Unmerciful; such as imitate the ferocity of the brute creation. 32. Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in those that do them. We have shown how nature teaches us to choose good, and avoid evil; but these, says he, nevertheless, think it not enough to commit such things, unless they also commend such as do so likewise: which is the last excess |99 of wickedness, seeing that they ought not only to hate the transgressions of others, but with loathing to reprobate even their own. |158
Chapter II.
He proceeds now in another way to prove our possession of the power of discriminating between good and evil. 1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself for thou that judgest doest the same things. But, although thus situated, if you had received authority from any one to pass sentence, you would punish the transgressors of the law as guilty, so perfect a distinguishment have you between good and its |159 opposite. It becomes you then to be aware, that in the very judgment you pronounce on others as sinners, you involve yourselves in the same condemnation, for you have not hesitated to fall into the same transgressions. 2. But we answer that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things: but it is evident to those who think rightly, that by the divine law all who transgress are obnoxious to punishment. 3. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4. Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-suffering? We know indeed that in His own due time the righteous Judge will inflict vengeance on every sinner, but you, says he, who are so ready to punish others, and to shut your eyes to your own transgressions, imagine that you will escape the divine tribunal. Not so. God bears with you, and has long-suffering, because He yet waits your repentance, as he subjoins, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance. 5. But after thine hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6. Who will render to every man according to his deeds. For since you have an obdurate spirit, and remain still in your iniquity, you are passing against yourself the sentence of punishment, which God in mercy indeed yet delays, but will in the last day set forth, allotting to each a recompense correspondent to their own works.
Well does he adopt the expression, treasurest up unto thyself in order to show, that nothing of ours, whether word or deed, is consigned to oblivion, but that they who love virtue are laying up for themselves a store of good, and the workers of evil-doing the same (of evil). 7. To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, and honour and immortality, eternal life. He teaches the difficulties of virtue, and displays its crown, for the patient continuance in welldoing is expressive of those difficulties, in that we must persevere in and carry through our virtue, and so expect its crown: but the labour is but for a time, the gain eternal; and this eternal he joins not to the life only, but to the glory, the honour and the immortality also, being desirous to illustrate the reward of our good deeds in as many ways as possible. 8. But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile.
As with respect to the former party, it was not simply to any chance person, nor to such as follow virtue sluggishly, that he promised those blessings, but to those who are contented to undergo its difficulties and labours, in like manner does he now threaten the heavy denunciations upon sin not to such as are betrayed into it on some chance occasion, but such as determinately pursue it, as is evident from the are contentious, the obey not the truth, and the work evil. Jews and Gentiles equally, says he, he will punish if transgressors, and deem worthy of the crown if zealous after holiness and righteousness. By the Gentiles he means not such as had become converts to the divine preaching, but such as had lived antecedently to our Lord's incarnation; nor to those among them who were idol-worshippers; but those who, being beyond the Mosaic polity, yet had embraced true piety, and sought after |160 righteousness, does he promise eternal life. 10. But glory, honour, and peace to every man that doeth good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
He speaks thus, not without a distinct design, but with a view to what follows, where he enters upon the accusation of the Jews. 11. For there is no respect of persons with God. 12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. God, says he, is the Maker of all, and therefore the Judge of all; and the Jews then will he take account of, and condemn, according to the Mosaic code, but those that have never received it, whom he means by the without law, and their sin, He will justly punish according to the knowledge of good and evil implanted in their nature. 13. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For the law was not sent to us to gratify our ears, but to lead us to the practice of what is right. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.
For that the divine law demands such a practical obedience they also testify, who, antecedently to the Mosaic code, exercised themselves in holy thoughts, and adorned their lives with virtuous deeds, and became their own lawgivers. 15. Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also being witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another. 16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. He shows that the law of nature was written in their hearts, and that the self-condemnation or self-vindication of conscience was according to truth.
And I think it worth while to illustrate this by some example. When then the admirable Joseph was bringing his plot to bear concerning Benjamin, and attempting to take him for a slave, as if he had stolen the cup, in order to prove the temper of his brethren as it were in the fire, then was clearly manifested the strength of the testimony of conscience. For then they were least inclined to turn their minds to that tragedy, and yet could not but remember the sin themselves had committed two and twenty years before, so that they cried one to another, (Gen. xlii. 21, 22,) that the blood of our younger brother is required at our hands, while Reuben reminded them of his entreaties among them. Agreeably then to this instance may we describe the future judgment and conscience of those who lived beyond the polity of the law, now as pleading their defence, and alleging ignorance, and now again admitting the justice of the accusation, and confessing the equity of the sentence passed upon them. And thus, again, Abimelech, (Gen. xx. 4, 8,) having the testimony of his own conscience, cried to God, "Lord, wilt thou slay an unconscious and righteous nation? Said he not unto me, She is my sister, and she, even she herself said, He is my brother? with an innocent heart have I done this thing."
Having thus then laid down these matters, the holy apostle now turns his discourse to the Jews, and says, 17. Behold, thou art entitled a Jew, for this title was from of old a general and honourable one, wherefore he says not merely named, but entitled; and restest in the law, for thou weariest not thyself, like him who is a stranger to the law, in searching after what is right and fitting in practice, but hast the law itself teaching thee all things plainly; and makest thy boast of God, as of one, who has honoured thee above all the |161 nations on the earth, dignified thee with his especial providence, bestowed on thee the law, and led thee by the prophets. 18. And knowest the will, that is, the will of God: and discernest the differences, that is, between things which are opposite to each other, righteousness and unrighteousness, justice and injustice, temperance and excess, piety and impiety; Being instructed out of the law, for this it is, which was thy teacher in these matters; 19. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them in darkness, 20. An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes. He here points out their arrogant self- opinion, and lays bare the superciliousness they exhibited towards proselytes; which hast the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law, for the divine law has furnished thee with the characters of all these things. 21. Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idolst dost thou commit sacrilege? 23. Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? He shows that they had drawn no benefit from the establishment of the law among them, but being content to pride themselves on its mere letter, and endeavouring to teach others, while by their deeds contradicting their words, so boasted in the law in vain; and he adds a proof to confirm the accusation, 24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written; not only art thou not the cause of glory being given to God, but through thee many tongues are excited to speak evil of his name, in that when they witness thy wicked life, they openly reproach the God who hath chosen thee for his own.
Having, thus shown that they had taken no advantage from the Mosaic legislation, he turns his discourse to circumcision, and proves that it also is deprived of its object, when separated from the other works belonging, thereto; 25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. The holy apostle follows in the train of the ancient prophecies, the God of all says by the prophet Jeremiah, (ix. 26;iv, 4.) "All the Gentiles are uncircumcised in the flesh, but the house of Israel are uncircumcised in their hearts;" and again, "Circumcise yourselves to God;" adding, in order to show what is the circumcision which he speaks of as pleasing to God, "take away the hardened foreskin of your hearts."
Starting from this point, the holy apostle shows that circumcision is idle, if the circumcision of the heart be wanting, for it was instituted in order to that, which if absent the other is of no avail, since it bears but the part of a sign. For where we put gold, or silver, or precious stones, or valuable raiment, we are in the habit of affixing a mark, but, when none of these is within, the inscription of such a mark is idle. 26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? The law, says he, demands practice; when then thou who art circumcised hast not this, but the uncircumcised has, oughtest not thou justly to be, called a sinner, and he receive thine honourable name instead; no longer, acceding to your reproaches, being named uncircumcised, but rather |162 circumcised, as having cut off the evil of his heart. 27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? Worthy of all admiration is the exceeding greatness of the apostle's wisdom, in that it is not the natural, which he opposes to the written, law, but the despised name to the honoured, uncircumcision to circumcision. And this he says is free from blame, for no one is born so of his own choice, but so the Creator formed his nature, wherefore neither can any injury arise from thence to such as love virtue; while thou hast received from thine ancestors the sign of circumcision, and hast the law teaching thee what thou shouldest do, and yet in thy works actest contrary to all that the law points at.
Having thus demonstrated that circumcision was given for a sign, and had afterwards become idle, he then proves that neither has the name a Jew any advantage, 28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; 29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God. He falls back here upon the testimony of the prophetic writings, which we have above quoted, for "Circumcise" says he, "the hardened foreskin of your hearts." |231
Chapter III.
Having thus checked the pride of the Jew, and shown that he boasted in vain in circumcision, and in the law, and in the name of a Jew; lest any one should suppose that he spoke thus from an angry or hostile |232 feeling, he continues, 1. What more then had the Jew, or what profit was there in circumcision? If then, says he, some among heathen and alien nations, who were adorned with piety and virtue, share in the divine favour, to what good did God separate Israel from the Gentiles, and give them the rite of circumcision? for by the more of the Jew he means advantage above the Gentiles. 2. Much in every way. For He chose their ancestors, He freed them from the dominion of the Egyptians, He made them the wonder of nations by miracles of all kinds, He gave the law for their assistance, and set over them His prophets; for this is what he means by much in every way: while yet omitting the specific enumeration of all these, he is content to mention the institution of the law alone—Chiefly that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For this was the highest honour: while the other nations possessed only that knowledge which nature gives, themselves to have received the gift of the law in addition. 3. For what if some did not believe, shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid. Well knew the God of all, says be, from of old, both who would keep His law, and who would break it. They, therefore, who did not believe, by no means invalidated5 the divine mercies; nay, for even though all mankind should prove ungrateful towards Him, this their ingratitude could not diminish the glory of God; as he explains in what follows, 4. Yea, let God be true, but every man false. For granting, says he, for argument's sake, that no one soul of man offered to Him the praise and honour due, but all were infected with ingratitude, which is what he means by every man being false, what diminution would God's glory suffer from hence?
And the same thing has the blessed Apostle observed in another place, "For if we believe not," says he, (2 Tim. ii. 13,) "yet He abideth faithful. He cannot deny Himself." And here he subjoins the testimony of scripture, as it is written, that Thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings, and mightest overcome when Thou judgest. The word that here denotes not the reason, but the result; for we do not therefore sin in order that we may set forth the loving-kindness of God, but Himself supplies the streams of His mercies to bring salvation to all; while men being free agents,6 some prefer the service of God, and some walk in the contrary direction; and so each find their end correspondent with the path they have chosen. But still God's mercies having been extended to them (the latter) also, thus is He fully justified in afterwards judging them, by His previous care bestowed on them. And thus He Himself speaks to Israel, (Micah vi. 3,) "O My people, what have I done unto thee, or how have I grieved thee, or wherein have I wearied thee, testify against Me?" and then enumerates His blessings one by one in order. And thus again in Jeremiah (ii. 5,) does He cry out, "What iniquity have your fathers found in Me, that they are gone far from Me, |233 and have walked after vanity, and are become vain?" and again subjoins a list of His past kindnesses. And here the holy apostle introduces a conclusion in the person of his adversary: 5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say, is not God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? I speak as a man. 6. God forbid.
It was necessary that he should bring forward the objection raised by others, and he shows its absurdity by his disavowal of it; for not I, says he, speak thus, but have only stated the position of others, which is what he means by as a man. For then how shall God judge the world? 7. For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my falseness unto His glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? It is one of the most absurd things thus to speak; for the sentence of God is just. Nor can my own unworthiness advance at all the glory arising to God for His kindness, for it were the extremest injustice that they who advanced His glory should yet suffer vengeance from Him, and expect eternal punishment; this indeed is what not even the most unjust of men would do, how far less then He, from whom flow the very fountains of righteousness! 8. And not also, as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil that good may come? whose damnation is just. None of these things, says he, we ourselves maintain, but are calumniously reported so to speak by others, who will suffer the due reward of their calumny. For we must know that, as the holy apostles had declared that where sin abounded, grace did yet more abound, some who themselves were zealous in piety, yet uttering false accusations against them, had published, that they had said, Let us do evil that good may come. But not such indeed was the object of the apostolic doctrine, for they laid down exactly contrary rules, that all should abstain from every iniquity, while only exhorting such as came to their thrice-holy instructions to be of good cheer, in the pardon vouchsafed by God for past offences. And here, ceasing from our exposition awhile, and resting our mind, let us laud and magnify Him, from whose gift it cometh, that man hath a mouth to speak withal, or remaineth mute and dumb; and pray to Him that we may fully comprehend the mind of the apostolic doctrines. For He assuredly will grant it, who hath said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." With whom, to the Father, together with the thrice-holy Spirit, belong glory and majesty, now and for ever, unto endless ages. Amen.
Book II.
We have already said, that the holy apostle was desirous of showing the necessity of the incarnation of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ; on which account he began by speaking of those, who were strangers to, as well as those also who were under, the law, and convicted the former of having transgressed the natural, and the latter the Mosaic, law, and become worthy of the deepest punishment. Herein does he imitate a skilful physician, who first points out to his patients the virulent nature of their disorder, and then so offers the assistance of his healing remedies. For this he also does; having exhibited the sin of both parties, |234 and proved them deserving of, and obnoxious to, punishment, he next produces his medicine of faith, and sets forth the loving-kindness of the divine dispensation, and says, 9. In what then are we better than they? for we have proved before both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin: 10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues have they used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15. Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16. Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17. And the way of peace have they not known: 18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
In the part above explained, where he was comparing the case of the circumcision with that of the uncircumcision, he subjoined, "What more then had the Jew?" and here, wishing to show the pre-eminence of the grace of the gospel, he says, In what then are we better than they? for we have demonstrated that those without the law, and those within it, have both gone astray, and he adds the testimony of David as exactly adapted to the matter in hand; and he does so, as being particularly studious of brevity, since otherwise he might have called in all the prophets to the condemnation of the Jews, who allege the same, and even worse, things against them; whence he goes on, 19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law. He words this with the greatest accuracy of expression, in that he puts it not "concerning" those who are under the law, but to those who are under the law; for it speaks much concerning the Babylonians, and Persians, and Medes, and Egyptians, and many other nations, but, nevertheless, even these predictions concerning them it addresses to the Jews. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. And again, he employs the word that according to his favourite idiom, (or use of it,) for the God of all did not therefore bestow laws, and send forth His exhortations among men, in order that He might render them obnoxious to punishment, but consulting for their salvation has He done this; themselves it is who, by pursuing an opposite course, have drawn this vengeance on themselves.
Being now about to enter on the privileges of faith, he first demonstrates that all have need of it, and especially, above others, those who boasted in the law: 20. Because that by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight. Some of the injunctions of the Mosaic law agreed with the knowledge of nature, such as, "Thou shalt not commit adultery;" "Thou shalt do no murder;" "Thou shalt not steal;" "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour;" "Honour thy father and mother and others of this kind: for they who had never received that law, were yet fully aware that each of these was deserving not only of condemnation, but of punishment likewise. And some, again, the Lawgiver imposed on the Jews as suitable to them for that present time only; such, I mean, as circumcision, and the sabbath, and sacrifices, and sprinklings, and the rites respecting the leper, and the seminally unclean, and such-like; which are the symbols of other things, and when fulfilled, are not in themselves sufficient to make the doer just. |235 Wherefore the holy apostle says, therefore by the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight; and then, lest any one should suppose that he was passing a censure on the law, he adds, For by the law is the knowledge of sin. The law, says he, has given to man a more accurate discrimination of sin, and made the condemnation lying on it the heavier; but for the establishment of virtue it is not competent to be sufficient for men.
Having thus shown that the law was only the teacher of good, he proceeds to exhibit the power of grace: 21. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Who can sufficiently admire the power of the apostle's wisdom, who shows at once that the law had come to an end, and that it consented to (the covenant of 7) grace. And aptly does he say manifested, for it has now laid clearly before all the hidden mystery of the dispensation; while in this comparison between grace and the law, by proving that both the law and the prophets were witnesses to the former, he exhibits the greatness of its conquest over the latter: 22. Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe. What had been before put down is here repeated, that what was wanting might be added; for having said the righteousness of God is manifested, and then interrupted the sentence to speak of its character, it was necessary that he should resume the phrase again, and show that it was by faith in the Lord Christ that all who desired to do so enjoyed it, whether Jews or Greeks; the unto all refers to the Jews, the upon all to the other nations; and this he goes on to set forth more clearly—For there is no difference: 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. He briefly shows that all are guilty, and need (the covenant of) grace: 24. Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. For by bringing faith alone,8 we have received remission of our sins, in that the Lord Christ has offered up His own body for us, to be, as it were, the price of redemption.
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiatory, through faith in His blood. The propitiatory was a golden plate, which lay over the ark, having at either end the figure of a cherub, (Exod. xxv.) and from thence the mercy of God was manifested to the high priest in his ministrations. The holy apostle here then teaches, that the Lord Christ was the true propitiatory, for that ancient one was but a type of this. This name, however, is applied to Him as man, and not as God; for as God He Himself speaks from the propitiatory; while as man He receives this appellation even as others, such as "sheep" and "lamb," and |236 "sin" and "curse," and the like. (See John i. 29, 36. Acts viii. 32. 2 Cor. v. 21. Gal. iii. 13.) And the ancient propitiatory was bloodless in itself, inasmuch as it was also inanimate, and received only the sprinklings of the blood of the victims; but the Lord is God, and propitiatory, and high priest, and lamb, arid in His own blood hath worked out our salvation, demanding faith only from us.—To declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past: 25. Through the forbearance of God, to declare, I say, at this time His righteousness. God has both exhibited His own mercy in so long bearing with sinners, and has made manifest His righteousness to all men; for that it was not without any further view that He thus bore with sinners, but as preparing for them this mean of salvation, the next sentence shows—that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. For both these things should we learn from hence, that the God of all has ordered His dispensations concerning ourselves with justice equally as with mercy; and that whosoever believes in the Lord Christ is made partaker of the righteousness which is by faith.
Thus briefly having stated the free gifts conferred by (the covenant of) grace, he returns to his discourse respecting the law, and shows that it yielded the victory to grace. 27. Where is boasting then? This must be read interrogatively, and then comes the answer, It is excluded. He says not destroyed, but excluded; that is, has no longer any place.9 By boasting he means the haughty self-esteem of the Jews, who exalted themselves as the only possessors of God's favour; while now, divine grace having appeared abroad, and been shed among all nations, this arrogance had been put out of the question, in that God had given to man a short and easy mean of salvation in faith; for this the apostle continues to show forth in the following sentences also, By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. He calls faith here a law, not from inconsideration, but as recollecting the prophecy of Jeremiah (xxxi. 31, 32,) "For in those days, saith the Lord, and at that time, I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers."
If then the Mosaic law is thus styled a covenant, and the new covenant again bears also the same name, and faith in Christ be the law it enacts, in strict accordance with the phraseology of the prophet does the holy apostle here apply the name of the law to faith. And then he subjoins the conclusion concerning faith: 28. We conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. By law here he means that of Moses; but at the same time he says not, we conclude that by faith a Jew is justified, but a man, the common name of the whole human race; as he goes on to reason, 29. Is He the God of the Jews only; is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. And then, as a position which cannot be disputed, he confirms it by the assertion, 30. Seeing that it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. It is one God, who is the God of all; one, who is the Maker of all; nor is it possible that He should be careful for some, and leave others uncared for; wherefore |237 He extends His salvation to all that believe. By circumcision he means the Jews, by uncircumcision the Gentiles. And he next resolves the objection which might be raised, 31. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law. For of old both the law and the prophets prophesied of the things concerning the faith, and in receiving therefore the faith we confirm the law. He then brings forward evidences of all this, and, while having it in his power to adduce a vast variety of testimonies from the prophets, prefers going at once to the very root of the Jews, and demonstrates that the righteousness of the patriarch Abraham himself was that which is of faith. |291
Chapter IV.
1. What shall we then say that Abraham our father hath found, as pertaining to the flesh? What righteousness, says he, before he believed in God, have we heard that Abraham our father had as his own by works? for as pertaining to the flesh means that which is of works, inasmuch as it is by our fleshly bodies that works are done. 2. For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.10 The full performance of good works crowns the doers with the prize, but does not exhibit the loving-kindness of God; while faith sets forth both the disposition of the believer towards God, and the loving-kindness of God, who by accepting such faith proclaims him who has acquired it, victorious. And this he confirms by the testimony of Scripture, 3. For what saith Scripture? Abraham believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. For the blessed Abraham obtained not the divine attestation by living according to the law, but enjoyed the riches of justification by believing on Him that called him. 4. Now to him that earneth it by his works the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt. For the doer of righteousness demands his reward, while the righteousness which is of faith is the free gift of the God of all, as is further exhibited in what follows, 5. But to him that earneth it not by his works, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.11
Having thus, in the instance of the patriarch Abraham, demonstrated that faith was older than the law, he now again calls in another trustworthy witness of this,—David the prophet and king, to whom the God of all renewed the promises made to Abraham. For as he had promised to Abraham, (Gen. xxii. 18,) that "in his seed He would bless all nations," in like manner did He proclaim to the most excellent David, (Ps. lxxxix. 35, 38,) "Once have I sworn in my holiness that I will not fail David. His seed remaineth for ever, and His throne as the sun before Me, and as the moon established for ever, and faithful is the witness in heaven:" and again, (v. 25,) "I will set His hand also in the sea, and His right hand in the rivers:" and again, (Ps. lxxii. 11,) "Yea all kings shall fall down before Him, all nations shall serve Him:" and such like.
And since then he had shown that the blessed Abraham had obtained justification by faith, but then Abraham lived before the establishment of the law, it was necessary that he should now show that David, who |292 lived under the law, himself also bore witness to (the covenant of) grace; and accordingly he says, 6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7. Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord will not impute sin. The law, says he, brought punishment on such as sinned, but the prophet speaks of the blessedness of those, who have received forgiveness of their sins. It is evident, therefore, that he is speaking of the blessedness of our own condition, and foretelling the free gifts of grace; and this grace be shows is open to all, saying interrogatively, 9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? And then again he establishes his position by the case of the patriarch Abraham, For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. He proves that faith is older not merely than the law, but than circumcision itself, and that while circumcision was yet unestablished, the patriarch received the testimony of his righteousness, the righteousness which is of faith. How then could he need circumcision, while having already obtained the righteousness which is of faith? This he clearly explains, 11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised. Circumcision itself, says he, is not righteousness, but a testimony of righteousness, and a seal and sign of that faith, which he bad exhibited before he was circumcised. That he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. 12. And the father of circumcision. Here we must make a full stop. For herein he shows that the patriarch first was the father of such as believed, being uncircumcised, inasmuch as he himself, while uncircumcised, offered to God the tribute of faith; and then of the Jews also, as of those who were sharers with him in the circumcision; and this he lays down again, yet more clearly, in what follows, Not to them only who are of the circumcision, but to them also who walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had while yet uncircumcised. For if any one sprung from the Gentiles, and not having received circumcision, should follow in the footsteps of that faith of the patriarch, which he had before his own circumcision, he would not fail of relationship to him; in that the God of all, foreseeing, as God, that He would hereafter gather together one people of the Gentiles, and the Jews, and extend to them salvation through faith, represented both of old in the patriarch Abraham. And thus then he calls him the father of the Gentiles, in having shown that he had acquired, before his circumcision, the righteousness which is of faith, and after his circumcision, had not walked under the Mosaic law, but continued under the guidance of the same faith; in order that both Jews and Greeks, looking to him, might in common aim at his faith, neither the one anxious for his circumcision, nor the other his uncircumcision, for it is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but faith which the holy Scripture speaks of as (the mean of v. 3, 5, 9, &c.) righteousness.
Having thus shown that faith was both older and more excellent than the law, he now also shows that the law was subsequent to the promise |293 given to Abraham, in order thereby to make it manifest that (the covenant of) grace was itself also anterior to the law, seeing that of this it was, that the promises were given to Abraham; for the promise was, that "in his seed all the nations should be blessed," which promise received its accomplishment in Christ. 13. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith: for it was by believing in God, and not by walking according to the Mosaic law, that he received the promise of the blessing of the nations. 14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect; for if they who live according to the law obtain the promised blessings, in vain did Abraham believe in God, and false and not true were the promises made to him by God. 15. Because the law worketh wrath; for it is the character of the law to punish the transgressors thereof; by wrath he means punishment; for where no law is there is no transgression, for the law punishes the violators of it, for with the law are connected observance and violation; some through zeal for virtue preferring to keep it, and some through love of ease carelessly suffering themselves to violate it.
16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. He puts down the arrogance of the Jews by applying the name, seed of Abraham, to such as imitated the faith of Abraham, however aliens in blood. But if then, while the law punishes transgressors, (the covenant of) grace gives forgiveness of sins, it confirms thereby the promise made by God, in bringing that blessing on the nations. And as He had called Abraham, the father both of the nations, and of the Jews, he supports the expression by testimony from Scripture, 17. As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, and then he strengthens this testimony by an evidence, Before Him whom he believed, even God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. For as, says he, God is the Maker of all, and the God, and carer for, all, so did He constitute Abraham, the father of all, not of the Jews only, but of all who believe.
And he (next) exhibits the greatness of Abraham's faith, 18. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, "So shall thy seed be." 19. And not being weak in faith so as to consider his own body now dead, being about an hundred years old, neither the deadness of Sarah's womb; for while he saw that his wife was barren, that the impotency of old age lay upon both, and that there appeared not, according to human calculation, the smallest hope of child-bearing, and was unable to produce a single similar instance from earlier times for his encouragement, he yet welcomed the divine promise with confidence; for against hope means hope from nature; in hope, confidence in the divine promise. 20. But he staggered not at the promise of God, through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God: 21. And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform. For he looked not to the impotence of nature, but trusted, without doubting, in the Creator of that nature. 22. Wherefore also it was imputed unto him for righteousness; that is, faith was. |294
Having thus shown that faith flourished among those, who were under the law, and those also who lived before it, he turns his discourse to the object proposed. 23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that faith was reckoned unto him for righteousness, 24. But for us also, to whom it shall be reckoned, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Thus then the patriarch, while he saw the womb of his wife dead, yet believed that it was easy for God to fulfil his promise; and thus then we, while we hear the Jews declaring that our Lord Christ is dead, believe that He is risen again; wherefore we, in our turn, gather the fruits of faith, and enjoy the righteousness springing therefrom. For not for nothing were recorded the things which the Lord God did regarding the patriarch Abraham, but that we, beholding them, might exhibit the like faith ourselves. He that raised up our Lord Christ is spoken of His humanity, for, in the nature in which He suffered, in that it was that He arose, and the suffering was of the flesh, and not of the impassible Godhead. 25. Who was delivered up for our offences, and was raised again for our justification; for for our offences He underwent His passion, that He might pay off our debt, and that His resurrection might work out the common resurrection of all; for by it we both gain the means of our own justification, and, being buried with Him in baptism, receive remission of sins.
Having thus shown the power of faith, and displayed the gifts of (the covenant of) grace, he now turns his discourse to exhortation, bidding us also take heed to the practice of virtue; for having said that, when (the covenant of) faith was revealed, the law became superseded, and that the patriarch had attained the righteousness which is of faith, it was necessary that he should add moral counsels, lest such as lived at ease should take occasion from hence to neglect practical virtue, under the plea that faith alone was sufficient12 for justification. |349
Chapter V.
1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2. By whom now we have access, by faith, into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Faith then has given us remission of sins, and made us blameless and just by the regeneration of the baptismal font, and it is incumbent on you to preserve the peace thus effected. For the only-begotten by His incarnation has reconciled you, while you were in hostility with Him, and sin it was that produced this hostility, righteousness therefore it must be which will maintain the peace commenced; and this then we are in every way bound to pursue by the consideration of the hopes held out, and the glory promised by God to be given to us. For the recompense of our labours he calls not payment, but glory, to show the excess of our reward. And as they had at that time to endure many troubles, being beaten, tortured, and subjected to a thousand kinds of death, he most fitly brings forward the sources of consolation connected with these things, 3. And not only so, but we even glory in tribulations. He has displayed brightly his own insuperable magnanimity, for it is not, we patiently endure afflictions, which he says, but we even rejoice in afflictions; we are exalted, he exclaims, and take pride to ourselves, as fellow-sharers with the Lord of sufferings; but this he says not openly, because they alone could so feel, who with himself had arrived at completeness13 in the faith; the rest he encourages by what should come hereafter. 4. Knowing that tribulation worketh patience, and patience proof,14 and proof hope. 5. And hope maketh not ashamed. When misfortunes surround a man, and he bears their attack nobly, he is thereby shown to stand his proof, 15 and leans on the hope of the future; and this is not a fallacious hope, but one based on truth; which is what he means by maketh not ashamed, they who hope, and then are disappointed, being confounded and ashamed. |350
Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For the grace of the thrice holy Spirit, which we received through baptism, has kindled the love of God within us. And he then sets forth the causes of this love. 6. For when we were yet without strength, in time Christ died for the ungodly. 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. For we reflect, that when we were yet transgressors, and suffering under the infection of impiety, the Lord Christ endured that death, which was inflicted on our behalf; and hence we learn the depth of His loving-mercy, for for a just man it might be, that some might face death, but He, through the excess of His love, welcomed the death which was in behalf of sinners; as he also goes on to say, 8. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. God then makes manifest the greatness of His love towards us, in the death of Christ having been undergone, not for such as had been just, but for such as were yet transgressors. For we now have been justified by faith in Him, but, when He undertook that death for us, we were still subject to every kind of sin; the words, in time, mean, at the fit time, in due time, and this he says also in his epistle to the Galatians, (iv. 4, 5.) "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." 9. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, shall we be saved from wrath through Him. Having encountered that accursed (see Gal. iii. 13) death for the ungodly and transgressors, it is evident that He will free from the future punishment those, that believe in Him; for that future (eternal) punishment is what he here calls wrath. 10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved in His life. If while we were antagonists, and enemies, He thought fit to treat us with so great consideration, as to give up His Son to die for us, how is it possible, now that reconciliation has been effected, that we should not share in everlasting life? And here again he calls the Lord Christ, the Son, who, the same, is both God and man; it must be evident therefore, I apprehend, even to the most determined heretics, as to which nature His passion took place.
11. And not only so, but we joy also in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation. For not only do we expect immortal life, but even as to the present existence, glory in having been brought near unto God, while we reflect upon the things concerning the Lord Christ, who, being our mediator, has effected peace.
From hence he proceeds to explain the mystery of the dispensation, and show the reasons of the incarnation, 12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned. The Lord God having formed Adam, and dignified him with reason, imposed on him one single law for the exercise of those rational faculties; for indeed it was not meet that one who had received reason, and possessed the power of discriminating between good and its opposite, should live without any law at all. He, having been beguiled, transgressed the command. But, from the first, the lawgiver had to the command affixed the threat of retribution, and thus, |351 falling under the sentence of death, he so begot Cain, Seth, and the rest. All therefore, as having sprung from him, inherited a mortal nature. Now such a nature has need of many things, food, and drink, and clothing, and houses, and various arts, and the use of these oftentimes excites the passions into excess, and excess begets sin; and therefore the holy apostle says, that Adam having sinned, and become mortal through that sin, both descended to his race, for death came upon all men, in that all have sinned, for not on account of our first father's transgression, but for his own, each receives the sentence of death.16 13. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not reckoned (such) where there is no law. He accuses not, as some suppose, those who lived before the law, but all alike; for the until the law means, not until the commencement of, but until the end of, the law; that is, while the law reigned sin had power, for where there is no law, neither can there be transgression.
14. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the type of Him that would come after. By Moses he means the law, as we also find in the Gospels (Luke xvi. 29,) "They have Moses and the prophets;" |352 and so also the holy apostle speaks in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (iii. 15,) " But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their hearts," that is, the law. Death then, says he, reigned from Adam until the manifestation of the Saviour, for then the law received its end, "for the law," says he, "and the prophets, prophesied until John; but from the days of John the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Matt. xi. 12, 13.) And death, moreover, reigned over those also, who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, for although they had not transgressed that particular commandment, they had nevertheless ventured on other sins. And he calls Adam the type of Christ, for the latter he designates as Him that would come after, on this account, that as Adam first, by his sin, became subject to the sentence of death, and thus the whole race followed their first parent, so the Lord Christ, having fulfilled the most perfect righteousness, destroyed the power of death, and first rising from the dead shall restore the whole race of man to life. And as he had called Adam the type of Christ, he shows the pre-eminence (of the latter.) 15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. And how then is this? For if through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. As regards punishment, says he, the Lord God preserved the strict law of justice, and Adam, having sinned, and been given over to death, the whole race followed him; how much more right then that, as regards God's loving-mercy, justice should also be preserved, and all men share in the resurrection of our Lord Christ! He here calls the Lord Christ a man, to show clearly the type in Adam, that as there by one man (came) death, so here by one man the dissolution of death. 16. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. The munificence of grace, says he, goes beyond the limits of justice, for then, one having sinned, the whole race received punishment, but now, all mankind having been unholy, and transgressors, it has brought, not punishment but, the free gift of life.
17. For if by one man's offences death reigned by one; much more they which receive the fulness of grace, and of the gift, and of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. If the transgression of one man established the dominion of death, it is evident that they, which enjoy the plenteous gifts of God, shall be conquerors over death, and share with Christ in the imperishable kingdom and life eternal.18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Doubt not, says he, concerning what I have said, while looking to Adam; for if those things be true, as indeed they are true, and when he had sinned the whole race received the sentence of death; it is plain, that the righteousness of the Saviour gains life to all men. And again he puts the same thing in another form, varying his phrase, and again and again re-stating it, in order the more clearly to open the mystery of the dispensation. 19. For as by one man s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. With great nicety does he here, in the case of those under Adam, and that of those under grace, adopt the word |353 many, for indeed among the former we find some, who were superior to the grosser sins, as Abe , and Enoch, and Noah, and Melchisedek, and the patriarchs, and even those who became illustrious under the law; and after (the covenant of) grace there are many who embrace a sinful life.
Having thus shewn us, from what took place through Adam, the reasons for the divine incarnation, he brings forward the objection17 which might arise, and offers a solution. The objection is with regard to the law, which was given in the interim between Adam and the appearance of the Saviour; wherefore the holy apostle says, 20. But the law came in between, that the offence might abound. He means not, by that it might, that such was its object; but uses the words according to his familiar mode of expression.18 But what he is shewing is, that neither in time past did God leave men neglected, but gave the law to the Jews, and by their means showed forth the light of religion on the rest of the nations also. And aptly has he put intervened, in that Christ was the end of the promise made to the patriarch; for "in thy seed," says He, "shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," and the law intervened between Abraham and Christ. And it taught the more clearly how evil a thing sin was, while yet it was incompetent to put a stop thereto, but only the more increased it, seeing that, in proportion as more commandments were given, so many the more became the violations of them. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. It invalidated not, says he, the mercy of God, but rather displayed the vastness of His loving-kindness. 21. That as sin had reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Here he finishes the argument, shewing that as sin, begetting death, had reigned in our mortal bodies, exciting the passions to excess; so grace, conveying to believers the justification which is of faith, has her dominion also, one not coeval with that of sin, but eternal and endless; for the former reigns over our bodies, but at their death ceases from her power, "for he who is dead," according to the holy apostle, "is freed from sin;" while, after the resurrection, our bodies having become imperishable, and immortal, grace will reign in them, sin having no longer any place; for when the passions have ceased, there will be no room for sin. And then again he proposes another objection arising from the subject, and with ease resolves it. |407
Chapter VI.
1. What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. By the reprobation of this, he shows its inconsistency, but the question itself be put down, because of what had been just before said, "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Nor is he contented with this bare condemnatory disavowal, but proceeds to treat the subject in another way also:—2. How shall we, that have died to sin, live any longer therein? And how have we died thereto? 3. Know you not, brethren, that as many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ have been baptized into His death? Thou hast renounced sin, and hast become dead to it, and buried with Christ; how is it possible then that thou shouldst admit this same sin? 4. Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. The very sacrament19 of baptism has taught thee to fly from sin, for baptism carries in it the representation of our Lord's death, for in that thou hast communicated both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ. It becomes thee therefore to lead a new life, as it were, and one suited to Him in whose resurrection thou hast partaken. The divinity of Christ is what he here calls the glory of the Father, for thus also in another epistle he speaks, (Eph. i. 17,)20 "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory....." and the Lord in the gospels (John ii. 19,) "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." Nay, and if heretics will not receive this interpretation, neither so can they injure the glory of the Only-begotten, for, even granting that it was the Father who raised Him up, as man it was that He raised Him, for as man it was that He also endured the passion. 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection. Since he had called baptism, which places us in a state of salvation, a type of death, by this change of name He plainly points out the resurrection, for whatever is distinctly planted springs up again. 6. Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him, that the body might be rendered inoperative as regards sin, so as that we should no longer serve sin. Not our |408 nature, but our evil inclination, is what He here calls the old man, and this he says has been put to death in baptism, that the body may be idle as regards sin, for this it is which He means by that the body might be made to cease from sin, so that it should in no wise serve sin. And this He shows more plainly by another similitude:—7. For he that is dead is freed from sin. For who ever yet saw one that was dead either invading the marriage-bed of another, or imbruing his hands in bloodshed, or committing any other of the catalogue of iniquities? 8. For if we have died with Christ, we believe we shall also live with Him. It becomes us, therefore, also, having been buried with Christ, to be dead indeed unto sin, but to await the resurrection. 9. Knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over him. 10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Amply, by these words, has he proved his wish to make believers abstain from sin. Once, says he, Christ died; and that He should a second time die were impossible, for He now possesses an immortal body. On this account, therefore, we all also enjoy one baptism; expect not then any second forgiveness by (means of any second) baptism. He has indeed well said that He died unto sin, for He was not subject to death, inasmuch as He had done no sin, but received death for our sin. 11. And thus indeed reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ. And do you, therefore, display your bodies dead to the inworking of sin, but embrace the life which is after Christ, by which you shall obtain the life eternal. To this advice it behoves us all to take heed, flying from the snares of sin, and calling to our aid Christ who has saved us; for, if called, He will appear, and extend to us His own strength: in conjunction with whom, to the Father, with the thrice-holy Spirit, belong glory and majesty, now and for ever, unto endless ages. Amen.
Book III.
12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. A reign differs from a tyranny in this, that a tyranny is exercised over those who unwillingly submit to it; a reign, over subjects who are consenting thereto. He exhorts us therefore no longer to agree to the government of sin, for the Lord in His incarnation has overthrown its reign; and as one legislating for mere mortals, and such as possess a body liable to passions, he enjoins things consistent with their infirmities, and says, not Let not sin tyrannize, but, let it not reign; for the former is its own property, the latter rests on our will; the motions and tumult of the passions being engendered in us by nature, while the performance of what are forbidden depends on our own volition. And he shows, moreover, the short duration of the warfare by denominating the body mortal, in that when it has undergone the termination of death the attack of the passions ceases likewise. He exhorts us then, not to put a stop to the tyranny of sin, but, not to obey it when intemperately inflaming the desires of the body. 13. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin. Having spoken of a reign, in strict keeping herewith, he mentions its artillery also, and teaches us the way of victory, for the weapons which |409 sin uses against us are our own members. But yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead. And, indeed, just before he had said the very same thing— "And so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ;" that is, ye have been buried with Christ, and have risen again with Him, wherefore ye are dead to sin, and aspire to another life. And your members, as instruments of righteousness, unto God. He shows that the body is not evil, but the work of a God of goodness, for it is competent to serve God, if well and properly governed by the soul; wherefore it is the inclination of our own free will to the worse that offers the members for weapons, as it were, to sin; and again the love arising from our knowledge of good, which prepares the members to obey the divine laws. For thus the tongue of the musician, when he is in the right mind, offers up fitting melody to the God of all, but when he is drunken and disordered, madly sends forth the horrid sounds of impiety; and thus also it is both adorned by the words of truth, and disgraced by falsehoods; and thus the eye likewise can look abroad both modestly and lasciviously, both savagely and benevolently; and thus also the hand both kills and pities; and, in short, all the members of the body become the instruments of holiness when the Spirit is so minded, and of sin, on the reverse, when it has embraced the governance of sin. But in another way also does the holy apostle demonstrate the easiness of the victory: 14. For sin shall no longer have dominion over you, says he. For nature no longer fights singly, but has for her assistant the grace of the Spirit; for this he adds, for ye are not under the law, but under grace. He shows that before the coming of (the covenant of) grace, the law taught only what was to be done, but afforded no help to those under it, while (the covenant of) grace, in addition to the imposition of duties, extends assistance also, on which account the legislative constitution of grace is also more complete than the law, as removing the impediments by this succour. And here again he answers an objection arising. 15. What then, shall we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace? He notes this objection because of the gainsayers, and first reprobates it, pointing out its absurdity, and says, God forbid, and then more at length demonstrates the contrary. 16. Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Whomsoever ye choose to submit yourselves unto, his commands you are bound to comply with, for it is not possible at the same time to obey two lords, but righteousness and sin are diametrically opposed to each other; and this also the Lord says in the holy gospels, (Matt. vi. 24,) "No man can serve two masters." 17. But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. He both points out the change in themselves, and exhibits the joy arising therefrom, giving praise to God; for ye were, says he, the servants of sin, but by your own voluntary choice you have shaken off its sovereignty, and embraced the divine polity.21 18. Having then been freed from sin, ye were made servants of righteousness. Ye have cast away the slavery of sin, and taken upon |410 you the yoke of righteousness; it is not possible therefore that bearing the latter you should yield to the commands of the former. 19. I speak after the manner of men, because of the infirmity of your flesh. I suit my exhortations to your nature, for I am well aware of the passions which contend in a mortal body. For as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness, unto holiness. By this also be shows that it is not the (natural, see ver. 13,) body that deserves reprobation, but the disposition that leads it astray. And he demands indeed from us nothing impossible, but that what we did give to sin, the same we should afford to righteousness; and to the former we subjected ourselves while it enjoined iniquity, the latter, if we obey it, will bring us to holiness. 20. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness, for ye fulfilled its precepts only, while as to the laws of righteousness ye received not them at all. And then again, in another way, he exhibits the difference. 21. What fruit had ye then from those things? Tell me yourselves the gains of sin; or rather it were idle to ask, for in silence you confess its injury, for ye are covered with shame, as he adds, whereof ye are now ashamed; for although any one be barefaced indeed, he yet cannot but experience shame, when his enjoyment is over. And he subjoins, in addition to this, the greater and more bitter fruit of sin —for the end of those things is death. Death, he means not the present, which is merely temporal, but that which is eternal. 22. But now having been freed from sin, and made servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. In these words he opposes God to sin, holiness to shame, and life everlasting to everlasting death. 23. For the wages of sin is death. As (according to the metaphor throughout adopted, be had said that) it formerly reigned, and now tyrannizes, and he had called its weapons our own badly-disposed members, consistently also does he denominate the reward wages, for so he was in the habit of naming the pay of soldiers; as in the epistle to the Corinthians, he says, (1 Cor. ix. 7,) "Who goeth a warfare at any time on his own wages?" But the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Here he says, not reward, but free gift, for eternal life is the gift of God; for though any one should carry through the highest virtue, still those eternal blessings could not justly be weighed as a requital for such present labours. Having said these things to them that lived under (the covenant of) grace, respecting the obligation lying on them to avoid sin, he again turns his discourse to the comparison between the (covenant of) law and grace, and shows the strength of the latter and the weakness of the former, and teaches that on the entrance of the one, the other ceased. |480
Chapter VII.
1. Know you not brethren (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man, as long as he liveth? You well know, says he, you I mean who have been brought up in the law, that the law has its authority over those who are yet alive; and he adduces an example also in accordance with this proposition. 2. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is made to cease from the law of her husband. And then he shows this yet more clearly: 3. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she is called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. The law, says he, calls her an adulteress, not who after the death of her husband is united to another, but, who while her husband is yet alive, joins herself to any one else, for such an one it orders to be punished as insolently rebelling against the law of matrimony; it is evident, therefore, that when her husband has brought his life to an end, the widow not illegally, but with the distinct permission of the law, may marry another. Nor indeed was the holy apostle ignorant, that the law gave permission to the living also to dissolve a marriage when it should be no longer agreeable, but he was mindful of our Lord's assertion, which declared that Moses gave them that law on account of the hardness of the heart of the Jews, but that the law of nature had added no such terms, for one man, says he, and one woman did God make, establishing the law concerning marriage in their very creation: wherefore leaving this unnoticed, he passed on to the law as regarded the dead, and subjoins, 4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead. It would have been indeed in strict consistency with the example adduced, to have said, "the law is dead," that is, has ceased, but in consideration of |481 the spiritual weakness of the Jews, for they greatly exalted the law, and from a desire not to afford an opportunity of finding fault with it to the heretics who denounced the Old Testament, he avoids saying that the law had ceased, but declares that we have become dead to the law by baptism which saveth us, and then rising again have been united, to Him who hath Himself risen from the dead, that is Christ. And as he had called the faith which is in the Lord a marriage and union, in strict keeping herewith does be show the fruits also arising from marriage, that we should bring forth fruit unto God, says he. What then is this fruit-bearing? That our members become the instruments of righteousness. And most aptly does he show that the law itself leads us to be joined to Christ, for it forbade not, says he, a woman to be married to a second husband after the death of the first. And then he goes on to point out the difference. 5. For when we were in the flesh, that is, under the polity of the law, for the legislative ordinances concerning the flesh, as of foods and drinks, of leprosy, and such like, are what he here calls the flesh; the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members. He says not "in" the law but by the law, for it does not itself bring about sin, but it condemns sin, while that, which was good, sin uses for evil; neither indeed do our members themselves bring about sin, but only by our members has the inclination of the soul to the worse brought its operations to effect. And what then springs from hence? To bring forth fruit unto death.
In these words he has taught us that before the coming of (the covenant of) grace, while we were living under the polity of the law, the attacks of sin to which we were subjected were the more powerful, in that the law showed indeed what ought to be done, but offered no help to do it. 6. But now we are made to cease from the law. He still continues in the same cautious mode of expression, and says not, "the law is made to cease," but we are made to cease from the law, that is, it is inoperative as regards ourselves, we are no longer under its polity. And how are we made to cease from it? Being dead to that wherewith we had been held. For when we were subjects of the law we came to baptism, and dying with Christ, and with Him rising again, we were united to our Lawgiver, and no longer need the polity of the law, for we have received the very grace itself of the Spirit, as what follows proves, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. He here puts the spirit in opposition to letter, and the new against the old, that by the word letter he might point out the law, and by the old its having come to a conclusion. For indeed by Jeremiah (xxxi. 31, 32) God says, "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt so that the difference was shown even by the prophet; and on the appearance of the new covenant, the old must yield. Having thus spoken, and foreseeing as one honoured with the gifts of the Spirit, that some of the heretics would understand this in derogation of the old covenant, and conceive that the old law came from some other than the one same God, the holy apostle necessarily states the objections and subjoins the answers to them. 7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? |482
He had in the former parts of this epistle laid down many positions, which might have given an opportunity of finding fault with the law, to such as were desirous of speaking evil of it, unless he had offered the present solution of such questions, (as) "the law entered in between that the offence might abound;" and "the law worketh wrath;" and "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight;" and the like; wherefore, for the resolution of these very things he proposes the objection. And first he shows that the interrogation is profane, and adds the expression of disavowal, God forbid, and then he teaches the utility of the law. Nay but I should not have been aware of what was sin, but by the law. Not only, says he, is the law not the teacher of sin, God forbid, but on the contrary it is the condemner of sin, for I should not have known what was evil, unless it had shown me. For I should not have known that lust was, except the law had said Thou shall not lust. The words I should not have been aware, and I should not have known, are not here indicative of a total ignorance, but mean this, that I received from the law a knowledge more complete than the mere discrimination of nature. 8. But sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. In every way he endeavours to show that it was free from blame, for having said that by the imposition of the law sins had been increased, lest any one should suppose that the law had been the cause, he most seasonably sets forth its way, that sin making use of the imposition of the law as a mean for battle, beat down the weaker powers of judgment. For without the law sin were dead, for where there is no law pointing out what should be done, and forbidding What should not be done, sin has no place. And he makes this evident by an example; 9. For I was alive without the law once, for Adam before his transgression had no fear of death, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. For when God had imposed the commandment respecting the trees, immediately the devil came to the woman in the serpent, and uttered those deceitful speeches, and she being enticed, and beholding the beauty of the fruit, was overcome by desire and broke the commandment. And with Adam she immediately received the sentence, for he also had shared in that food.
10. And the commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death. In every way he vindicates the law, and the commandment, but proves the evil of sin; for the commandment, says he, was the minister of life, but the turning aside to evil begot death, wherefore he most properly says, found, to show that the intention of the law, and the end brought about by sin, were widely different things. 11. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. The same thing he had said before, only in different words. 12. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good. It is the Mosaic which he here speaks of as the law, and that given to Adam as the commandment. And the reason why he honours the latter with the greater praises, is that it commonly meets with the greater censures. For they who live in idle ease, and will not undergo the labours of virtue, cry out even against God Himself, for imposing this commandment. For if He were ignorant, say they, of what would happen, how can He be God who foreknows not the future? but if while foreseeing the transgression, He yet imposed the commandment, Himself is the cause of the |483 transgression! But such should be aware, that the power of discriminating between good and its opposite is the property of those that are gifted with reason, for the nature of the irrational creatures possesses no such faculty of distinguishment of these things; for the wolf is ravenous, and the lion feasts on its prey while scarce dead, and bears and leopards follow in the same train; and they have no sense of sin,22 nor a conscience to be pricked at what has been done; while men, though no one be present at their actions, are ashamed and afraid on account of what they have dared to commit, for conscience supplies the accusation. How then were it possible that they who possess such a nature, should yet live without any law at all? Wherefore God enjoined the commandment, that man might thereby learn to understand his own nature, and to fear his Lawgiver. And well indeed may we perceive the loving-kindness of that Lawgiver, for He enjoined, not some law which was difficult of observation, but one which could have been easily kept. He allowed to him the enjoyment of all the trees, of one alone He forbade him the use; not that He grudged him that one, for how could He do so, who had already given him power over all? but in order to teach him the terms of submission, and to render him well-affected towards his Creator, and afford a mean for the exercise of his rational faculties. And if then, by not keeping the commandment he came under sentence of death, this can be no cause for blame to the Lawgiver, but to him who transgressed the law. For so neither, when a physician orders his patient to abstain from cold drinks, does he do this because he invidiously grudges them to him, but in order to bring about his health; and if he not observing the injunction will take water, he draws the injury on himself, but the physician is free from blame altogether. But indeed the Lord God has treated with every possible consideration and kindness, both Adam himself and all his race, and, to pass by all other, and come at once to the noblest instance, for him, and his race, the only-begotten Word became incarnate, and put an end to the power of death, which from him had received its beginning, and promised the resurrection, and prepared the kingdom of heaven: so that He both foreknew his transgression, and made ready before-hand the mean of remedy to follow; wherefore the holy apostle calls the commandment holy, just, and good; holy, as teaching what we ought to do; just, as rightly pronouncing judgment on the transgressors; good, as appointing life to such as observed it. And then again he states the objection that might arise, 13. Did then that which is good become death unto me? and again according to his wont he denies it, God forbid, and shows us the cause of these evils, but sin, that it might appear to be (indeed) sin, in its working death to me by that which is good. There is an obscurity here, arising from the extreme brevity made use of; what he means is this, that by that which is good, to wit the law and commandment, sin is made apparent to me, namely, as being bad and evil; and how is it so made apparent? by its working unto death, for from the fruit I know the tree, and seeing death I hate its parent; but of all this is the law the teacher; it is not then the |484 law, which thus instructs, that is evil, but sin, which brings death; and it is the inclination of our own free will to the worse, that is the author of sin. That sin might by the commandment become exceeding sinful. For though nature points out sin, its excessive turpitude the law has more clearly manifested. The expression that it might become is incomplete, the word "apparent" being understood, for so also we explained it in the preceding sentence, "but sin, that it might be seen to be sin indeed by its working out death to me by that which is good, that sin might by the commandment become exceeding sinful," that is, that it might become by the commandment " apparent" that sin is exceeding sinful, that is evil. And then, like some skilful painter, he portrays the contest between nature and sin. 14. For we know that the law is spiritual. Again be crowns the law with praise, for what can be more holy than this designation? for it was written, says he, by divine inspiration, being a partaker of this grace the blessed Moses indited the law. But I am carnal, sold under sin. He brings before us the man who lived before the coming (of the covenant) of grace, beset by his passions, for by carnal he means one who had not yet received the spiritual help (offered in that new covenant, see verse 5 ad fin. and ch. vi. 14 ad fin. &c.); but the sold under sin we shall understand by comparing it with that passage of the prophet, (Isaiah 1. 1,) "For your iniquities have you sold yourselves." And the same thing does he here say, I have delivered myself up to sin, and sold myself to it. |608
15. For that which I do I know not: for he who is overcome by pleasure, and indeed he also who is intoxicated by the passion of anger, has no clear perception of sin, but after such passion has subsided receives a knowledge of the evil. For what I would that I do not, but what I hate that I do. This is the perfection of the law, to point out what is evil and implant a hatred of it in the soul. The words what I would not and what I hate do not denote compulsion, but weakness; for we sin not because driven thereto by some necessity or force, but being beguiled by pleasure we fall into those things which yet we cannot but hate and denounce as wicked. 16. If then I do that which I would not, I content unto the law that it is good. For the very hatred I have for sin, I have received from the law, wherefore I bear testimony to the law, and acknowledge its excellence. 17. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. This needs elucidation somewhat more at length. The body then after the transgression of the commandment becoming mortal received passions and appetites, since by these it is that our present state of existence is carried on. For thus it needs desire, not only for the provision thereby of food, but for the procreation of children also, and for agriculture's sake, and the various other arts, none of which could exist were desire altogether wanting. Thus it also contributes to our perseverance in well-doing, for nothing but such an affection for and desire of virtue could qualify us to bear its attendant difficulties. And so also does it work within us the Divine love.
The proper measure of desire then is an auxiliary to good, but its disorder brings forth intemperance, in that it leads us to lay snares against the marriage-bed of others, and to covet what does not belong to us, and to steal, and to break open tombs (in order to spoil the dead), and to commit manslaughter, and become guilty of other the like crimes; wherefore has the God of all added side by side to it (an uncalculating) impetuosity,23 that the latter might repress the extravagance of the others, |609 while itself also needing a check on its own excesses. As then we dilate with what is too cold, that which is hot, and again correct what is too cold by what is hot, even so has God our Creator, by implanting in us these two passions directly opposed to each other, taught us to check each reciprocally by the other. For over them He has placed the mind, like a charioteer over his horses, and imposed the yoke of submission on them, enjoining both to bear it evenly together;24 if then it happen that desire springs forward beyond the line, He bids her goad up impetuosity, that this rushing onward may again bring the yoke straight; and, if that admit the overworkings of its own temper, again in its turn He orders desire to be pressed forward, that it may correct the excess of impetuosity. The mind then, if watchful and prudent, thus keeps under and directs them, while if negligent, and letting the reins go, she becomes the means of her horses breaking away, and is herself dragged onward, and with them falls into pits and down precipices. This then is what the holy apostle means by now it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me, by sin intending the enslavement of the mind, and the usurpation of the passions; and he then doeth it not, for he hates what is done, but this usurpation of the passions is the author of the action.18. For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. He speaks of the dominion of the passions, which the mortality of the body introduced, and the indolence of the mind has strengthened. For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not, for, as regards a willingness towards that which is good, this I have received from the teaching of the law, but at the same time, as regards action I am impotent from want of further help. 19. For the good that I would I do not, but the evil that I would not, that I do. 20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
He makes the same assertion, only in a clearer manner. 21. I find then the law with me in wishing to do what is right,—here we must put a stop,— (and yet) that evil is present to me. Again he has stated this obscurely through brevity: what he means is, that the law appears to me to be good, for I approve all that it recommends, as being right and excellent; and in unison with it I also love all good, and hate its opposite; but nevertheless evil is ever at hand with me, that is, sin, by reason of my possessing a mortal body, one subject to passions and appetites, as well as through the indolence and weakness of the soul. And thence he proceeds to describe more clearly the conflict between the mind and the passions. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. By the inward man he means the mind. 23. But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. By the law of sin he means sin itself, and this works within me by the passions of the body leaping about at pleasure, while the soul is unable to restrain them, in consequence of the sluggishness fallen into at first by her; she having cast off her own freedom, and allowed herself to be subjected to them; |610 while yet not the less does she, even though thus obeying them, hate that servitude, and approve that (the law) which condemns it. Having thus laid down all this, in order to show us what we were before receiving grace (through the new covenant), and what we have become since that grace; and personating, as it were, the character of those besieged by sin before grace appeared; he now, as one in the midst of his enemies, taken captive and compelled to obey, while perceiving help from no other quarter, groans bitterly, and cries out, proving that the law could not succour him, and says, 24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death? I thank my God through Jesus Christ our Lord. He calls it a body of death, as being bom subject to death; that is, mortal, for the soul is immortal. Christ alone, says he, has freed us from this bitter bondage, by putting an end to death, and promising us immortality, and that life which is without either labour or pain, and apart from warfare and sin; the full enjoyment whereof we shall receive in the existence to come; while in the present we are blessed with the grace of the thrice holy Spirit, and thereby not only do we set ourselves against the passions, but by the possession of such an Helper are enabled to triumph over them. And then he brings forward the resolution of all that had been said, So then I myself, the same person, with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. 25
Chapter VIII.
1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: for our passions can no longer get the mastery over us without our own consent, now that we have received the grace of the Spirit of God. 2. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. As he had just before called sin "the law of sin," so now does be call the life-giving Spirit, the law of the spirit of life. His grace, says he, by faith in Christ has bestowed on you a double freedom; for not only has it overthrown the power of sin, but put an end also to the tyranny of death, and he shows how He has thus overthrown it 3. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh. The law then was not evil, but good, though impotent; and that weakness arose from its injunctions being given to those encumbered with a mortal nature, for now by the thrice-holy baptism we have received the pledge of immortality. God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful fleshy and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. He says not in the likeness of flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh, for He received actually the human nature, but human sin he received not; wherefore that which He thus assumed, he calls not the likeness of flesh, but the likeness of sinful flesh, because though He had the same nature with ourselves, He yet had not the same character or disposition. He means, then, that the law having been unable to bring to effect its own design, by reason of the weakness of those beneath its covenant, possessing as they did a mortal nature, and one obnoxious to infirmities and passions; the only-begotten |611 Word of God, becoming incarnate, by that human flesh overthrew sin, in having fulfilled all righteousness, and admitted no taint of sin; and by enduring the death of sinners, as though Himself a sinner, manifested the injustice of sin, in that it delivered up to death a body over which death had no just claim. And this then both overthrew it and put an end to death; for in thus submitting to death through the unjust sentence of sin, while not at all obnoxious to it, in that He never committed sin, did He become the price of redemption of those justly subjected unto death, as one free among the dead: for so he also teaches in what follows, 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For He has paid, says he, our debt, and fulfilled that which the law aimed at: and what then was this? to render them righteous that had received that law. If then the dispensation of Christ Jesus has brought to effect the intention of the law, the law deserves not blame, but praise.
And having thus touched upon the subject of righteousness, he goes on to an exhortation to it, and having said, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, adds, 5. For they that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit; and in like manner in another place, (Gal. v. 25,) "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit," meaning here by the Spirit, the grace of the Spirit, and teaching that he who follows it, both thinks and does the things agreeable thereto, and he that is enslaved to the flesh, that is, to the passions of the body, has deprived himself of his freedom. 6. For the inclination of the flesh is death. He says not the flesh, but the inclination of the flesh, that is, the breaking forth of the passions, for the recompense of sinners is death; but the inclination of the Spirit is life and peace, for he who lives after the Spirit gains peace with God; 7. Because the inclination of the flesh is enmity against God. Again he condemns the inclination of the flesh, that is, the tyranny of the passions which he declares are at variance with God. For they are not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; for how is it possible that he who has admitted the tyranny of the passions, should embrace the service of God, while yet choosing to serve sin? 8. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. He does not bid us go out of the body, but be freed from the inclination of the flesh, as is shown by what follows: 9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. For it is evident that they who received these his instructions were not devoid of the body itself, but what he means is, that they were conquerors over the fleshly passions, and enjoyed the grace of the thrice-holy Spirit resident within them; and so in a similar sense does our Lord say that His disciples are "not of the world," (John xv. 19,) not that they came from elsewhere, but that they were dead to the world. |671
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. As he had said if so be that, which implies an alternative, he aptly subjoins that he who is wanting in this grace, has no fellowship with Christ And as this was enough to warn and alarm them that received this Epistle, he proceeds again to re-assure them, 10. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, with regard to sin, but the spirit is life, as regards righteousness. He makes clear what had been ambiguous, and shows that it was not the mere flesh itself that he is condemning, but sin; for he bids the body be dead to sin, that is not to commit sin; and the soul is what he here speaks of as the spirit, in its having become already spiritual; here he enjoins to follow after righteousness, whose |672 exceedingly desirable fruit is life. 11. But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. He invigorates them by hope of the future, and inspires them with willing readiness, sufficient for present contests; for ere long, says be, your bodies will be immortal, and superior to the passions that now molest them; and this will He do, the same, the (rod of all, who now so liberally bestows on us the earnest of the Spirit. And He has given us also a pledge of this resurrection, in the resurrection of Christ. And he teaches by all this, the unity of nature in the Godhead, for he calls the thrice-holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; not that, as the infamous heretics say, He was created of the Father by the Son,26 but that He is of one substance with the Father and the Son, and proceeds from the Father,27 according to the teaching of the gospels. His grace it is, that is extended by Christ to such as are worthy. And he continues showing how we ought to triumph over the fleshly passions. 12. Therefore we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh, for having received salvation of Christ Jesus, and been made partakers of the grace of the Spirit, to Him we owe the debt of service. 13. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die; after the flesh, that is, following the passions of the flesh: the death he means is that which is eternal; but if ye through the Spirit do put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live. This superiority has (the covenant of) grace over (that of) the law, that the latter points out what is right; the former has the grace of the Spirit in addition, as an helpmate. And here indeed the holy apostle, foreseeing the corruptions of Marcion,28 Valentine, and Manes, uses the greatest accuracy of expression in his instructions, saying not, put to death the body, but the deeds of the body, that is, the desires of the flesh, the burstings forth of the passions, for ye have for an assistant the grace of the Spirit, and the fruit of victory is life. 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God, for they who live under the Spirit obtain the privilege of adoption; and here he strikes at the Jews, teaching them not to think too highly of themselves, forasmuch as that they also had been called sons, for they are wanting in the glory of the thrice-holy Spirit, being aliens from grace.
15. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption. Again, he compares (the covenants of) grace and the law, and calls the institutions of the latter, bondage, while at the same time showing that it was written by the grace of the Spirit. Not, therefore, the thrice-holy Spirit itself does he here call the spirit of bondage, but the imposition of the law as effected by that holy Spirit; for had be by the spirit of bondage meant the thrice- holy Spirit itself, then truly must there have been another Spirit, of adoption; but not so is it, for the thrice-holy Spirit is One, while different and varying are His gifts; "for to one is given by the Spirit |673 the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit and so forth. And having shown that in truth we have received the privilege of adoption, he subjoins, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. For when we offer up to the Lord the prayer of the initiated,29 we are bidden to address Him as our Father, and we say, "Our Father which art in heaven and he has added the word, Abba, to point out the confidence wherewith we call upon Him, for so little children, using the greater boldness towards their parents, in that they have not as yet a clear knowledge of the difference between them and themselves, the oftener and oftener go on lisping out the same word towards them; and so in like manner we, by reason of His unspeakable kindness, and immeasurable goodness, call the Maker of all our Father, as we are commanded, while yet we are unconscious how great is the difference between Him and ourselves, not understanding our own selves clearly, and of His nature being altogether ignorant.30 16. For the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. By the Spirit he means the Holy Ghost himself, by our spirit, the grace (or spirit of adoption) given to us, for both are here expressed by the same common word, and what he means is, that we put forth this prayer, (thus claiming sonship therein) as led by the teaching of the Spirit, and in so doing then we cannot be blameworthy, in that we do it according to the divine law. 17. And if children, then heirs. Nor was it enough that we should have been freed from bondage and enjoyed the grace of liberty, but moreover have we been blessed with the privilege of the adoption; nay, and not only are we called sons, but heirs also of God, and joint heirs with Christ, for so he subjoins, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Since not every son becomes the heir of his father, well has the holy apostle joined the heirship with the sonship; and since frequently even a servant receives some portion from his master, and yet is not left an equal partner with the child itself, it was necessary, in order to point out the ineffable magnitude of the divine love, that he should subjoin, joint heirs with Christ,—if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together. For not all who have been blessed by baptism, which places us in a state of salvation, will enjoy these good things, but they, who in addition thereto, have undergone their share of suffering with their Saviour.31 And this he subjoins not without a distinct object, but for the support of those to whom his letters were addressed; for they were subjected to the attacks of temptations of all sorts, being beaten, tortured, and |674 imprisoned, and exposed to a thousand kinds of death; wherefore he sends them comforting words, supporting them by the future, and exhorting them to bear the present with fortitude. 18. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to he compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. The crowns exceed the contests; the reward cannot be put in the same scale with the afflictions; small is the affliction, but vast the looked for gain; wherefore he calls the things thus hoped for, not payment, but glory. 19. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. Perceive ye not, says he, the heaven, the earth, the sea, the air, the sun, the moon, the whole visible creation, and besides these, such as are invisible—angels, archangels, powers, dominions, principalities? all these are waiting for your full perfection. 20. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope. Corruption is what he here speaks of as vanity, for so he teaches presently, "because that the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption." And he declares that the whole visible creation had obtained a mortal nature, because the Maker of all had foreseen Adam's transgression, and the sentence of death, which would be passed on him. For neither was it fit nor right, that what was created for him should possess an incorruption, and yet himself, for whose sake all these were made, be mortal, and a prey to passions and sufferings; but the rather, by the resurrection receiving immortality, they in like manner inherit incorruption. Wherefore he says that the visible creation waits for such a change of things, for it was made changeable not of its own accord, but in submission to the decree of the Creator, and beholding the care exhibited in our behalf has a hope of such change, that itself also, the creation, shall be freed from the slavery of corruption; to which mutability of the universe the holy David also witnesses, when, mentioning the heaven and the earth he adds, (Ps. cii. 26,) "they shall perish, but Thou remain." 21. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For when these latter appear such as now they are called, and in their immortality are manifested to be the sons of God, the former also will obtain a total release from corruption. And all this he says, not meaning that the visible creation really was gifted with reason, but by a prosopopoeia, as was common with the prophets, so that one represents the pines as groaning, and another the woods as rejoicing, and the mountains leaping, and the rivers exulting.
22. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Here he includes the invisible creation also, for the whole creation, says he. But for the clearer understanding of the passage, I must bring to remembrance what the gospels state, for there the Lord declared, (Luke xv. 10.) that "even the angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner that repenteth;" if then they joy over penitent sinners, then must they also of a truth be cast down on beholding our transgressions. 23. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first- fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves. And what wonder if creation is so affected on our account? for even ourselves who have already received many pledges of the future, and above all others |675 the grace of the Spirit, groan in our longings after freedom; as what follows shows that he means, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. He had said, indeed, that we have received the spirit of adoption; but without infringement thereof, he here shows us more precisely that now we have obtained the name, but then shall be made partakers of the full reality, when our bodies shall have been released from corruption, and have put on immortality; while by the word first- fruits, he points out that in the future life, we shall receive a far larger measure of the grace of the Spirit; since if what is now offered is called first-fruits, and earnest, manifest is it that that shall far exceed it in greatness. 24. For we are saved by hope, for not yet have we attained unto the resurrection, but having received the promise are comforted by our hopes; but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, how doth he yet hope for? 25. But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Be not cast down, says he, while looking on (present) distresses, for we have brought you no false promises, in that we said you must yet awhile wait, ere you should enjoy these good things, but good things thus expected are not seen with the bodily eyes, since if seen they would cease to be expected, while if expected, we should be content in confidence to wait for them, and never throw away the anchor of hope. And he shows that in addition to all this, there is also another source of help given, 26. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities, we have a sufficient assistance in the grace of the Spirit, for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered. Ask not, says he, to be delivered from affliction, for ye know not what is profitable to you, as does God your Governor. Resign yourselves into His hands, who holds the helm of all things; for He, though you should ask nothing, but groan only as moved by the Spirit dwelling in you, wisely orders every thing relating to you, and will grant that which shall prove to your advantage; as he subjoins, 27. For He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because it maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. By the Spirit here he means not the Holy Ghost himself, but the grace given to the faithful: for stirred up by this we pray the more earnestly, and with sighings inexpressible by words implore God our Saviour. And this the holy apostle writes from what himself had experienced, for he himself not once only or twice, but even thrice, had besought release from his own trials, and beseeching had failed of obtaining his prayer; for he heard in reply, (2 Con xii. 8, 9,) " My grace is sufficient for thee, for My strength is made perfect in weakness," and having learned this, he welcomed what he had before sought to be delivered from, and says, " most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." |734
28. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called in accordance with (their own) disposition.32 They work not together with all, but with those that love Him, nor simply work with them, but work with them for good, for if any ask for what would not be profitable to him, he fails of his petition, because it is to his advantage not to gain it. And with the fittest accuracy of expression does he join the disposition with the call, for the call is not irrespective,33 but to those who possess this disposition; wherefore He |735 said to the apostle in Corinth, (Acts xviii. 9,10,) "speak and hold not thy peace, for I have much people in this city and forbade him to preach the word in Mysia (ch. xvi. 6, 7); and as to Asia, at first restrained, and afterwards commanded him to do it; wherefore he also said to him in Jerusalem, (ch. xxii. 18,) "make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony;" and wherefore he here also says, to those that are called in accordance with (their own) disposition, agreeably to what follows. 39. For whom He had foreknown, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; for He did not irrespectively34 predestine, but predestined in his foreknowledge of them. And speaking with the strictest accuracy of expression, he says not conformed to His Son, but to the image of His Son; and this he has even more plainly put in the Epistle to the Philippians (ch. iii. 20), where, having said that "our citizenship is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ," he adds, "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be conformed to His glorious body." For our body will not be made to resemble His divinity, but His glorified body,—and so here also he calls those who now obtained the privilege35 of the call conformed to the image of His Son, that is, to the body of His Son; for the divine nature being invisible, and the body visible, by the body as an image (or shadow) is He adored; that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and this the truth of the doctrine testifies, for it is as man that He is called the first-born, as God being the Only-begotten, seeing that as God He has not brethren, but as man designates as brethren them which believe. Of these He is the firstborn, being yet no other than the Only-begotten; but He, the same, both Only-begotten and firstborn. 30. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified. Those whose (suitable) disposition he had foreknown, those in the beginning He predestinated; and predestinating, also called; and calling, justified by baptism; and justifying, glorified by designating them sons, and endowing them with the grace of the Holy Spirit. But let no one say that such foreknowledge is the cause of these things; for foreknowledge made them not |736 such as they are, but God as God, foresaw from of old all that would be. For so neither if seeing a violent horse seizing the bit in its teeth, and not heeding its rider, I should predict that nearing a precipice it would fall over it, and the event were to happen as I said, should I have cast the horse down that precipice, but merely have foretold what was itself about to take place, while using the evidence of the fierceness of the horse himself as my guide. But (and so likewise) the God of all, from of old knows all things as God, not that He imposes on any one a necessity for his establishment in virtue, or on another for his performance of vice; for if He exercised force towards either, He could not with justice praise and reward the former, or adjudge punishment to the latter. If then God be just, as indeed He is just, He exhorts indeed to what is right, and denounces its opposite; He approves the doers of good, and avenges Himself on those who from their own will embrace wickedness. 31. What shall we then say to these things? If God he for us, who can be against us? Having God as our ally, shall we be afraid of men? He comprehends all things at once under the word who; whether kings, or generals, or people, or their leaders; the whole world at once. And then he brings forward the crowning blessing of blessings. 32. He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? He has given us the greater, and shall He not give also the less? His own Son has He bestowed, and will He deprive us of what we have gained? But here we must remember, that the Person of the Son is (but) one; for the human nature was delivered up in our behalf by the divinity; for (so) "the bread," says He, (John vi. 31,) "that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world;" and (ch. x. 18,) "I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again." 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34. Who is he (then) that condemneth?36 Having said that while God helps, who can injure us? he adds, that God, having rendered us justified, who can condemn? Christ it is that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is ever at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. What more than all this seek ye? in our behalf the Lord Christ died, and having risen again sits by the Father; nor even thus has He ceased His care for us, but pointing to the first-fruits which He took from us,37 and showing its immaculate purity to the Father, by it He asks for salvation to ourselves. And this indeed he says as regards the humanity, for as God He asks not, but (Himself) grants. Nay, and even if the heretics should declare, that so the Son does as regards His divinity, neither so could they prove His glory to be the less. For let us suppose two kings to be equal in honour, and to have the same authority, and when some deputy or general has offended against both, the one of these having earliest received the prayer of the culprit to beg of the partner of his kingdom to admit him to reconciliation, does this at all diminish the dignity, of him that makes this request? By no means. But in the present case we cannot grant even so much as this, |737 for whatsoever seems good to the Son, pleases the Father also, and the will of both is the same. The passage therefore is figuratively expressed by the apostle, through his desire to set forth the greatness of (Christ's) zeal and watchfulness for us. 35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? 36. As it is written (Ps. xliv. 22,) For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. The witness adduced is exactly correspondent to the subject in hand, for it was spoken in the persons of those who had the same object,38 for the thrice-holy Spirit wrote this psalm by the inspired David, concerning the admirable Maccabees. 37. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. Opposing the love which God bears us to all these things, we rise superior to afflictions; for we reckon that it were most absurd for our Lord Christ to have undergone death for sinners, and yet ourselves not most readily to embrace martyrdom for Him. 38. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39. Nor height, nor depth, nor any other such creation, could be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Having weighed the whole creation at once against the love of God, and added to such as are visible, such as are perceptible only by the mind—angels, and powers, and dominions; and to the present, hoped for, blessings; as well as threatened punishments also; for by depth, as I apprehend, he signifies hell, and by height the kingdom (of heaven); and moreover everlasting life and eternal death; and seeing that even then this scale is lightest in the reckoning, he seeks for somewhat else to be cast in; and finding nothing, he frames into his account another such and as varied an universe; and neither so does he find all these together fit to be weighed against the love of God. For it behoves us, says he, not to love Him on account of His promises of blessings, but to desire them on His. For (so) neither if a man be sincerely well affected towards one who is rich, does he love him for the abundance of his wealth; but from his very affection towards him, loves also the possessions belonging to him; and in like manner the holy apostle declares, I would not choose to inherit the kingdom of heaven, and all visible and invisible creation, and as many such again twice or thrice multiplied, apart from the love of God; but rather were any one to lay before me present and future distresses, present and eternal death, and the most protracted punishment in hell, together with the love of Him, readily and welcomely would I choose these in preference to the former splendid and glorious and unspeakable objects, devoid of love to Him. Which therefore that ourselves may also possess, let us both pray and strive, so that following in the footsteps of the apostles, we may be made sharers thereby in the (eternal) habitations of the apostles, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ; with whom, to the Father, together with the thrice-holy Spirit, belong glory and majesty, now and ever, unto endless ages. Amen. |738
Book IV.
That the incarnation of our God and Saviour both was necessary, and was productive of unspeakable blessings to believers, the holy apostle has clearly shown. For he has proved the Jews to be obnoxious to the greater condemnation by reason of the imposition of the law, and all others to be transgressors of the law of nature; and having set forth the threat of punishment, he has subjoined the gifts of the grace in the gospel (covenant), and pointed out the salvation offered through faith; while, at the same time, lest the Jews should be offended, imagining the law censured; or the heretics, hostile to the ancient covenant, gain an opportunity of accusation against the law by the comparison thus instituted, he has necessarily exhibited the usefulness of the law, and honoured it with many praises. And as, again, the Jews, bringing forward the patriarch Abraham, and the promises made by God to him, endeavoured to prove that the preaching of the apostles, being extended to the Gentiles beyond the divine promise, was contrary to these, he is constrained to treat of these objections also; and most wisely does he answer them, by adducing scripture testimonies, and ancient examples, applicable to the case, and demonstrating plainly the truth of the divine promises. Being about then to denounce the infidelity of the Jews, he first displays the love he bore them, and says,
Chapter IX.
1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost. He proves that what he was about to say should be free from all falsehood, and dignified with perfect truth, for be calls the grace of the Holy Spirit to witness with his conscience; in every way persuading them not to disbelieve his account. 2. That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. The composition of the sentence is incomplete, for it should have been added that the continual sorrow was caused by the rejection, or infidelity of the Jews; but through caution he omits these distinct words, and is content to teach in the sequel that he so meant. For thus he speaks: 3. For I could pray to be myself anathema from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. The word anathema39 has two significations, for that which is consecrated to God is called an anathema, and that which is separated from Him has the same name, and this second meaning the holy apostle has taught us in the Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 22), "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema"—the first being explained even by common custom, for so we designate whatever is offered to God an anathema—and the God of all things Himself, in commanding the town of Jericho to be made an anathema (Joshua vi. 17). Here then the blessed apostle uses it in its second meaning, to manifest the feelings he entertained towards his brother Jews, and he says not I could desire, but I could pray to be separated from Christ, provided that they who are my kindred in the flesh, being united to Him, should reap salvation; and most aptly does he introduce the "even I myself" recalling to their recollection what he |739 had just before stated of his love to Christ, and as it were saying, that I, whom "neither life, nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other such creation, could separate from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus," would gladly be alienated from Him, for the sake of the salvation of the Jews. But it is evident that he speaks not this as preferring them to the Saviour, but as indicating his love and anxiety for them, being most desirous that all should submit themselves, and joyfully receive the saving gospel. And to persuade them of the truth of what he says, he points out both their former high descent and eminence, and the riches of the divine gifts conferred on them, and says, 4. Who are Israelites? For most celebrated was this name, imposed by God Himself on their forefather, (Gen. xxxv. 10) and transmitted as an heirloom to his descendants; To whom pertaineth the adoption. And this name also they had obtained, for "Israel," says he, "is My son, my firstborn" (Exod iv. 22); And the glory, for they had been illustrious through miracles; And the covenants, not the old only, but the new also had He promised to bestow on them, "for I will make," says He, "a new covenant with the house of Israel, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers" (Jer. xxxi. 31, 32), but this they themselves were not willing to accept; And the giving of the law, for to them had He given the Mosaic law; And the service of God, for, honouring them above other nations, to them He had taught the ritual ministrations of the law; And the promises, both those made by God to their fathers and those promulged by the prophets.
(To be continued.)
1. * Resembled those heretics of later times in their denial of the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament—E. B.
2. * An abortion. 1 Cor. xv. 8. " Wishing to call himself meaner than all men, leaving those perfected in the womb of their mother, who afterwards are born according to the common custom of nature, he likens himself to an abortive embryo, which is not numbered in the list of men." Theod. in loco.
3. * The grace of or for the ministry ἐν τῷ διδομένῳ χαρίσματι. See Theod. in ch. viii. 16; and compare 1 Cor. i. 7; xii. 4,9; 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6; and 1 Pet. iv. 10.
4. * As I Cor. iii. 6.
5. * The argument, according to our author, seems to be, that the means and opportunities of salvation offered in the oracles of God, (the Bible, which he calls the eu0ergesi/aj; or mercies) and His glory arising therefrom, must remain sure, whether men accept or reject them, being neither weakened, nor promoted, by their conduct thereunder.
6. + Αὐτεξούσιος, masters of themselves, in their own power, free as to choice and action, sui juris.
7. * Literally, "to grace." The word "grace," and sometimes "faith" also, being used to express shortly "the new gospel covenant of grace through faith."
8. + See on chap. v. 1; and so on Eph. ii. 9, 10. "For we believed not of our own power, but when called came, and he required not from such as came, purity of life, but, accepting faith alone, gave remission of sins." Ver. 10, the "created" he here means of our regeneration. "For He hath called us," says he, "of His ineffable good-ness, and we obeyed, and believing, obtained salvation. But He required not at our hands the practice of virtue before our baptism, but after it commanded us to hold to it also." In other words, in order to be admitted into the covenant of salvation, not past virtue, but present faith, was demanded; as see the former verses of the same chapter to the Ephesians, and Romans v. 8, &c. &c.
9. * For however out of place, and cut off by this new covenant, the Jews yet had not relinquished it—E. B.
10. * The exposition would seem to interpret, "he indeed might boast, but it would refer not at all to God." ἀλλ̕ οὐ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
11. + See note on chapter iii. v. 24. Our author of course is, with St. Paul, reprobating works as a meritorious cause, but not as indispensable conditions; Mosaic, and not evangelical. See exp. end of this chapter.
12. * Rather perhaps "as though faith alone were sufficient," &c.
13. * Τέλειος—who having been admitted by baptism, and communicated in Christ in the Eucharist, or τὸ τέλειον, had fully imbibed the spirit, and known the depth of the mysteries, of their holy calling; and so were perfect and consummate Christians.— See Bingham, I, iv. 3; & conf. 1 Cor.iii. 1, 2. Heb. v. 13, 14. Eph. iv. 13. Phil iii. 15, &c.
14. + Δοκιμὴ, as see 2 Cor. ii. 9. Phil. ii. 22.
15. ++ Δόκιμος ἀποδείκνυται, tried and proved by test to be not wanting.—See ch. xvi. 10.
16. * "Ortho. And bow then does it appear just to you, that, when Adam had transgressed the commandment, the race should follow the progenitor?
"Eran. Although the race shared not in that particular transgression, they committed nevertheless other sins, and on that account have been made sharers in the death.
"Ortho. But then, not sinners only, but the just also, and patriarchs, and prophets, and apostles, and such as signalized themselves by various kinds of virtue, have fallen under the bondage of death!
"Eran. For how was it possible, that they should remain immortal, who sprang from mortal parents? For it was after his sin, and the divine sentence, when he was under the power of death, that Adam knew his wife, and became a father. Having become then, himself; mortal, it was of mortals that he was the parent; justly then do all follow their progenitor in having received a mortal nature.
"Ortho. Excellently well have you pointed out the cause of our sharing in the death; and the same must you grant of the resurrection; for the remedy must be suitable to the disease; for as, the founder of the race having been condemned, the whole race itself became condemned also, so, the Saviour having broken the curse, the race thus enjoyed freedom. And as, Adam having descended to Hades, all who partook of his nature followed him, so, Christ the Lord having risen, the whole race of man shall share in that resurrection.... Behold then the case of Christ, compared with that of Adam, the remedy with the disease, the antidote with the wound, the riches of righteousness with sin, the blessing with the curse, remission with condemnation, the observance with the transgression, life with death, the Kingdom with Hades, Christ with Adam, Man with man." —Dialogues. Ἀπαθὴς. vol. iv. p. 198, &c. And compare the ἥμρτον here with the ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν of v. 19, the ἀπέθανον of v. 15, the "condemned" above, and with 3 Kings i. 21. 2 Kings xii. 13. LXX.; and Matt. ix. 2, 6, sin for its punishment. "How then did death enter in and reign? By the sin of one. And what means the 'in that all have sinned?' He having fallen, all, though they ate not of the tree, in him became mortal."—Chrysostom. Hom. in loco.
By comparison of these passages, as well as of what is said in v. 21 respecting sin and excess, the general view of our author would seem to be, "As on the one hand, by the entrance through Adam of sin bringing death in its train, and as its consequence, all men became subject to both these evils; though some in a greater and some in a lesser degree to the former, which indeed act and react on one another, so that not only by the primary fall have we become heirs of mortality, but through our own individual sins justify that sentence; even so, on the other, by our Lord have all been gifted with a renewed power and spirit of righteousness, and life hereafter, though all do not duly or equally take advantage thereof."—E. B.
17. * Namely, as it would seem, "if then we need the incarnation of Christ for our justification, of what use was the law, was it not given for that very purpose? Nay, it has its uses indeed, in affording instruction; but the end therefrom resulting was, that your sins, as committed against it, were the greater and more numerous."
18. + As see ch. iii. 4, 19.
19. * Μυστήριον. Exhort at celebration of Communion, Angl. Rit.
20. + See the exposition of this verse. "The expression, 'The God of our Lord Jesus Christ,' he has here used with a distinction, calling Him on the one hand the God, and on the other, the Father of the same Saviour; His God as regards His manhood, His Father as regards His godhead; for it is His divine nature that He here speaks of as glory. And thus also in the Epistle to the Hebrews (i. 3,) who having the brightness of His glory..... that is, of His divine nature. And thus also the holy Ezekiel (i. 26) says, " This was the likeness of the glory of the Lord.' For since it is altogether impossible for men to know the divine nature, they represent it as glory, giving that name thereto, from the worship and glory due to it."
21. * Τὴν πνευματικὴν διδασκαλίαν, the institutions or teaching of the Spirit.
22. * [Greek omitted].—Aristotle's Ethics, Book vii. ch. 6. ad fin.
23. * The contrast seems to be between desire or interest in its healthy state, though liable to degenerate into over-worldliness, carnality, &c. that is, unbridled love of the creature in any way: and the warm and sudden impulses of a generous nature, whose vicious extreme is fierceness and rage. Ἐπιθυμία and Θυμὸς. See on Psalm lxviiL 25, (lxix. 24, Engl. Trans.) "Pour out Thine anger upon them, and let the θυμὸς of Thine anger lay hold on them." By θυμὸς he sets forth that which is sudden, for of such a kind is θυμὸς: but by anger that which is lasting, for this is the nature of anger: for θυμὸς is sharp and short-lived: anger slower, but more enduring: by the θυμὸς of anger therefore he means, sharp and abiding vengeance. "So" we call that bravery which is the due excitement τοῦ θυμοειδοῦς, "and justice the proper government of the soul and order of the subjected passions, the due agreement with reason τοῦ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ καὶ θυμοειδοῦς and harmony between each other." Περὶ Πρόνοιας, th Book, vol. iv. p. 566,567. This same account is repeated in the Dissertation on the Philosophy of the Greeks, vol. iv. pp. 827, 843, 844. Ed. Halae, 1769—1774.—E. B.
24. * The ancient yoke, be it remembered, went over the necks of both horses, somewhat as the modern cross-bar of a curricle does over their backs, only that it was curved for that purpose; to carry it even and straight, therefore, they must move pari passu.—E. B.
25. * Either simply, as describing the state of man under the law; or in my mind thus strengthened now am enabled to serve God, who formerly, by the domination of passion, could only serve sin.—E. B.
26. * Arians, Macedonians, and Eunomians, Haeret. Fab. Comp. lib. v. ch. 3, p. 389, vol. iv. 7: ed. and Pearson on the Creed, Art. 8, notes 17, 19, 3 and 6.—E. B.
27. + See Pearson on Creed, Article 8, text and notes, 29,32, 33, 34, m. p. g. r. —E. B.
28. ++ To whose doctrines of condemnation of the body itself, as the formation of the prince of darkness, allusion has been so often before made; and see Col. ii. 20 to end.—E. B.
29. * Τὴν μυστικὴν εὐχὴν, alluding perhaps to the μυστηριον of baptism, wherein we were constituted and adopted as God's children, as see on Gal. xxvi. 27.—E. B.
30. + Abba. The term familiarly in the mouths of infants, see Is. viii. 4, but not allowed to be used by servants, see Calmet. Showing that as infants, ignorant of the real nature of the connexion with their parents, boldly call them habitually by that name, even so we, as unacquainted with our Heavenly Parent, address Him. The whole explanation is, however, differently given in another MS. of our author's. "It belongs to little children to call their parents by this same word, Abba, and they who had been blessed with the adoption of sons in baptism, were little children in this present life, waiting for the more complete and true sonship in the world to come; wherefore he subjoins, Abba, Father, both as pointing out the expected perfection, and as indicating their present state, in which, like infants, they had not yet received their full enjoyment of all good things."—E. B.
31. ++ Literally, their share of the sufferings of the Lord, see Col. i. 24.—E. B.
32. * Τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. Compare Acts xiii. 46, 48. Τεταγμένοι, disposed, while the Jews were not, as explained by the ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς of 1 Cor. xvi. 15, and the διατεταγμένος of Acts xx. 13, Luke ix. 62, and Matt xiii. 3—17. Verbally " disposition," as [Greek]... k. t. l. Hist Eccl. lib. i. ch. 3, ad init; and again, [Greek] On Ps. ix. 17. Again, [Greek] Euther. Serm. ii.; and as see the explanation below, and on ch. ix. ver, 11, and compare Acts xi. 23, and 2 Tim. iii. 10.—E. B.
33. + [Greek]
34. * Αξιωθέντας. Having heretofore so translated this word, it has so been rendered here, however the more literal version of Luke xx. 35, received Engl. Transl. would have been in stricter accordance with the κατὰ προθέσιν and the ους προέγνω above, and so at end of ch. "we may be found worthy of the mansions of the apostles;" i. e. the same that themselves are, &c.—E.B.
35. + All the verbs and participles being in the same tense, Aor. st, except the "had foreknown," Aor. d, both here and in the original text of the Romans, v. 29, 30, and therefore to be rendered rather synchronistically than successively,— (and here by the way may be mentioned, once for all, a liberty throughout taken in this translation, for greater plainness of sense sake, at variance with the general attempt verbum reddere verbo, and that is the substitution of the present, where our author frequently speaks in the past tense, of what St. Paul is saying, e. g. as in next verse, literally, ''has comprehended." 34. Literally, "having said"... "he has added," &c.; the advantage, and almost necessity, of which alteration, will be seen plainly in those passages, where, having already laid down such and such, the apostle is represented still in the past tense as proceeding to enforce it, and yet as meaning this or that in the present; while our author himself sanctions it by frequently so expressing it himself.)—E.B.
36. * Who can rise up in judgment against those whom God has thus chosen, and when He has justified, who condemn them for what He has pardoned!—E.B.
37. + The human body of our nature, now become the first-fruits from the dead. 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23, &c.—E.B.
38. * The preservation of their own fidelity to God's glory, in spite of suffering.—E.B.
39. * Ἀνάθημα and ἀνάθεμα. The latter in the text of the Epistle.—E.B.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2013. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. From: "The Christian Remembrancer, or, The churchman's biblical, ecclesiastical & literary miscellany", 21 (1839) p.34 &c. The text appears in sections throughout the volume.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: theodoret_commentary_on_romans_02.htm
Theodoret, Commentary on Romans (1840) Part 2
Theodoret, Commentary on Romans (1840) Part 2
|305. Whose are the fathers, the renowned, the celebrated, of whom God was called the God (Exod. iii. 15); and then in the last place he adduces the greatest of the blessings, And of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. And, indeed, the addition of the concerning the flesh had been enough to evidence the divinity of the Lord Christ, yet, as in the opening of the epistle having said, "who was of the seed of David according to the flesh," he subjoined, "and was declared to be the Son of God with power," so here also after the concerning the flesh, he adds, who is over all, God blessed for ever; both exhibiting thereby the difference of the natures, and teaching how just reason he had for his lamentation, since while of them according to the flesh was He who was God over all, they had fallen from their height, and become aliens from that relationship. And herein he imitates the female mourners, who introduce into their funeral songs the beauty of the person, and the flower of the age, and the illustriousness of the ancestry, and the wealth, and the power, of the deceased over whom they lament. Having then thus displayed the love he bore the |31 Jews, he then begins his proposed design; 6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. I indeed, says he, not only could desire, but could also even pray, to he separated from Christ, if it were possible that by this separation of mine the Jews should gain the blessings held out, but nevertheless should they still prove gainsayers, and refuse to receive salvation, the promises made to the fathers would still remain true. How then? For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. For God seeks not the relationship of nature, but of virtue; and then he teaches this yet more plainly; 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, that is of God, as he shows just below, —But in Isaac shall thy seed be called; and having thus stated the promise of God, he now explains it, and renders the saying clear by his exposition thereof. 8. That is, not they which are the children of the flesh are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. By the children of the flesh, he means those that were horn after the ordinary course of nature, but of the promise, those that were given by grace. 9. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. For nature having failed, he was constituted a father by the divine bounty; and this shows that Ishmael also was a son to Abraham—aye, and his firstborn son; and wherefore then boastest thou, O Jew, of being alone called the seed of Abraham? But if thou dost imagine that he was rejected from the relationship, as being on one side a bondsman, then thinkest thou not rightly, for Scripture is wont to calculate descent not from the mother's, but the father's side. And so the holy Apostle might have brought forward the children sprung from Keturah, and shown that they also, though born of a free woman, yet were not reckoned as the seed of Abraham; and easy had it been for him to have pointed out the twelve sons of Jacob, born of different mothers, four of them being bondsmen on one side, and yet all called Israel, and receiving no injury from the slavery of their mothers; but contenting himself with fewer instances, all this he has omitted, and beats them down by the ample evidence left. For having mentioned that which had been said by God to Abraham, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called, he shows that neither were the whole of his race partakers of this blessing, seeing that of his own sons the one inherited the privilege, and the other failed of it; for so he subjoins, 10. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac: 11. For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good, or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, 12. It was said unto her, that the elder shall serve the younger. If thou thinkest, says he, that, on account of (his birth from) Sarah, Isaac was preferred before Ishmael, and Abraham's other children whom he had by Keturah, what wilt thou say to the case of Rebecca? For here were there the same father and the same mother, and the same one single conception, the children being twins; for this is what he means by having conceived by one, that is conceived both at the same time; but the one nevertheless was beloved of God, and the other unworthy the divine regard; and God waited not for the evidence of events, but while yet they were in the womb predicted the difference between them; and He predicted it from foreknowing their dispositions, for election is not |32 arbitrary, but in accordance to the disposition of men;1 and then he adduces the testimony of the prophet, (Mal. i. 3,) 13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. He heeds not, therefore, the (bare descent of) nature, but virtue only is it that He requires; for this he confirms by many instances.
14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. The divine decision, says he, has nothing unjust in it, but is graced with perfect equity. And this indeed, though having it in his power to point out and teach clearly, that it is not the custom with God to pay attention to bare birth, but that He looks for the best disposition, as well as to remind them that oftentimes they had been delivered up to many enemies, without being at all spared for the sake of their forefathers, seeing that they imitated not their virtue; and that the whole nation had been allowed to be taken captive by the Babylonians, while Abimelech, on the other hand, though a slave and an Ethiopian, had been saved through his piety;2 he yet refrains from so doing, as not wishing too much to cast them down; but shows instead that the divine dispensations exceed the reckonings of man, and while many commit iniquity, yet not all are made to suffer vengeance for it; for so in the wilderness the greater part worshipped, for God, the image of the calf, yet not of all was punishment exacted, but some being made to suffer, others by those sufferings of their's were reformed; and so in avenging himself on Pharaoh, He brought by him great benefit to many; and these instances, accordingly, the holy Apostle places before them; and thus he speaks, 15. For he saith to Moses, (Exod. xxxiii. 10,) I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. These words God spake concerning the making of the calf. And it was necessary that he should mention Moses's name here, in order to show the trustworthiness of what he was alleging, by the testimony of Him who spoke, and him who heard; and then he draws the conclusion, 16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. And he brings not yet the resolution of all this, but continues still the whole question by the addition of what follows, 17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, (Exod. ix. 10,) Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. And then again he adds as a deduction, 18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Unquestionable, says he, are these scriptures, for what I advance is collected from thence, and from thence only. Thou hast heard God Himself declaring, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion," and His again are the things spoken concerning Pharaoh. He, passing by Ishmael and the children by Keturah, chose Isaac; and He again preferred Jacob to Esau, although both received their being |33 at the same time, in the same womb; why wonderest thou then, if he hath exactly so done now also, and received those among you who have believed, and rejected those that will not admit that light? But this indeed he does not yet lay down, but continues still adding to the difficulties of the subject, and says, 19. Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? For, if "He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will hardeneth," man's disposition must depend on His will (say you): and, if so, He cannot with justice inflict punishment on the offenders, for it is not possible for any to resist whatever he thinks fit. Having thus increased the difficulties of the subject by the variety of doubts, and proposed all the objections arising from it, he subjoins, 20. Nay but, O man, who art thou, that repliest against God? Since thou hast asked, says he, "who has resisted His will," tell me what thou art; art thou not a man? How then dost thou reply against, and over-curiously inquirest into the divine dispensations? for if thou wert not a free agent, nor couldest choose by thine own free will what thou wouldest do, but wert enslaved to the compulsion of the divine will, thou wouldest, like the inanimate creation, have been silent, and acquiesced in His dispensations; but since thou art dignified by reason, (therefore it is that) thou both sayest and doest what thou thyself pleasest, and lovest not what has been done, but inquirest into the causes of the divine dispensations. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Look at the clay of the potter, which is devoid of rational discrimination; it answers not against its maker, but although set apart for the structure of some base vessel, it receives in silence what is done; but thou opposest and findest fault; therefore art thou not bound by physical necessity, nor transgressest against thine own inclination, but voluntarily embracest vice, and of thine own free choice undergoest the difficulties of virtue. Right, therefore, and just is the sentence of the God of all things, since with equity does he punish sinners as daring so to act of their own will. And in justice also is His loving-kindness, in that when He receives from us an opportunity, He extends His mercy to us. Some, however, interpret the Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? as spoken in rebuke; for so, say they, having first chidden those who are impertinently curious about divine matters, and shown their meanness, for man's nature differs not from the clay, does he proceed to the reply; and the reply is this—22. What then if? Here we must place a stop, for he means, if thou art desirous to know this, namely, why, when the majority sin, some of them He punishes, and some through their means He benefits; and when many pursue virtue, some of them He renders illustrious, and to some by them sets forth the hopes of the future; hear what follows: God willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, 23. And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory; 24. Even us whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. God, says he, was not the author of Pharaoh's wickedness, but exercised long-suffering towards him as He is wont, but he conceived |34 that long-suffering weakness, and through it increased his own obstinacy; while at the same time the Governor of all things, in His wisdom both justly inflicted punishment on him, and from his very wickedness drew a preventive medicine to the rest. And thus, as physicians do not themselves make vipers, but from them prepare drugs profitable to men, so God preferred that Pharaoh should not suffer punishment, but, inasmuch as he had fallen into so great brutishness, brought on him retributions of every kind, and manifested at the same time His own power to all men; wherefore He says, "even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth the I have raised thee up meaning, I have permitted thee to obtain the throne, and while able to prevent, prevented thee not, foreseeing the advantage that would thence arise to others. And those whom he calls vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, are they, who, by their own free will, have become so, for the same thing also has he written to Timothy, (2 Tim. ii. 20) "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold, and of silver, but also of wood, and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour;" and, teaching how every one becomes the one or the other of his own free will, he subjoined, "if a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work;" and to the Corinthians, in like manner, he writes (1 Cor. iii. 12), "Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble," —clearly teaching the free agency of man. So here does he call those who are worthy of the divine loving-kindness, vessels of mercy. And the hath before prepared unto glory displays the divine foreknowledge, for so had he also said before, "for whom He had foreknown He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son;" for the object of the apostle is to prove, that the God of all things alone knows who are worthy of salvation, while among men not a soul. And having stated that He hath called us not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, he confirms the representation by the testimony of scripture, and says, 25. As he saith also in Osee (ch. ii. 23, and i. 10), I will call them My people, which were not My people, and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26. And it shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not My people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. And this God spake not of the Gentiles, but of the Jews themselves; for having commanded Hosea to marry an harlot, and indeed even an adulteress, thus did He order the children born from her to be called, the one not a people (Loammi), and the other not beloved (Loruhamah) (ch. i. 9, 6), foretelling what should happen to the Jews; while at the same time He promised them good things again, that the not people should be called a people, and the not beloved, beloved. Observe therefore, says he, that even you have not always enjoyed the same things, but at one time have been reckoned a people, and then not a people, and then a people again; and at one time beloved, and then not beloved, and then beloved again. Nothing then improbable has taken place at present, for you have been cast off in due consistency with all this; but and so if yet you again will it, you shall be reckoned a people, and beloved; for so also the Gentiles who were not a people, now are |35 reckoned a people. And he adduces another witness also to this account: 27. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant (only) shall be saved. 28. For a short word will the Lord make upon the earth (ch. x. 22, 23). Most opportunely has he brought forward this evidence, to show that, of old, the God of all foresaw both those who had attached themselves to the faith, and those who had sunk beneath the disease of infidelity. For as the Jews alleged that but few of them had accepted the gospel, and all the rest had turned away from it as a deception, he proves that all this had long ago been predicted, and that although they should exceed the power of numbers in multitude, and equal the sand of the sea, not all, but such (only) as were furnished with faith, should obtain salvation. For faith is what he calls the short word, because what the law taught in many commandments, while yet unable to afford complete salvation, that confession in Christ has accomplished, while engendering faith. And this is short, and needs not multiplied periods, being evidenced by the disposition of the heart,3 and published by the tongue. 29. And as Esaias had said before (ch. i. 9), Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrah. Those whom above he spoke of as a "remnant," the same he here calls a seed, through whom the prophet declares that the Jews suffered not the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, for they had undergone a total destruction. Having thus taught that the God of all things looks not to the mere relationship of birth, but seeks for a community of faith, he shows yet more clearly by what means the Jews had fallen from their ancestral excellence, and the Gentiles on the other hand had obtained salvation. 30. What shall we say then? We must read this interrogatively, putting a stop here: and then what follows as the answer. That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained unto the law of righteousness. Know, says he, that faith is the cause of these blessings to the Gentiles, for it has rendered them meet to receive the righteousness which is of grace, them who formerly wandered about in error, and neither possessed, nor even wished to seek after, righteousness; while Israel, on the other hand, although possessing the law, and following after the righteousness which is of the law, hath failed of the mark, and not obtained righteousness. And then, again, interrogatively, 32. Wherefore? the reason of this, says he, do you desire to know? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. They imagined that the living under the law was sufficient to secure righteousness to them, and they despised faith; wherefore they neither obtained the gifts of faith, nor gained the righteousness arising from living under its covenant. And then he teaches through what cause they enjoyed not the blessings of faith; For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone. 33. As it is written (Isa. viii. 28), Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. They are wont to stumble who turn their attention elsewhere, and do not choose to look at their path. This had been |36 the case with the Jews. For, being intent on the veriest minutiae4 of the law, they chose not to see the stone foretold by the prophets, although they had distinctly predicted, that whosoever trusted in Him should obtain the greatest blessings; for this is what he means by shall not be ashamed, such as hope, and then fail in their expectations being ashamed. Having thus gently touched them, again he exhibits the feelings he entertained towards them, lost his arguments should assume the appearance of arising from hostility, for he has kept the heavier censures for the last. |151
Chapter X.
1. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might he saved. An ardent wish is what he here calls a desire, for I ardently wish, says he, and pray, that they may obtain salvation. 2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. He mingles his censure with praise, hiding as it were the hook beneath a bait, that the benefit of what he says might be |152 accepted by them. 3. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. Their unreasonable adherence to the law is what he here calls their own righteousness, for they are zealous still to observe it, though it has now come to an end; and that which is of grace, through faith, what he speaks of as the righteousness of God; for so he goes on to say, 4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For faith in the Lord is not contrary to the law, but most agreeable therewith, seeing that the law itself has directed us to the Lord Christ. he, then, that trusts in Christ, fulfils the intention of the law. And well again does he say, to every one that believeth, for the whole race of mankind has been comprehended, so that whether it be Greek or barbarian, if he believe, he shall obtain salvation. And then he again sets forth the difference between the law and grace, and introduces Moses the lawgiver, as the teacher of both; 5. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. Whosoever has observed all things enjoined by the law, has life as the reward of such obedience, but any one transgression entails punishment.
6. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise; (Deut. xxx. 12,) that is, but concerning the righteousness which is of faith, not Moses himself, but the God of all, through Moses, speaks thus, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down from above; 7. Or who shall descend into the deep? that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead. 8. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart. These things the God of all spake indeed concerning the law, teaching the Jews, that without labour on their own part they had received the knowledge of what they ought to do, and needed neither an ascent into heaven, nor a descent into Hades. The word is nigh thee, for the knowledge of what thou shouldest do has been given unto thee; but the holy apostle has transferred them to this account of faith, teaching us that we should not over- curiously inquire into the dispensation in Christ Jesus, or question that the only-begotten Son of God did become incarnate, and having endured the passion, brought in the resurrection; but by faith reap the salvation (offered). For the word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart; and then he adds, that is, the word of faith, which we preach. What Moses once said of the injunctions of the law, that we now say of faith: 9. That if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For both are necessary, a sound and firm faith, and a confession uttered with boldness; that both the heart may be adorned with a certain persuasion of faith, and the tongue dignified with a fearless proclamation of the truth. And then again he adduces the testimony of Scripture. 11. For the Scripture saith, (Isa. xxviii. 10,) Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed: and he explains the whosoever, 12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him. 13. For (Joel iii. 5,) whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. The salvation of men is what he here |153 calls the riches of God, for he well knew the loving-kindness of the Lord; and most aptly does he suit his testimonies to the heart, and to the tongue; to the heart, the whosoever believeth on Him shall not he ashamed; to the tongue, the whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And then he shows that the Jews had voluntarily deprived themselves of salvation, by not choosing to receive the gospel offered, while yet he puts not forth this proof nakedly, but brings about the argument in a different way. 14. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? First, says he, must a person believe, and then call upon God; but it is impossible for any one to believe who has not enjoyed instruction, and this no one can obtain without there being teachers, and these again commission constitutes. Having laid down these positions as it were in vindication of the Jews, by them he increases the blame lying on them. And that which is first, (in order of time) namely, the sending forth of preachers, he puts last, as being about to show, that of old all this had been foretold; for it would have been in the common course to have set forth this before saying the rest, it being necessary first that preachers be appointed,5 then that they should preach, then that men should hear their preaching, and lastly believe. Therefore he adduces the prophecy of Isaiah, (lii. 7,) and says, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! for the Lord bade His apostles, when entering into a house to say, "Peace be to this house" (Luke x. 5), for they were proclaiming the divine reconciliation, and bringing glad tidings of the enjoyment of good things. The feet of such then he calls beautiful, as running a goodly course; as washed by the hands of the Lord Himself. And having thus brought forward the evidence concerning the preachers, he says interrogatively, 16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel? and then again in reply, Esaias saith, (liii. 1,) Lord, who hath believed our report? Nor has Scripture been silent on this point either, but of old God predicted all this by Isaiah; and then as drawing his conclusion, 17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; wherefore, whosoever disbelieves, disbelieves the divine oracles, and whosoever believes, receiving the divine words, brings forth faith as the fruit of his hearing.
18. But, I say, have they not heard? And this again is to be read |154 interrogatively, and then as the answer, Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.6 For how was it possible that the Jews should not have heard, when the nations spread over the whole earth had heard? For to them first the preachers of the truth brought their tidings, for so the Lord Himself enjoined them, (Matt. x. 6,) "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and in the Acts of the Apostles, (ch. xiii. 40,) "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you." And the holy apostle continues in the same form of argument, making his positions clearer by question and answer, for so again we must read interrogatively, 19. But, I say, did not Israel know? and then what follows as the reply, First, Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you (Deut. xxxii. 21). We, it is, whom he called foolish, pointing out the folly we laboured under before our conversion to the faith, for so also the holy apostle speaks, (Tit. iii..3,) "for we ourselves also were sometime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another." By this God grievously vexed the Jews, for neither the captivity, nor the dispersion, nor the destruction of the temple, so much distresses them, as do the religion and eminence7 of the Gentiles. 20. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought Me not, I was made manifest unto them that asked not after Me (lxv. 11). He shows at once the prophecy of the revelation of divine knowledge to the Gentiles, and the bloodthirstings of the Jews, as the expression is very bold testifies; he feared not, says he, the mad and murdering Jews, but with great boldness predicted the salvation of the Gentiles, and foretold the infidelity of the Jews: as what follows shows, 21. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth My hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. All day long means without ceasing, for so Symmachus and Aquila interpret the every day. Having thus pointed out that the inspired prophets both condemned the Jews, and foreshowed the faith of the Gentiles, he seems indeed in what follows to bring comfort to them, while in truth adding fresh censures on the disbelievers.
Chapter XI.
1. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. And then while able to adduce proof of this from many other quarters, and bring forward the three thousand who believed in Jerusalem, (Acts ii. 41,) and the many myriads of whom the great James spake, (Acts xxi. 20,) and those of the Jews spread over the face of the land who had accepted the gospel, instead of all these he instances himself; and says, For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2. God hath not cast away His people, which he foreknew. For if He had cast them off, I also had been one of the condemned, seeing that I also have sprung from that root, and glory in Abraham as |155 my forefather, and Benjamin as the head of my tribe, and boast myself in the name of Israel. And well has he added the which he foreknew, that is, those that are worthy of the divine knowledge, having welcomed the light of faith; for so he presently after shows, Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel (1 Kings xix. 14). 3. Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life? 4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? (v. 13,) I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. And at that time also, says he, were there many of Israel, and all were called Israel, and yet the God of all things designated Himself the God of seven thousand (only), and all the rest He rejected; for I have left unto Myself, said He, seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal; and this indeed the prophet knew not, but imagined that in himself alone was preserved what remained of true piety. No new nor inconceivable thing then is it, if you also know not those among you who have fixed their faith in the Saviour, whom the God of all things acknowledges as His people. And most opportunely does he bring forward the great Elias making this accusation against them, that not only had they slain the prophets, but even overthrown the altars from their foundations; for granting, says he, that they were evilly-disposed towards the prophets, as denouncing bitter things against them, what had they to allege against the divine altars? Rather then by such daring impieties did they manifest that their hatred was against the God thereof. And here the holy apostle, leaving these scripture testimonies, resumes the thread of his own discourse, and says, 5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6. And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. As at that time, says he, among countless myriads, seven thousand only were left who were free from impiety, even so now also have the greater number disbelieved, and the smaller are they who have believed and enjoyed the divine grace, for it is not the polity of the law that has justified them, which is what is here meant by of works, but the grace of God has saved them; wherefore also salvation itself is called grace, because it proceeds from the divine loving-kindness; and this also he said in speaking concerning the patriarch Abraham, (ch. iv. 4,) "but to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." 7. What then? Here we must place a stop, for it is put interrogatively, that is, what shall we say to this? and then the rest as the reply, Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were hardened. By the election he signifies those that had believed; and what he means is this, Israel by his adherence to the law has failed of the mark, for now contrary to the (spirit of the) law, he still observes the law, and reaps no righteousness, but such among them as have believed have obtained it, but the rest were hardened, that is, their infidelity has yet more hardened their heart; and he shows that this also was foretold from of old; 8. As it is written, (Isa. vi. 10, xxix. 10,) "God hath |156 given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day." Gave them, as "gave them up," (i. 24,) that is, permitted them (to fall into), for God did not incline them to disbelief, for how were it possible for Him to have inflicted infidelity on them, and Himself demanded vengeance for the same? And this the prophet has yet more clearly shown, (ch. vi. 10, LXX., as also so cited Matt. xiii. 15, Acts xxviii. 27,) "for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed." Not another then has blinded them, but themselves have closed their eyes, and have not chosen to see the light. And by the spirit of slumber, he means a fixed and obdurate mind; that as he who enjoys a sound and healthy sleep is open to no change for the worse, so he who has surrendered himself up entirely to evil, admits no alteration for the better. 9. And David saith, (Ps. lxviii. 22,) Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a recompense unto them; 10. Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. By the word table he speaks of their luxurious living, which he prophesied would be exchanged for the reverse. 11. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid, but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. For to them first, such as believed among them brought the saving gospel, and when they set themselves against it, and refused to receive their teaching, then to the Gentiles did they offer the divine gospel; but they that believed obtained salvation. And this was suited to prick in heart the gainsayers among the Jews, and excite them to emulation, and so gain for them a participation in that salvation, for those that have been last they see made first. |363
12. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness? |364 For if, when the greater number disbelieved, those that were converted among them brought the riches of the divine knowledge to the Gentiles, most manifest is it, that if all believed, they would become the means of yet greater blessings to all mankind, for all would the more readily believe, when these no longer opposed, but joined with us instead in preaching, the truth. Thence he turns his exhortations to those among the Gentiles who had believed, and counsels them to entertain a chastened view of themselves; aiming at once at a double point, on the one hand to pull down all self-sufficiency on their part, and lead them to fear; and on the other, to bring the Jews to a participation of their ancestral inheritance; and thus he begins, 13. For I speak unto you, Gentiles; inasmuch indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office, 14. If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and may save some of them. Since God sent me forth as the minister of the Gentiles, necessarily do I labour after the salvation of the Gentiles, and direct my discourses in their behalf, and point out the holy prophets of old predicting these things; and this, that so I may excite the Jews to rivalry, and induce some of them to share in that salvation; for by his flesh he means the Jews, as those that in spirit were distant, and related to him only by the affinity of kindred, 15. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if, says he, on their disbelief the Gentiles were received in, and freed from their former ignorance, manifest is it, that if all these were willing to believe, nothing else would then remain to be accomplished, but the resurrection of the dead;8 for so the Lord also said, "and this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached unto all nations for a witness unto them, and then shall the end come," (Matt. xxiv. 14). And all this we must recollect the holy apostle says, from a desire to suit his matter exactly to the subject in hand, and teach humility to those among the Gentiles that had believed, hold out the offer yet to the disbelieving among the Jews, and point out the salvation that would arise from their change of mind; as what follows teaches yet more clearly, 16. For if the first- fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18. Boast not thyself against the branches. By the first-fruit he means the Lord Christ in his human nature; by the root, the patriarch Abraham; by the branches of the olive, the Jewish people as sprung from thence; and by the richness of the olive, the doctrines of religion. He admonishes those among the Gentiles who believed, not to be puffed up against the disbelieving Jews; for these are they whom he speaks of as branches broken off. Observe rather, says he, that you, born of another race, have been grafted into this, and have received of the richness of the holy root. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee; and consider this also, that the root bears thee, not thou the root, and thou |365 needest it, not it thee. 19. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. Infidelity has rendered them aliens from the root, and faith has connected thee with the root, and made thee to share in its richness; it behoves thee therefore not to become self-sufficient, but to fear and tremble.—Wherefore? 21. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee. For if the connexion of nature profited them not at all, because they retained not the same character and disposition, much more thou, if thou preservest not that grace, shalt become an alien from the root. 22. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Behold now how God has cut them off, because they followed not the faith of their forefathers, and how He has conferred on thee the blessing of his loving-kindness, and made thee to share in a root not appertaining to thee, from which thou wilt be altogether severed again, if thou keepest not the gift bestowed on thee. 23. And they also, if they abide not in unbelief shall be grafted in. For it becomes the righteousness of God, both to sever again from the root thee, who contrary to hope wert blessed with the privilege of that root, if thou thereafter preserve not the grace given; and to join them again to it, if they renounce their infidelity. And aptly does he use the words grafted in as regards them also, infidelity having altogether severed them from, and faith exactly, as in the case of the Gentiles, connecting them with, the root. For God is able to graft them in again. By mentioning the power of God, he shows the ease with which this would be done; and gives an instance, not one removed far from them, and of ancient times, but one which comes home, and was recent, for he calls themselves as witnesses to this; and says, 24. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? If thou, being a wild olive—for thou hadst not the law tending thee, nor the prophets, watering, and pruning, and taking all needful care about thee,—hast been detached from unholy ancestors and relations, and made a partaker in the faith of Abraham, and boastest in him as thy father and ancestor, not by the natural course of the law, but by the divine loving-kindness; much more probable and natural must it be, that they, on believing, should be united again to their own root. And all this, as I before remarked, he says in order to teach humility to the Gentile converts, and exhort to salvation the disbelievers among the Jews; and with this agrees what follows, 25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits.A mystery is a thing not known to all, but to those only who are entrusted with it. What he means then is, that I wish you to understand the mystery I am aware of as regards these things, that you may |366 not over-estimate your own spiritual knowledge, and hence be puffed up with self-sufficiency. And what is the mystery? That blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved. He puts the in part, to show that not all had disbelieved, for many even among them had believed; and he bids them not despair of the salvation of the rest. For when the Gentile nation shall have received the gospel, then they also shall believe, the great Elias having come9 and brought instruction in the faith to them, for so the Lord also said in the holy gospels (Matt. xvii. 1), "Elias cometh and shall restore all things and he adds also the testimony of the prophet (Isa. lix. 20,) 26. As it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27. For this is My covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. If the polity of the law gives forgiveness of sins, that it is, which the speech of the prophet predicted; but if the law punishes those that transgress it, and the Jews ever lay under the accusation of such transgression, it is plain that the sentence points out the forgiveness which arises from baptism. And by all Israel, he means such as believe, whether they were of the Jews, as having a natural descent from Israel, or of the Gentiles, as connected with him by the relationship of faith.28. As concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. When I look to you, with whose instruction I am entrusted, I consider them as enemies and hateful, as doing all in their power to your injury; but when I turn to their forefathers, and reflect how God chose them from among the whole earth, on their account I love even these. 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. All this he says as an incitement to the Jews; for that the blessings which God gives he again resumes, when He sees those that have received them infected with ingratitude, Saul is a proof, who, having enjoyed spiritual10 grace, was afterwards deprived thereof; and Solomon in like manner, who, having obtained peace through the divine loving-kindness, after his transgression was stripped of that grace;11 and indeed the Jews themselves, who, ever having enjoyed the fostering care of the prophets, at that present time had been bereaved of this guardianship. And the same he had also, just before threatened to the believers among the Gentiles, "if thou continue," says he, "in His goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." 30. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief, 31. Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. Remember indeed how for so long a period all of you lived in sin, and yet the merciful Lord looked not to that lengthened and bitter ungodliness, but blessed with his unspeakable loving-kindness such as were willing to receive it, and when these (the Jews) would not believe, called you in their room; nothing inconsistent then were it, that these also, who now gainsay, should be accepted of God whenever willing to believe, and so inherit the divine loving-kindness. And the that he here again uses in |367 the idiom and sense familiar to him,12 for they did not therefore disbelieve, in order that they might find mercy, but they disbelieved because of the hardness of their hearts, and will find mercy by turning to a change of mind. 32. For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all. Concluded he puts for convicted. For he convicted the Gentiles, as having both received natural judgment, and had the creation teaching them the knowledge of God, and yet from neither the one nor the other having derived benefit; and He convicted the Jews likewise, as having enjoyed yet more instruction, in that in addition to nature and the creation, they had received the prophets also teaching what was right, and so become obnoxious to the heavier vengeance; while at the same time both these and those, thus deserving total destruction, has He blessed with the privilege of salvation, provided only they were willing to believe. Having thus fully gone through these things, and contemplating the profundity of the divine lovingkindness, and how incomprehensible is His wisdom, he cries out, 33. O the depth of the riches, and of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! For of old, and from the beginning, has He foreknown all these things, and foreknowing has wisely disposed, and in that dispensation manifested the riches of His loving-kindness. How unsearchable are his judgments, and His ways past finding out! The scheme of the divine economy surpasses man's understanding; nor even by the invisible powers is the providence of the God of all things fully reached unto. 34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor? 35. Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? These three he puts us answering to the former three, the "riches," and the "wisdom," and the "knowledge:'' the who hath known the mind of the Lord, to the knowledge; the who hath been His counsellor, to the wisdom; and the who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again, to the riches. For so immense are the riches of His goodness, that both to them that were not, has He given existence, and on such as are, of His free grace bestowed well- being.13 And not as really due to us for any thing we have first given, but of His own free kindness does He confer His blessings, although in mercy condescending to call each such free gift, the repayment of ourselves. 36. For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. For He created all things, and He continues governing all that He thus created. To Him we ought to look, confessing our gratitude for all we already have enjoyed, and begging for His future providence; and to Him we ought to offer up also the praise and honour due.— Now in the words above, the holy apostle shows that he recognised not any difference between the expressions of whom and through whom,14 as though the former, as indicating some |368 superiority, belonged to the Father; and the latter, as implying some inferiority, were suited to the Son. For he applies both of them to the same Person; whom if, on the one hand, the Arians and Eunomians say is the Father, they will find the through whom joined to the of whom; and if, on the other, they refer it to the Son, they will see then the of whom connected to the through whom. If then the of whom implies any superiority, and the through whom any inferiority, and yet both are spoken of the same Person, He must in all reason be considered greater than Himself, on account of the of whom, and less than Himself on account of the through whom. Let us then, leaving such (arguers) for the present, magnify our Creator and Saviour, to whom belongs glory for ever and ever. Amen. |617
Book V.
The knowledge of the nature of God, and faith, and right affections towards Him, are the sum and true foundation of all good; for what the eye is to the body, that faith and the knowledge of divine matters are to the soul. But then she needs also at the same time practical virtue, as the eye does hands and feet, and the other members of the body.
Wherefore, the holy apostle adds moral instructions also to his doctrinal course, in order to promote in us the most perfect virtue, for through the Romans does he afford this advantage to all mankind: and thus he opens the subject.
Chapter XII.
1. I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God. He lays down laws, and sinking authority puts forth his instructions with intreaties, reminding them of the divine loving-kindness, of which he had before spoken so much at length; and what then dost thou beseech? that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And already before had he exhorted to make "their members instruments of righteousness, and yield themselves to |618 God as those that are alive from the dead," (ch. vi. 13;) and here he bids these become also a sacrifice, and calls it a living sacrifice, for it is not to be slain that he commands the body,15 but to become dead to sin, and not be open to its action; and such sacrifice he speaks of as holy, reasonable, and acceptable, as contrasting it with the oblation of irrational animals, and showing that with this the Lord is pleased. For by ail the prophets, as one may say, he finds fault with the sacrifices of beasts, while he enjoins this; for "sacrifice," says he, "unto God the sacrifice of praise," and "the sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me." Ps. 1. (LXX. li. 14, 23; and see also Isa. i. 11-18,) and a thousand other such passages are to be found in the Holy Scriptures. 2. And follow not the fashions16 of this world. He speaks of the things of this present world, such as wealth, and power, and other like pomps, by fashions, future things being substances, as alone permanent and satisfying; for so in another place also, (1 Cor. vii. 31,) "for the fashion of this world passeth away." For many from the height of abundance have fallen into the extremest poverty, and others sprung from the lowest parents become entrusted with the noblest offices of authority; and some again who elevated an haughty brow, and enlarged themselves in pride, conceiving themselves superior to everybody, being suddenly carried off, have become ill-savoured dust. The holy apostle therefore desires us not to gape after these things, nor to love the fashion of this world, but to seek those things which advance the life eternal. But be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. He exhorts here those also who were inclining to the worse to return again to the better, as the word transformed shews. And he teaches how great is the difference between virtue and mere present objects, by calling them fashions, but virtue a form, for a form indicates actually existing objects, but a fashion that which quickly melts away. And he points out the freedom of will which the soul possesses, by commanding it both to renew the mind, and to discriminate the better from the worse; for these things are what he says serve God; and he marks out what these are; and first of all he denounces arrogance, and enjoins humility. 3. For I say. through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think as accords with sobriety. And not himself does he declare thus enjoins, but the grace of the Spirit through him, for its instrument, says he, I am; and by the word sobriety here, he designates the healthy state of the mind, to teach us that arrogance is the sickness of the intellect; and herein, indeed, he imitates his own Master; for so the Lord in the holy gospels (Matt. v. 3) pronounced the first blessing on such as were given to humility. "Blessed," says he, "are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." And these instructions he lays on all, both rich and poor, both servants and masters, both men and women, as the words to every one that is among you testify; and he gives the proper measures of our self-opinion, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. Grace it is which he here calls faith, because that |619 by faith comes the gift of grace; and according to the proportion of a man's faith are the gifts of grace supplied; and he commands each to regulate his own self-estimate by the grace allotted to him. 4. For as we have many members in out body, and all members have not the same office; 5. So we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. The illustration is exactly suited to such an exhortation concerning brotherly love; for as each of the members is not useful to itself alone, but contributes its benefits to the common whole, so, therefore, it becomes him who has been blessed with any grace from above, clearly to understand that he has received that gift for the common advantage; for believers are one body, and each of us fulfils the office of a member; 6. Having gifts, differing according to the grace that is given to us. Thus are we to understand this, we are members of each other, having gifts differing according to the grace given to us; and yet, although thus differing, they are nevertheless bestowed by the divine grace for the common good. Whether prophecy according to the proportion of faith; 7. Or ministry that he should wait on ministering, or as a teacher on teaching; 8. Or as an exhorter, on exhortation. According to the faith of each does the Giver of all good proportion the grace. And by prophecy he means not only the foreknowledge of the future, but the understanding hidden things also;17 and by ministry the office of preaching the gospel; by teaching the instructing in the divine doctrines; by exhortation the inciting to virtue. He that giveth, let him do it with singleness of heart; not seeking after the good opinion of others, but supplying the wants of him that needs; nor calculating with himself whether he has sufficient by him or not, but trusting in God, and so affording assistance liberally; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. 9. Let love be without simulation. He bids all things be done with earnestness. And the oversight he orders to be exercised with zeal, that it he not the name without the thing; and to shewing bounty he joins joy, in order to point out the gain that arises from communicating to others; seeing that they who gain are wont to rejoice; for so also he says in his epistle to the Corinthians (2 Ep. ix. 7); "not grudgingly or of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver;" and love He commands to be genuine and sincere, and repudiates the mask of pretence. Abhorring that which is evil, clinging to that which is good. Again he says not simply to fly from the former, and follow after the latter, but exhorts us exceedingly to hate sin, and to the performance of good deeds bids us closely be connected, our affections serving thereto as it were a cement. 10. Being kindly affectioned one to another in brotherly love; in honour preferring one another. Have your regard warm, and such as becomes brethren towards each other; and let each yield the first places to his neighbour, for this is a proof of true and perfect love. 11. Not slothful in ardour: shewing forth a ready promptness towards what is good, and altogether casting away indolence. Fervent in spirit. By spirit he means the spiritual grace given, and to this, as fuel to the fire, he commands us to bring alacrity as its subject-matter; as he says also in another place (1 Thess. v. 19); "Quench not the Spirit;" for the Spirit is |620 quenched in such as are unworthy of such grace: for, not having the eye of their understanding clear;18 they take not in that beam; even as with the corporeally blind light itself becomes darkness, and in mid-day they are bound by the blackness of night. Wherefore he bid us be fervent in spirit, and possess a warm desire concerning heavenly things; as he also subjoins, serving the Lord. 12. Rejoicing in hope, patient19 in tribulation, continuing instant in prayer. For he who is fervent in spirit, both readily obeys his Master, and waits for the enjoyment of the blessings looked for, and rises superior to the temptations that befall him, arming himself with steadfastness against their attacks, and ever calling the divine grace to his assistance; as he also subjoins, continuing instant in prayer, that is, incessantly doing so; 13. Communicating with the necessities of the saints.20 Having mentioned communication he exhorts to liberality; for who would not choose to impart of his wealth, thereby to become a sharer in good deeds? 21 for so also did he say in his Epistle to the Corinthians, "that your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want." Given to hospitality. The guests he means are not the saints only, but such also as have come from any quarter whatsoever, and need entertainment, whom he commands us to take care of. 14. Bless them which persecute you; bless and curse not. This was a law of our Lord's, for the Lord enjoined it to the holy Apostles, (Matt. v. 44.) 15. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep; 16. Being of the same mind one toward another. Share with each other both in afflictions and their opposite, for the former is the part of sympathy, and the latter of friendship unsullied by envy. Minding not high things, but condescending to men of low estate. Again he banishes the arrogance of haughtiness, and bids the high come down to the low. Be not wise in your own conceits; that is, be not satisfied with your own judgments, but take the counsels also of others. 17. Recompensing to no man evil for evil; and this indeed is an excellence belonging to virtue in its highest state of perfection, and approaching near to a total emancipation from the passions. Providing things honest in the sight of all men; and he says also elsewhere, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God." (1 Cor. x. 32.) 18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Most accurately does he express himself here, in making the addition of the if it be possible, and the as far as lieth in you; let nothing, says he, be done on your part, but try every means for peace. And this is in strict consequence from what he had before said, for what feeling of hostility can he entertain, who "blesses him that persecutes,'' and avenges not himself on him that injures him? 19. Avenging not yourselves, dearly beloved, |621 but rather give ye place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. (Deut. xxxii. 3.).) 20. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head. Having pointed out the Judge, and shown his just judgments, for so the Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, saith the Lord, signifies, he bids us generously bear all the injuries offered to us, repaying with the reverse those that do evil to us, and ministering to the wants of those that hate us. For these things weave a crown to such as thus meekly and patiently endure,22 while they increase the punishment of the injurers. Not indeed that we are to suppose (that he means) that on this account we are to minister to our enemies, in order that they may suffer the heavier retribution hereafter, for the holy Apostle thus speaks from a wish to repress the anger of the injured party, not from a desire by (his) good to increase (the other's) evil. For that it is such a patient endurance which he inculcates, what follows shews; Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. For to revenge oneself proves defeat, while the returning good for evil is manifest victory. Having thus disciplined (their) morals, he exhorts them also to render to those in authority the honour due; for he foresaw, as one who had plenteously received of the grace of the thrice holy Spirit, how some, led rather by self-arrogance than any holy zeal for religion, would despise their earthly rulers, as conceiving themselves far superior to them by reason of their (better spiritual) knowledge.23 And especially does he do this, that he may blot out the opinion prevalent concerning them; for they were falsely represented as destroyers of the common laws; and some said, (Acts xvii. 6,) "These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;" and others that they were introducing "new customs" (Acts x. 20); wherefore he thought it worth while to lay down his injunctions on this point also. |684
Chapter XIII.
1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. Whether a man be a priest, or a bishop, or profess a monastic life, let him be subject to those who are invested with authority; evidently if it be consistent with duty to God, for any opposition to the divine laws leaves us not the power of obeying our rulers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. And these come from the providence of God; for He, consulting the general well-being, ordained some to govern, and some to be governed, imposing the fear of the magistrate to serve as a bridle on evil doers. But we must observe, that it is the ordinance of ruling and being ruled, which the holy Apostle derives from the providence of God, and not (so much) the elevation of this or that specific individual to power; for it is not (so much) the sway of the unjust, but the constitution of the office itself which is of God's appointment. And yet, when kindly-disposed towards any, He gives them rulers who respect and keep justice, for "I will give them," says He, "pastors according to Mine heart, which shall feed them with knowledge" (Jer. iii. 15); and again, "I will give your judges as at the first, and your counsellors as at the beginning" (Isa. i. 26); and when again desirous to chastise transgressors, He suffers them to be governed by evil governors also; for "I will place over them," says He, "children to be their princes, and scoffers shall rule over them" (Isa. iii. 4); but it is time to return to the rest of the exposition. 2. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. He fitly deters them. And they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment; that is, will become obnoxious to punishment. And then he points out also the use of government. 3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; for they chastise those that live in wickedness. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shall have praise of the same; 4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. He shews that he is worthy of all respect in calling him the minister of God; and he exhorts also to the performance of good deeds, in saying that rulers are applauders of good. But if thou do that which is evil be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. If thou lovest what is good, honour then the government which enjoins these same things; but if thou pursuest the reverse fear then its judgment, for it is appointed of God for the punishment of the evil. 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. By wrath he means punishment; and on both grounds he |685 bids us be obedient, both from fear of punishment, and that we may fulfil what is our duty; for this is what he means by conscience' sake. 6. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. For while thou art asleep he is bearing about him the common care; and while thou sittest at home, he is meeting the war which brings thee peace. 7. Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. By tribute he means the taxes arising from land, but by custom the excise or duty from merchandise; nor are these only what he calls dues, but fear and honour also; for these are owing from the ruled to the rulers. 8. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. Not that we are not to pay the debt of love, for this we ought to discharge before any thing else, but that we should increase it by that payment; for such discharge augments the debt, in that it makes love the warmer; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. How, and in what manner? 9. For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. For he who is kindly disposed towards any one, kills not him whom he thus loves, commits not adultery with his wife, steals not any thing belonging to the object of his affectionate regard, nor does any other thing which might give him pain; for so he subjoins, 10. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; and then drawing his conclusion, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. And so also the Lord, being asked which was the first commandment, mentioned the first, and joined the second to it, (Mark xii. 30,) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself and shews that in the former is established perfect theoretical, and in the second perfect practical virtue; and so, in like manner, the holy Apostle, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law; and then he goes on to say, 11. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time for us to awake out of sleep; that is, especially as this is not a time for sleep, but for arousing ourselves from slumber; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed; for each day we draw nearer to the coming of the Lord (in judgment.) 12. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. By night he means the season of ignorance;24 by the day the time since the appearance of the Lord among us. For the Sun of righteousness having arisen, has enlightened the whole world with the rays of divine knowledge. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. By darkness he means ignorance; and by the works of darkness evil actions; and knowledge is what he calls light; and the performance of good deeds the armour of light. 13. Let us walk honestly, as in the day. By natural things he sets forth spiritual, for so they that embrace a life of sin commit such sin in the night, while in the day time they put on the appearance of orderly conduct. He intends, then, that the night having as it were passed away, and ignorance ceased, we should depart from evil deeds. And what these are he goes on to specify. Not in lasciviousness, and drunkenness; not in chambering and wantonness; not in strife and envying. For in their feasts some were |686 wont to act lewdly, and defile their tongues with obscene songs, all of which drunkenness provokes, as it is also the parent of wantonness, and the teacher of strife and quarrelsomeness. 14. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ. Not that they should receive another baptism, but consider the garment wherewith they were already clothed.25 And make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. Here he stops the mouths of those heretics who condemned the flesh itself,26 for he denounces not care for the body, but forbids luxurious indulgence and intemperance; saying not, make no provision for the body, but make it not for the lusts; that is, prepare it not by luxurious living to play the wanton. Having thus in its turn fully spoken of practical virtue, he now returns again to doctrinal instruction. And here it is first necessary to explain the scope of the Apostle's arguments, that the exposition of what he says may be more clearly understood. The Gentile believers, then, embraced the polity prescribed by the gospel; while many of the Jews who had become proselytes to the gospel, persisted still in submission to the institutions of the law, keeping still to the observation of particular days, and partaking of such food (only) as the law directed. Hence a disunion arose, and indeed positive quarrels, these latter condemning the Gentile believers for their indiscriminate use of all foods, and the former despising them in their turn on account of their extreme and superfluous adherence to the law. To correct all this, therefore, the holy Apostle offers such admonitions as are suited to both parties; and first he exhorts the Gentile believers to brotherly love. |729
Chapter XIV.
1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not into distinctions of opinions.27 By weak he means him who was yet a slave to legal observances. 2. For one believeth that he may eat all things; that is, the Gentile convert; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Some declare that the Jewish proselytes, in order to cast shame on the Gentile converts, abstained not only from swine's flesh, but even from all animal food, under the pretext of self-restraint and temperance; whence the holy Apostle says, he who is weak eateth herbs; for not having a perfect faith,28 he thought that he would be defiled by such kind of food. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not. For the Gentile converts despised the Jewish, as not possessing a sound faith, and as on this account being unwilling to partake of such kind of food. And let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth. And the Jewish indeed condemned the Gentile converts, esteeming their indiscriminate use of every kind of food transgression. For God hath received him; that is, the Gentile convert; and he goes on in his rebuke of the Jew: 4. Who art thou that judgest another's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Every servant while living is a source of profit to his own Master, and on death again brings him loss; and this man then the Lord of all things has bought, having given His own blood as the price of his purchase; and having said "to his own Master he standeth or falleth," he necessarily adds, Yea, he shall be holden up; and establishes what he says by the power of God, for God is able to make him stand. Having spoken thus much concerning foods, he transfers his discourse to the matter of days. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike, (for this purpose.) For some abstained from the meats forbidden by the law at all times, and some on particular days (only). Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He lays not this down as a principle of universal application; for neither does he so bid us reckon as regards the doctrines of religion, seeing that he passes an anathema on those that permit themselves to preach contrary to the truth, (Gal. i. 9:) "For if any one preach unto you," says he, "any other gospel than that ye have received, let him he accursed." Concerning foods, then, only is it that he allows this power to each man's own mind. For so indeed this custom remains in the churches even to the present day, and one man embraces abstinence, and another without scruple takes of all kinds of food, and neither does the former condemn the latter, nor the latter find fault with the former, but mutually glory in |730 the law of concord. 6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; 29 and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. He says this in condescension to us, 30 in order to produce peace and harmony in the church. The God of all, says he, knows the intention, both of those that eat, and of those that eat not, and he attends not to the bare deed, but inquires into the design of what is done. 7. For none of us liveth to himself, and none of us dieth to himself. 8. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. We are not our own lords; we have been bought with a price; and while living, therefore, we are the Lord's, and when dead we are the Lord's; that is, neither art thou his master, nor is he thine; for One we all have for our Lord. 9. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might he Lord, both of the dead and the living. He is the Master of all, who for our sakes gave Himself up to death, who destroyed the power of death, and has promised salvation to us all. To Him, then, are we subject, as from Him having received life. 10. But why dost thou judge thy brother? this he says to the Jew; for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. And then he also establishes what he says on the testimony of Scripture: 11. For it is written, (see Isa. xliii. 10; xlv. 21, 23; xliv. 6, 8, &c.,) As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God. He is our judge, He is our sentencer; at that tribunal of His we must stand. And indeed this witness of the prophet proves the completeness of the divinity of the Only-begotten. 31 For having said by the prophet, "I am God before all ages, and I am first, and I am afterwards, and even unto eternity I am God, and before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me, and beside Me there is none, and a just God and a Saviour there is none beside Me," then He adds, "By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that unto Me every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess to God." But let us proceed on to what remains of our interpretation. 12. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Having pointed out the tribunal of the Lord, most consistently does he exhort them not to judge one another, but to await that judgment; for so he again subjoins, 13. Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way. Here he directs his rebukes to the Gentile converts, who condescended not to the infirmities of the Jewish proselytes, but esteemed the indifferent use of all kinds of food as the height of virtue and the warmth of zeal. And first, then, he teaches that none of these things is really impure and unclean; and thus he speaks: 14. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that in Him there |731 is nothing unclean. It was necessary, by reason of the infirmity of the Jews, that he should add the expression in the Lord Jesus; for it was that they might not say, Who art thou that legislatest in contradiction of Moses? that he brings forward the Lord of Moses; showing that He had put an end to the observances of the law, and permitted us not to consider any food unclean; for the in Him signifies in His institutions in the gospel; for Himself also said to the blessed Peter, "What God hath cleansed that call not thou unclean." (Acts x. 15.) But to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if a man conceiving such food to be unclean, yet partakes therein, it becomes unclean; not by reason of its own nature, but on account of the opinion of him that thus partakes of it. Having thus distinguished as to these things, he again censures the Gentile converts, who bore32 not the infirmities of the Jews. 15. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. He increases the accusation (by that of want) of charity, to expose him that thus acted; and then even more fully points out the folly of such conduct. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. For him the Lord Christ endured death, while thou art not willing by a mere abstinence in food to gain life for him, but by indulgence contrivest death. 16. Let not then your good be evil spoken of. Again, the accusation is made in conjunction with praise, for faith he calls a good thing. I commend, says he, thy faith, but I would not that it become the cause of injury and reproach. 17. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. For imagine not that this is the perfection of excellence, and what will procure the kingdom of heaven; for what procures that is true righteousness, and concord, and zeal as to peace, and love, from which springs joy, as to God. 18. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. For these things the God of all both requires of us, and they also bring advantage to men. Nor must we fail to observe, that he declares the serving Christ is acceptable to the God of all. If, then, the serving Christ be pleasing to God, so also truly to honour Christ must be pleasing to Him; wherefore likewise to speak evil of Christ, and to attempt to lower His dignity, must be offensive to the God of all. 19. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. It behoves us therefore above all to value a profitable concord, and to do all for the mutual advantage of each other. For meat destroy not the work of God. The believing on Him is what our Lord called the work of God; for "this," says He, "is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent," (John vi. 29). Since then it was probable that some of the Jews would fall away from the faith, not enduring the reproaches of the Gentile believers, aptly does he say, for meat destroy not the work of God. And again, that the Jewish proselytes might not hence gain a pretext for insisting on the observance of the law, he provides against this also, and says, 20. All things indeed are pure; none, says he, of these foods is unclean by its own nature, but it is evil to that man who eateth with offence; but to thee, |732 nevertheless, indulgence therein brings injury, because thou neglectest thy neighbour's interests, and seest him suffer with contempt. 21. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. And not as regards flesh alone, but wine also, I bid thee never to indulge in either, if this really work any harm to thy neighbour. 22. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. In the full exercise of faith thou keepest the law (of Christian liberty in the gospel, v. 14, and Gal. v. 1, &c.) Great is the possession, worthy of praise the excellence, but let it not be to the detriment of thy neighbour. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. The expression insinuates that the Gentile converts were in the habit of compelling the Jews to partake of those things they were averse to; he teaches therefore that the believer33 indeed derives no injury from the use of them, but that he who eats, while yet making a distinction, partakes in such as unclean, wherefore he pronounces him happy that judges not himself; that is, who makes no such difference (in his own mind); and so he subjoins, in explanation, 23. But he that maketh a distinction is condemned if he eat; and he shews the reason, because he eateth not of faith; but whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For he who believes harmlessly partakes, but he who eats with any such distinction passes sentence on himself. And that he may prove himself enjoining what is agreeable to God, he offers up a fervent prayer in their behalf; 34 Now to Him that is of power to stablish you; and after what manner to stablish? according to my gospel; and what is his gospel? and the preaching of Jesus Christ; and pointing out the antiquity of that preaching, he adds, according to the revelation of the mystery; for not now is the mystery framed, but now is it made known, having been long concealed; for so he goes on to say, which was kept secret since the world began; and then he brings forward also the witnesses of this preaching, but now is made manifest and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God; for what He had darkly foreshown in the prophets, these things has the Maker of all ages now clearly displayed; and what is the fruit of this preaching? for the obedience of faith, for it behoves them that hear to believe what is preached; and who are they? made known to all nations. Thus it is to be understood, according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, made known to all nations. To God only wise, through Christ Jesus, to whom be glory for ever, Amen. Having set forth the mystery of the dispensation, of old indeed fore-appointed, and then predicted in the prophets, and afterwards become manifest indeed, he magnifies the wisdom of God, and utters forth a doxology suitable thereto. But if the heretics should assert that God (the Father) is here called the alone wise, let them know that the Lord Christ is not only so called wise, but wisdom itself. (Prov. iii. 19, &c.) And if indeed they think it right to deprive the Son of this name of wise, so neither let them call Him immortal, for the same Apostle says of God, "who alone hath |733 immorlity." (1 Tim. vi. 16).35 But leaving such to their own folly, let us proceed onwards in our course. Having then thus offered up these supplications for them, the holy Apostle adds exhortations, giving praise to the Gentile converts, and designating them as strong, by reason of their faith.
Chapter XV.
1. We then that are strong ought to hear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2. Let every one of us please his neighbour, for his good to edification:—I know that thou art brought to completeness, and that faith has made thee strong, but I exhort thee to extend a hand to him that is weak, and not to seek thine own (comfort or convenience) alone, but to consult also the advantage of thy neighbour; and he says not merely to please thy neighbour, but for his good to edification, since it is very possible to please a neighbour both to his and our own injury; and then the example, 3. For even Christ pleased not himself, but as it is written (Ps. lxix. 9), "The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on Me.'' For even the Lord Himself sought not his own (convenience), but for our salvation gave Himself up to death. For we heard Him in his passion praying, and saying (Matt. xxvi. 39), "O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me, nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt and he bore also the blasphemies of the Jews, and those which they had formerly brought upon His Father by their wicked lives,36 the same they uttered against Him; on which account it is that he here cites that testimony of the prophet. 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. God, providing for our advantage, has both afforded us a written rule of doctrine, and also preserved in written history the accounts of the saints. 5. Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one towards another according to Christ Jesus. Again by the addition of the according to Christ Jesus he shews that he does not indiscriminately beg for a concord of any kind for them, but the concord of godliness: and speaking of patience and comfort, he joins therewith the mention of love; that adorned therewith they might bear the imperfections of their neighbour, and by mutual counsel and comfort lead him on to completeness. 6. That with one mind and one mouth ye may glorify God. even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He calls God our God, but our Lord Jesus Christ's Father, for He who is the God of us all, is His Father. 7. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. And indeed the Lord Christ loved us not as being holy, but receiving us while sinners so justified; we ought therefore ourselves also to bear the weakness of our brethren, and do all to forward their salvation. And seeing that the Jewish proselytes put forward the circumcision of our Lord, asserting that even Himself also had embraced the polity of the law, the holy Apostle thought it worth while to write what was fitting on this subject |734 also; and he says, 8. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the Father; 9. And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy. The God of all things promised to Abraham that in his seed He would bless all nations; and the patriarch himself and all his race received the sign of circumcision; it behoved therefore Him also, who is called "his seed after the flesh," and who shed forth the blessing on the Gentiles, to bear the sign of his kindred, that the truth of the divine promise might be clearly manifested, and the Gentiles receiving that grace might magnify Him, from whom the loving-kindness has flowed to them. And then he adduces scriptural testimonies, shewing that the salvation of the Gentiles had been predicted of old; As it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto Thy name (Ps. xviii. 49). 10. And again it saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people, (Deut. xxxii. 13). 11. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, and laud Him, all ye people. (Ps. cxvii. 1). 12. And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, in Him shall the Gentiles trust. Now these testimonies he cites in order to teach the Jewish converts not to be offended at the salvation of the Gentiles, but believe the prophecies concerning them. And again he implores a blessing on them, exhibiting the fatherly affection he bore to them. 13. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. He had already above said, in the part of this Epistle which we have expounded, that "hope which is seen is not hope"' (ch. viii. 24); wherefore also he calls God the God of hope, as having of old given to the Gentiles the hope of the blessing, and now established that promise by deeds; and this is a pledge of the blessings yet hoped for; for He who promised those things, and then fulfilled them, will altogether fulfil also what He has now promised to us. And he bids us not only hope, but abound in hope, that is, hope sincerely, and expect to behold the blessings that we hope for; and this (confidence) he says the grace of the spirit affords. Having thus recommended these things, and invoked a blessing on them, he goes on to accord praise to them, by this leading them onward to yet greater goodness; 14. And I myself also am persuaded of you, brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish others. I know, says he, that ye need not instruction; for ye both possess sufficiently ample knowledge, and abound in good of every kind, so as even to extend to others also every fitting exhortation. 15. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God. He displays at the same time the modesty of his own mind in saying he made bold to teach them; and exhibits this grace given to him, in teaching that he writes in subservience to it. And what grace then is this given to thee? 16. That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God. I have been appointed the teacher of the Gentiles, this is the ministry I present to the Lord Christ; and what is the gain arising from thence? That the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. I readily undergo any labour that the Gentiles may be established in the faith. I obtain the grace of the Spirit, for by the |735 ministry he means preaching, and by the acceptable offering a sincere and genuine faith. I have done nothing then out of place,37 says he, if I have at all written somewhat more boldly, and rebuked them that offend. 17. I have therefore whereof I may glory in Jesus Christ, in those things which pertain to God. And then he points out the character of that glorying; 18. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed. 19. By the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God. My boasting is not in mine own labours, but in the gift bestowed on me by the Lord Christ. For he has given me the grace of the thrice-holy Spirit, to the working of signs and wonders; so that by these means the Gentiles have been rescued unto life, and received the light of divine knowledge. And he shews also to how large a portion of the Gentiles he had preached; so that from Jerusalem and in a circle unto Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. For I have tended not those nations lying in the direct line only, but traversing also in a circle have fully supplied with the doctrines of the gospel the eastern regions also, and those about Pontus, together with portions of Asia and Thrace; for this is what the words in a circle indicate. 20. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation, 21. But as it is written, (Isa. lii. 15), To whom He was not spoken of they shall see; and they that have not heard shall understand. This shews the diligent earnestness of his zeal in labouring, in that taking in hand the fields that as yet had been uncultivated, he ploughed them up, and sowed, and converted them into fruitful corn fields, and brought its due fulfilment to the prophecy. 22. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. For my engagement among these others has prevented my presence among yourselves. 23. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you, 24. Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you; for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company. He gives two reasons for his coming to them—that the rest had been preached unto, no nation remaining among which the doctrines of the gospel had not been heard; and his own love towards them. For the former hindrances having ceased, his longing after them excited him to the journey; and he declares that this his affection had been long antecedent to his actual coming, for for these many years, says he, have I earnestly desired to see you; and he tells them before-hand that he will not only see them, but take in Spain also; and that they may not hence conceive that his visit to them was merely by the way,38 he adds, and by you to be brought on my way thitherward, if first I be somewhat filled with your company; for you are they whom I first wish to see, and after you them. 25. But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. By ministering he means the distribution of a pecuniary collection; and he mentions also the senders thereof; 26. For they of Macedonia and Achaia have been benevolently |736 inclined to make a communication to the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It was indeed under a previously-arranged agreement to this effect with the blessed Apostles, Peter I mean, and James, and John, that the divinely-appointed Barnabas and Paul undertook the teaching of the Gentiles, promising to exhort the converts among the Gentiles to minister to the wants of the faithful in Judaea; and this he clearly teaches in his epistle to the Galatians (ii. 9, 10), for "Peter,'' says he, "and James, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision, only they would that we should remember the poor, the same which I also was forward to do." This it is he here also speaks of, praising the zeal of Macedonia and Achaia; and this he calls both a benevolence and a debt; 27. They are benevolently inclined verily, and their debtors they are; and whence arose this debt? For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. To them, says he, appertained the Patriarchs as their forefathers; to them the promises were made; their prophets it was who prophesied the blessings now common to both; of them according to His human nature was the Lord Christ; of them the Apostles the teachers of the whole world; through them have the gifts of the Spirit been shed abroad; it is right then that they who have imparted of the greater, should in return receive of the lesser; wherefore also he above calls the contribution of money a communication, and again afterwards a ministry; by the expression communication shewing it to be a repayment, and by that of ministry a tribute due. 28. When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain. Having sealed to them this fruit, to the Macedonians and Achaians he means; for I offer the things sent, to the right hand of God through the hands of the saints, and it will keep them sale and uninjured.39 29. But I know that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. By the fulness of the blessing of the gospel he means, the dangers for the gospel's sake which he underwent at Jerusalem;40 as what follows evinces, 30. I beseech you, therefore, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me; 31. That I may be delivered from them which do not believe in Judaea; and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints. With what praise worthy of it could any crown this blessed, aye, thrice blessed, brow? For first he both knew what would happen, and foretels it, for so he spoke to the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, "that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, that bonds and afflictions await me" (Acts xx. 2:5); and when Agabus also predicted the same things, and all were weeping and endeavouring to detain him, the holy man cried out, "What, mean ye to weep and break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts xxi. 13); and here he predicted that he would |737 see both the Romans and Spaniards; and he adds that he would even come"in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ." And then, as fully contemplating the madness of the Jews, he begs also for their prayers not only as respected the disbelievers, but the believers also; for neither were they affectionately disposed towards him, because esteeming him a violator of the law;41 on which account he added, and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints. With a thousand labours had he collected these offerings, using every argument of exhortation with the disciples thereto, and yet he fears concerning those who should receive them, lest their dislike to himself should have greater weight with them than their own wants. 32. That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed. Not even what is good does he wish to obtain, unless it be in accordance with the will of God. 33. Now the God of peace be with you all, Amen. Not without cause does he here speak of God, as the God of peace; but both as himself needing it, by reason at once of those that openly opposed him and those that regarded him with suspicion; and as imploring it for them, on account of the differences they had between themselves, respecting legal observances.
Chapter XVI.
1. I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, 2. That ye receive her in the Lord as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you, for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. 3. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus. Cenchrea is a very large village of Corinth. Well then may we admire the power of the gospel, in that in so short a time it had filled with true godliness not the towns only but even the villages also; and so great was the body of the church at Cenchrea, as to have a woman acting as deaconess; 42 and her a celebrated and illustrious person; for so largely did she abound in good works as to have obtained praises like the above from the tongue of an apostle; for she has been a succourer, says he, of many, and of myself also, by succour meaning, as I conceive, hospitality and kind attention. And he repays her with far greater honours in return; for she, it seems, received him into one house, and for a short time; that, it is plain, which he spent at Corinth; while he has opened the whole world to her, and in every land and sea is that woman become celebrated, so that not the Romans only and the Greeks have known her, but even every barbarian nation. And yet she next mentioned has surpassed even her, for Priscilla, or Prisca, for both names are to be found in the Bible, and Aquila, he calls fellow-helpers; and he adds the in Christ Jesus, lest any one should imagine that he alluded to a community of employment, seeing that they also were tent-makers; |738 and he mentions also another trial (undergone by them on his account) of the greatest kind; 4. Who have for my life laid down their own necks.43 And to his private he subjoins the public (debt to them) unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; and he commemorates also another praiseworthy virtue on their part, for he salutes, 5. Likewise the church that is in their house. The expression shews the greatness of their piety, for they instructed, it appears, all their household in the highest virtue, and gladly performed within their walls all the sacred rites of religion; 44 and of these the holy Luke also takes notice, and shews how they led Apollos to the truth. (Acts xviii. 20). Salute my well-beloved Epenetus, who is the first fruits of Achaia unto Christ. For he was the first, it seems, of the whole nation that believed, on which account it was that he here receives the appellation of the first fruits. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. Another woman, again, crowned for her individual labours. 7. Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Many at once are the encomia here; and first that they had been partakers in the dangers of the holy Paul, for he calls them fellow-prisoners as having shared with him in his sufferings; and next he says that they are of note, not among the disciples, but the teachers; nor among ordinary teachers, but the Apostles;45 and he extols them also on account of the date of their faith, for he says, who were in Christ before me, for I myself was called subsequently to them; and I (Theodoret) am every where amazed at the humble-mindedness of the divine Apostle (lit. head.) 8. Greet Amplias, my beloved in the Lord. Nor is this slight praise, for it is in the Lord that he calls him beloved; and this is demonstrative of his excellences. 9. Salute Urbanus our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. With even yet greater praises does he honour Urbanus, for he calls him a helper both in the preaching, and in the labours and sufferings, for Christ's sake. 10. Salute Apelles proved in Christ. A testimony of the highest virtue, for to have no alloy of dross is the summit of excellences. 11. Salute them which are of Arislobulus's household, and Herodion my kinsman, and those of the household of Narcissus. It is evident that they were believing families; but of those of Narcissus he says, who are in the Lord, as there being, forsooth, some who had not yet become so. 12. Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Again, from their labours come the crown; and that labour the words shew to have been one either of hospitality or fasting, or other such virtue. Salute Persis the beloved which laboured much in the Lord. Ampler is her praise, for her zeal in labouring was ampler. 13. Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. And most enviable also is this encomium, for many are called but few chosen; 46 and his mother he praises as adorned |739 with many noble acts of virtue, for not otherwise could she have been deemed worthy of being called the mother of Paul; for of Rufus indeed nature made her the mother, but of the holy Paul respect for her virtue. 14. Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Thermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them. This was another society of the faithful worthy of Paul's greeting. 15. Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympus, and all the saints which are with them. And these again living together, on account of the virtue they possessed obtained the Apostle's salutation. Having thus greeted these by name, he then bids them all salute each other, for, 16. Salute one another, says he, with an holy kiss. For, as being absent he could not himself salute47 them, he does it through them, enjoining them to salute one another, and to salute with an holy kiss, chaste, modest, sincere, and true, and void of all deceit. All the churches of Christ salute you. From the whole world, so to speak, he salutes the Empress of the world. 17. Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. He alludes in these words to the evil advocates of the law, whose precepts he bids them to avoid, while praising the teaching of the chief of the Apostles; for the expression causing such contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned is that of one who greatly admires the doctrine they had already obtained. 18. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly. And from hence it is plain that it is of the Jews that he is thus speaking, for he is perpetually condemning their gluttony, and so elsewhere he says, "whose God is their belly."48 And by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. By fair speeches he means praise (flattery); and he hints that some had already been seduced by them, for they deceive, says he, the hearts of the simple; not depravity of disposition indeed, but simplicity does he allege as the cause. And then again he excites them with praises, 19. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men, that you gladly received the apostolic doctrines.49
I am glad therefore, says he, on your behalf; and yet while praising he still continues to instruct, but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and harmless concerning evil. And this rule also the Lord gave to the Apostles, saying, "Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves." |740 And this saying of our Lord signifies, that we are to put away from us the snares brought in by our enemies, and least of all to revenge ourselves on those that injure us. 20. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. Since he had commanded them to be on their guard against their enemies, most opportunely does he beseech God to confound the teacher of all snares, and cast him beneath the feet of the believers. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Having pointed out the enemy, he next points out the Helper, for they that have obtained the divine grace possess that which is invincible. 21. Timotheus my work-fellow, and Lucius and Jason, and Sosipater my kinsmen salute you. The first has the glory of a participation in works, the others relationship; but the fellow-worker is far more honourable than the relation; and this is the same Timothy whom in Lystra he circumcised (Acts xvi. 3), and to whom he wrote those two epistles. And of Jason also the history of the Acts makes mention (ch. xvii.) 22. I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord. And he also was one of those who had been thought worthy to enjoy the instructions of the Apostle, wherefore receiving the outpourings of his holy spirit through the tongue he was commanded to commit them to paper. 23.Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. And this also is the greatest testimony of praise, to have opened one's house to the nurselings of the faith, and together with all others to have ministered even to the very teachers of the whole world; for by host he means entertainer.50 And he was a Corinthian, as the holy Apostle also teaches us in his epistle to the Corinthians, "I thank my God," says he, "that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius." (ch. i. 14). Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother. He calls him not the treasurer of the church, but of the city, as one fully entrusted with some charge; and he makes mention of him who in the epistle to Timothy, thus speaking, (2 Ep. iv. 20), "Erastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick." 21. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen. Again he imparts to them the spiritual benediction, and surrounds them with the grace of the Lord as with a wall of adamant, for this he made the beginning of his epistle, and this he places as its end. In this grace let us also become partakers, that we may rise superior to all snares; that by it enlightened we may without turning aside tread the strait road, and following in the Apostolic footsteps be deemed worthy to behold the teacher himself, and by his means 51 enjoy the favour of the Lord, and obtain the promised blessing, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ; with whom, to the Father, together with the thrice-holy Spirit, belong glory and majesty, now and ever, and unto endless ages. Amen.
1. * [Greek]
2. + Most probably Ebed-melech. See Jer. xxxviii. 7 9. and xxxix. 16, 17.—E.B.
3. * [Greek]
4. * [Greek] The external observances and ceremonies, its shadows and types, &c. —E.B.
5. ++.... The sentence then seems so arranged, as at first to appear vindicatory of the Jews; for how indeed, may they say, could we call on one we do not believe in? or believe, without having duly heard of by preachers appointed of God, while yet we have none such in our church, and according to our law? Thus would they be led on in apparent self-justification to the last point, on which all depends; and then, by proof that they had had such, as much altogether condemned, as before apparently justified.—E.B.
6. * In one MS. this is explained as adapted from Psalm xviii. 4. LXX.—E.B.
7. + Ἡ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐσέβιά τε καὶ περιφάνεια, their conversion and acceptance to the privileges of the elect.—E.B.
8. * So the prayer in the Burial Service, " Beseeching Thee... shortly to accomplish the number of Thine elect and to hasten Thy kingdom," &c. Eng. Rit.—E. B.
9. * See on Dan. xii. 1, where this opinion, (one entertained by some both among Jews and Christians, see Calmet "Elijah,") that in the times of Antichrist, Elijah will come as his opponent, is more fully dilated on.—E. B.
10. + 1 Sam. x. 10, and xviii. 10,12.
11. ++ 1 Kings ii. 9; xv. 23-26.
12. * See ch. iii. v. 19.
13. + [Greek] created us from nothing in the first instance, and when created, blessed with a state and means of well-being, both as regards present life and eternity.—E. B.
14. ++ Which such difference was maintained by those heretics who denied our Lord's consubstantiality and equality with the Father; the of whom indicating, in their opinion, the superiority of the Father commanding; the through whom the inferiority of the Son executing; which, if it were so, would, as our author observes, make that Person in the ever blessed Trinity here spoken of, if it be the Father, less than Himself, by the lower expression being equally here applied to him with the higher; and if the Son, greater than Himself, by the higher being predicated of Him together with the lower.— E. B.
15. * Ch. viii. 13.
16. + [Greek] figures, shadows, unrealities, appearances without substance.—E. B.
17. * The gifts of interpretation and exposition. 1 Cor. xiv. 3, 6, 22, 39, &c.— E.B.
18. * Καθαρὸν, pure, free from mist, in active, healthy, and unimpeded vigour. Compare Matt. vi. 22 —E. B.
19. + Faithful and steadfast, as translated below, and as given, same word, Matt. x. 22, Rom, ii. 7, &c.—E. B.
20. ++ Fellow Christians, ch. i. 7. ad fin. and so ch. xv. on ver. 26.— E. B.
21. § i. e. a partner in their wants, and of the praise due to his and their conduct under such, as our author explains the sentence next quoted in its proper place, 2 Cor. viii. 14 "Your repayment is the very highest, and by giving the less you will receive the greater; for ye will become sharers with them in their praiseworthy patience and constancy—E. B.
22. * [Greek] as our own phrase goes, "to hear a thing with philosophy," not that "falsely so called," of the stoic, but of the Christian.—E. B.
23. + And compare 1 Tim vi. 1 — E. B.
24. * Compare Acts xvii. 30.—E. B.
25. * Compare on Ch. vi. 10; and Gal. iii. 27.—E. B.
26. + See on Ch. viii. 13.—E. B.
27. * μῆ εἶς διακρίσεις λογισμῶν. Not so as to make any difference between him and others on account of his ideas respecting clean and unclean meats; as the whole context of the chapter seems to demand.
28. + τελείαν, weaned from ancient prejudices to understand the full liberty of the Gospel. Comp. Heb. v. 12, to end; 1 Cor. viii. 7,11; Gal. v. 1, &c. — E.B.
29. * For the Lords sake, as thinking this most agreeable to Him; the one to make, and the other not to make, such a distinction of days and meats.— E.B.
30. + συγκαταβατικῶς. In kind consideration of the infirmities of those he addressed, ch. vi. 19, &c.—E. B.
31. ++ Because to Him, Christ, spoken of in the last sentence as our Judge, (see Acts xvii. 31.) are applied also the highest divine truths, which immediately follow here, and in the prophet precede the "every knee," &c.—E. B.
32. * In the same sense as in ch. xv. 1, submitting and hearing them themselves also, and so, as it were, lessening the weight mutually carried. See Gal. vi. 2: Luke xi. 46: Acts xv. 28; 1 Cor. ix. 22.—E B.
33. * ὁ πιστεύων, the sound and strong in the faith, the believer in their innocency.—E. B.
34. + Most of MSS. now extant, it appears, here with Theodoret place this doxology, or prayer, though we are informed that in Origen's time some gave it here, and some at the end of the Epistle. See Terrot, in loco.—E.B.
35. * i.e. As they allowed our blessed Lord the name of "Immortal," so must they also of "wise," the argument being the same.—E. B.
36. + See on ch. ii. 21, and John xv. 23, 24 —E. B.
37. * περιττόν, superfluous, not becoming me, over-forwardly, officiously, out of character.—E.B.
38. + πάρεργον τῆς ὁδοῦ, a mere second thought, and dependent on his journey to Spain, to turn aside for a flying visit to them in his passage.—E.B.
39. * Comp. Prov. xix. 17, and the sentences at the "offertory'' and prayer for "church militant." English Ritual.—E. B.
40. + Comp. Matt. v. 10, 11, 12; Mark x. 30. The persecution he met at Jerusalem being the cause of his being carried to Rome. Comp. the prophecy here with Acts xxviii. 16-21.—E. B.
41. * Acts xxi. 20, 21.— E. B.
42. + That is, it was already numerous enough to require the services of a deaconess. Their offices, says Bingham, were to assist at the baptism of women; to be a sort of private catechists to the women-catechumens; to visit and attend women that were sick and in distress; to minister to the martyrs and confessors in prison; to attend at the women's gate of the church; to preside over the widows, &c.; but not to execute any part of the sacerdotal office, or do the duties of the sacred function; for women, says he, were always forbidden to perform any such offices as these. Orig. Eccl. Book ii. Ch. 22.—E. B.
43. * They exposed their lives to save his, probably at Corinth, Acts xviii. 19; or at Ephesus, xix. 30-35.—E. B.
44. + Both Greeks and Romans reckon him a Bishop; the latter of the see of Heraclea. See Calmet.
45. ++ Either as highly esteemed by the Apostles, or as being themselves of note as apostles and teachers: on which latter comp. 2 Cor. viii. 23; Phil. ii. 25; Acts xiv. 14—E.B.
46. § Matt. xx. 16. Comp. on Canticles, ii. 2. [Greek] "They are thus spoken of, as daughters, from their having been blessed with the privilege of (or deemed worthy of) the calling, while they have deprived themselves of being the elected likewise, and again, by sons, as those by daughters, he speaks of those who had been blessed with the privilege of the call, but had rendered themselves unworthy of the election likewise." Comp. 2 Pet. i. 10, 11; 1 Cor. x. 1-7. "Take heed, therefore, lest sitting still, now that we are called, we fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked one, getting the dominion over us... shut us out of the kingdom of the Lord...lest it happen to us as it is written, There be many called, but few chosen." Catholic Epistle of St. Barnabas, ch. iv. Wake's Apost. Fathers.—E. B.
47. * Literally embrace. Comp. Acts xx. 37.—E. B.
48. + Phil. iii. 19, on which passage the comment informs us, that the Jews were most particular and self-indulgent in their feastings, and conceived it the height of virtue to have sumptuous entertainments on the sabbath,...—E. B.
49. ++ Or the teaching of the Apostle,.... See on ch. i. 11.—E. B.
50. * The "ξένος" of the Greeks, like the "Hospes'' of the Latins, signifying indifferently guest and host.—E. B.51. + διὰ τῆς ἐκείνου πρεσβείας,if by following his footsteps,as above, and giving heed to his doctrine comp. on xv. 16, pref. to ch. xii. ad fin., and end of ch. viii.&c.:if with the editors and translators of the edition used per illius intercessionem, comp. on Coloss. ii. 18, and iii.17, where our author says, that it was the very advocates for the laws, whom he here so loudly condemns, as those also, who erroneously taught that we were to address the angels, and by their means conciliate the divine favour: while referring to the Laodicean Canon prohibiting the worship of angels (Can. 35, Johnson's Clerg. Vad. Mec). See also Bingham, Book 13, ch. iii.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2013. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. From: "The Christian Remembrancer, or, The churchman's biblical, ecclesiastical & literary miscellany", 22 (1840) p.30 &c.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: cyril_against_nestorius_00_intro.htm
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius. Oxford (1881) Introduction by P.E & E.B. Pusey. pp.i-cv.
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius. Oxford (1881) Introduction by P.E & E.B. Pusey. pp.i-cv.
A library of fathers of the holy Catholic church: anterior to the division of the East and West, vol. 47
A
LIBRARY OF FATHERS
OF THE
HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,
ANTERIOR TO THE DIVISION OF THE EAST AND WEST
TRANSLATED BY MEMBERS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH.
YET SHALL NOT THY TEACHERS BE REMOVED INTO A CORNER ANY MORE, BUT
THINE EYES SHALL SEE THY TEACHERS. Isaiah XXX. 20.
---
OXFORD:
JAMES PARKER & CO.,
AND RIVINGTONS,
LONDON, OXFORD, AND CAMBRIDGE.
[Blank page]
TO THE MEMORY
OF THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD
WILLIAM
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,
PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND,
FORMERLY REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
THIS LIBRARY
OF
ANCIENT BISHOPS, FATHERS, DOCTORS, MARTYRS, CONFESSORS,
OF CHRIST'S HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,
UNDERTAKEN AMID HIS ENCOURAGEMENT,
AND
CARRIED ON FOR TWELVE YEARS UNDER HIS SANCTION, UNTIL HIS DEPARTURE HENCE IN PEACE,
IS
GRATEFULLY AND REVERENTLY INSCRIBED.
[Blank page]
S. CYRIL,
ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.
FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS:
SCHOLIA ON THE INCARNATION:
CHRIST IS ONE:
FRAGMENTS AGAINST DIODORE OF TARSUS,
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, THE SYNOUSIASTS.
OXFORD,
JAMES PARKER AND CO.,
AND RIVINGTONS,
LONDON, OXFORD, AND CAMBRIDGE.
1881.
PRINTED BY THE DEVONPORT SOCIETY OF THE HOLY TRINITY, HOLY ROOD, OXFORD. 1881.
PREFACE.
On the death of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, in A.D. 412, his nephew and successor, S. Cyril, comes suddenly before us. For of S. Cyril's previous life we have only a few scattered notices. We do not know in what year he was born, nor any thing of his parents, nor where he was brought up. That S. Cyril had received a thoroughly good education, is abundantly clear; not only from his very extensive reading, which a mind of such large grasp as S. Cyril's would ever provide for itself, but that his reading being so well digested implies good early training. The great accuracy of his Theology implies a most accurate Theological education. That education included a large range of secular study as well as of Divinity, and probably comprised a good deal of learning by heart, not only of the holy Scriptures but also of profane authors, as witness a line of Antipater Sidonius quoted in his Commentary on Zechariah. He quotes too Josephus on the Jewish war. On Hab. iii. 2, he mentions interpretations of that verse of two different kinds: on Hosea he gives a long extract from a writer whom we do not apparently possess. Tillemont remarks, that " 1 his books against Julian shew that he had a large acquaintance with secular writers." |viii
We may infer that S. Cyril was brought up at some monastery, as a place of Christian education, and from the great reverence which he ever paid to S. Isidore, Abbot of Pelusium, it seems not unlikely that S. Isidore was his instructor during some part of his early life. S. Isidore alludes to some especial tie, in one of his brief letters to S. Cyril, when Archbishop. Near the beginning, S. Isidore says, " 2 If I be your father as you say I be,.....or if I be your son as I know I am, seeing that you hold the chair of S. Mark &c." The large number of Platonic words in S. Isidore's letters seem to indicate that he too had extensive reading of Plato, and S. Cyril may have acquired from him some of his knowledge of Aristotle.
But a mind of S. Cyril's grasp would feel itself lost in the desert, yearning for its own calling, and another Letter 3 of the same S.Isidore to S.Cyril, reproaching him with his heart being in the world, may belong to this period. His uncle Archbishop Theophilus had him to live with him and, we may infer, ordained him priest and made him one of his Clergy. In a very long letter which S. Cyril wrote about A.D. 432 to the aged Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, he incidentally mentions the fact that he was at the synod of the Oak, in A.D. 403, where S. Chrysostom's troubles began. S. Cyril would of course be there, as a portion of Archbishop Theophilus' official attendance. S. Cyril says, " 4 When your holy Synod was gathered at great Constantinople.... and I was one of those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness saying thus.----" |ix
S. Cyril's accession to the Archiepiscopal Throne of Alexandria brought him at once into a position of great power in Alexandria; and brought too, in the early part of it, trials in regard of the disunion between him and Orestes the Governor resulting from the Jewish insurrection against the Christians. To this succeeded some years of great quiet, during which S. Cyril seems to have been very little heard of, outside his Great Diocese. The Archbishops of Alexandria, even in the very stillest times, were brought into yearly contact with the Churches every where by the annual Letter which they wrote to announce the day on which Easter would fall. S. Cyril's letters were evidently intended primarily for his own Egypt 5. Thus in his seventh Paschal homily A.D. 419, he speaks very strongly about deeds of violence in Egypt and mentions the famine there. S. Cyril introduces the subject with, " 6 And these things we now say to you most especially, who inhabit Egyptian territory," shewing that the Letters themselves had a larger scope. I do not know at what time the Letter was sent out, so as to reach the distant churches of Rome and Constantinople and Antioch in good time to announce when Lent would begin. But although S. Cyril became Archbishop in October A.D. 412, his first Letter was for 414, in the early part of which (as Tillemont points out) S. Cyril speaks of having succeeded his Uncle. He introduces the subject by mentioning the natural dread of those of old, of |x " 7 the greatness of the Divine Ministry," and speaking of Moses and Jeremiah as instances of this, adds, that "since the garb of the priesthood calls to preach, in fear of the words, Speak and hold not thy peace, I come of necessity to write thus."
Much of these quiet years S. Cyril probably employed on his earlier writings: of these, two were on select passages of the Pentateuch; one volume being allotted to those which S. Cyril thought could in any way be adapted as types of our Lord, the other to the rest, as being types of the church. The commentaries on Isaiah and the Minor Prophets and the Books against the Emperor Julian probably belong to this period. Besides these S. Cyril, following the example of his great predecessor S. Athanasius, wrote two Books against the Arians: first, the Thesaurus, in which S. Cyril brought to bear his knowledge of Aristotle; then the de Trinitate, which was written, though not published till later, before A.D. 424. In his Paschal homily for that year A.D. 424, S. Cyril also speaks of the Eternal Generation of the Son, and towards the close of the homily 8 he opposes the Arian terms "Generate," "Ingenerate."
A. D. 429, the circulation of tracts of Nestorius in Egypt occasioned him first to write on the heresy of Nestorius. There can be little doubt that the powerful mind of S. Leo, who was the soul of the Council of Chalcedon, was, in his young days when S. Celestine's Archdeacon in 429, taught through those writings; as S. Cyril himself had been taught by the writings of S. Athanasius. |xi
The 12 Chapters, appended to his last letter to Nestorius, were made a trouble to S. Cyril at a later period of his Episcopate, so that it may be well to give them in full. They were framed to preclude any evasion of that letter.
THE 12 CHAPTERS.
1. If any one confess not, that Emmanuel is in truth God, and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God, for she hath borne after the flesh the Word out of God made Flesh, be he anathema.
2. If any one confess not, that the Word out of God the Father hath been personally united to Flesh, and that He is One Christ with His own Flesh, the Same (that is) God alike and Man, be he anathema.
3. If any one sever the Hypostases of the One Christ after the Union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not rather with a concurrence unto Unity of Nature, be he anathema.
4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases the words in the Gospels and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is out of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is out of God the Father, be he anathema.
5. If any one dare to say, that Christ is a God-clad man, and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son, and That by Nature, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh, be he anathema.
6. If any one dare to say that the Word That is out of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, according to the Scriptures, be he anathema. |xii
7. 9 If any one say that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word, and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him, as being another than He, be he anathema.
8. If any one shall dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, ever appended, compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with one worship, and send up to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.
9. If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit, using His Power as though it were Another's, and from Him receiving the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs towards men, and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom also He wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema.
10. The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the Sigh Priest and Apostle of our Confession and that He offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that, not the Very Word out of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart by himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema.
11. If any one confess not, that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is out of God the Father, but says that it belongs to another than He, connected with Him by dignity or as |xiii possessed of Divine Indwelling only, and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been made the own Flesh of the Word Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema.
12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.
The Great Diocese of Antioch, barely rallying from its terrible devastation by Arian wickedness oppression and misbelief, had been in close quarters with Apollinarianism, a misbelief that the Only-Begotten Son took flesh only without a reasonable soul, and that His mind-less Body was somehow immingled with the Godhead. S. Athanasius and others add, among the forms of the misbelief, that some Apollinarians thought that our Lord's Body was consubstantial with His Godhead. S. Cyril in his Dialogue 10 speaks of the great fear prevalent among some, that if One Incarnate Nature were holden, the Body must be believed to be consubstantial with the Godhead. Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesarea, at almost the extreme west boundary of that great Diocese or Province of Antioch, sent to S. Cyril a question to the same effect. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had died only about two years before these Chapters were issued, had held that the Manhood of the Only-Begotten was a man distinct, having some undefined connection with God the Son, and this had appeared in his writings; and so great was Theodore's reputation and the dread of the Apollinarian heresy, |xiv that there seems to have been an unconscious vagueness in the minds of some of the Eastern Bishops. [Nestorius had dexterously sent the Chapters to John of Antioch apart from the Epistle to himself 11, which would have made misinterpretation impossible. He sent them as 'propositions circulated in the royal city to the injury of the common Church.'] John of Antioch, who at that time believed Nestorius to be orthodox, pronounced them at once (thus unexplained) to be Apollinarian; applied in an Encyclical letter 12 to the Bishops of his Patriarchate to have them 'disclaimed, but without naming the author,' whom John did not believe to be S. Cyril, and asked two of the Bishops of his Province, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and Theodoret, to reply to them. Theodoret's reply shews that he read the Chapters with the conviction that they were Apollinarian, and he accordingly replies, not to the Chapters themselves but to the sense which he himself imagined that they contained. His reply is in the main orthodox, though it looks in one or two places as if his belief was rather vague 13, but he |xv twists S. Cyril's words so as to mean 'mixture,' and so replies 14. Theodoret seems never to have got over his misapprehension. For in his long Letter 15 to the Monks of his Province, Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, he still speaks of Chapter 1 as teaching that God the Word was changed into flesh; of chapters 2 and 3 as bringing in the terms, Personal Union and Natural Union, "teaching through these names a mixture |xvi and confusion of the Divine Nature and the bondman's form: this is the offspring of Apollinarius' heretical innovation." And after speaking of Chapter 4, he sums up, "These are the Egyptian's brood, the truly more wicked descendants of a wicked parent." In his letter 16 to John Bishop of Germanicia, written after the Robbers' council in 449, Theodoret says of it, "Let them deny now the chapters which they many times condemned, but have in Ephesus now confirmed."
Andrew of Samosata, on the other hand, seems to have been decidedly more definite in his belief on the Incarnation, and to have thought that some of S. Cyril's chapters were Apollinarian without objecting to all. Thus Andrew's chief objection to chapter 1 appears to have been that he mistook the words "for she hath borne after the flesh (σαρκικῶς)" to mean that the Birth was entirely in the order of nature and so not of a Virgin 17. Andrew passes over chapter 2, as though the term, "Personal Union," had not even struck him as a difficulty. In chapter 3, Andrew thinks that φυσικὴ, Natural Union, or Unity of Nature is an inadmissible expression, as to what is above our nature. In chapter 4, Andrew thinks that because the words are not to be apportioned to distinct Persons, therefore S. Cyril meant, that they are not to be apportioned at all, either to the Godhead or to the Manhood in the One Person of the Incarnate God. S. Cyril had all his life said that they were to be so apportioned, but Andrew had of course not read S. Cyril's writings. Andrew shews his own definite |xvii belief by the expression ἡ ἄκρα ἕνωσις, entire union, here; and, 'we confess the union entire (τὴν ἕνωσιν ἄκραν) and Divine and incomprehensible to us,' are the closing words of his reply to chapter 11. These are almost identical with S. Cyril's expressions, "we shall not take away the unlike by nature through wholly uniting them (διὰ τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἑνοῦν) 18," and in his reply to Andrew, διὰτὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν.
Andrew says nothing on chapters 5 and 6, nor is there anything in them which one would expect him not to accept. With chapter 7 he agrees, merely saying that in rejecting what S. Cyril rejects, we must not reject the Apostolic words which speak of Him in His human nature. "With chapter 8 too Andrew agrees, but does not quite understand the co. In chapter 9, he overlooks the words, "as though it were Another's:" in chapter 10, Andrew thinks that " the Yery Word out of God was made our High-Priest and Apostle" means 'the Godhead apart by Itself was so made.'
[We see in our own times, how prejudice can distort the meaning of words in themselves perfectly intelligible; else it seems inconceivable that language so clear as that of the Anathematisms, if read with a view to understand their author's meaning, could be misunderstood as it was by John of Antioch, Theodoret, and Andrew. Much unhallowed dissension would have been saved, if John, instead of asking Theodoret and Andrew to reply to them, had sought an explanation from S. Cyril himself. S. Cyril, in clear consciousness of his own meaning, would, of course, have given |xviii the explanation which afterwards satisfied John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and Paul of Emesa.
S. Cyril's anathematisms have been weighed by Petavius with his usual solidity, as compared with the counter-anathematisms of Nestorius, the criticisms of the Orientals and of Theodoret, and S. Cyril's answers. His summary is, 'There is nothing in S. Cyril's Anathematisms not right and in harmony with the Catholic rule, nor did those who detract from or oppose them maintain their ground against him except through cavils and foolish calumnies.' De Incarn. L. vi. c. xvii. They have also been carefully compared in English in Dr. Bright's Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, pp. 149-170.]
Though Apollinarianism in its early form, ere its great spread as Eutychianism, seems to have chiefly troubled Asia rather than Egypt, S. Cyril always writes with full knowledge of it. In his Thesaurus, he distinctly mentions and repudiates Apollinarian errors and denies the 19 οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ γέγονε, "made man, came not into a man like as He was in the Prophets." S. Cyril's tenth Paschal homily for A.D. 420, in its most carefully weighed language, contradicts both Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, not less than what S. Cyril wrote when the Nestorian troubles had begun. On Habaccuc 20 S. Cyril affirms, as he does through his whole life, that our Lord was not worsened by the Incarnation; "Yet even though He has been made flesh and hath been set forth by the Father |xix as a propitiation, He hath not cast away what He was, i.e., the being God, but is even thus in God-befitting authority and glory."
In A.D. 428, Nestorius was brought from Antioch to be Archbishop of Constantinople. From the circumstance that S. Cyril's celebrated Paschal homily for the next year, A.D. 429, was on the subject of the Incarnation, it has been supposed that rumours of the denial of that Faith in Constantinople had already reached him. But the Paschal homilies for A.D. 420 and 423, shew that the Incarnation, the foundation and stay of our souls, was a subject, which S. Cyril loved to dwell on. In the course of the year 429, however, even Egypt was troubled by the false teaching of Nestorius. Some of Nestorius' sermons 21 passed into Egypt, and were read and pondered over in the Monasteries. This occasioned so much disturbance in the minds 22 of some of the Monks, that S. Cyril wrote a Letter to them, pointing out that the Incarnation means, that God the Son united to Him His own human nature which He took, as completely as soul and body are united in each of us, and in this way His Passion and Death were His own, though He, as God, could not suffer. This Letter had an extended circulation and reached Constantinople. It vexed 23 Nestorius. There was still a traditional soreness towards Alexandria, from the behaviour of Theophilus to S. Chrysostom 24. Besides this, the |xx Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation, the manhood united by God the Son to His own self, was to Nestorius, Apollinarianism or mixture. Nestorius says so 25. In his letter to S. Celestine he tells of the 'corruption of orthodoxy among some' and thus describes it,
'It is a sickness not small, but akin to the putrid sore of Apollinarius and Arius. For they mingle the Lord's union in man to a confusion of some sort of mixture, insomuch that even certain clerks among us, of whom some from lack of understanding, some from heretical guile of old time concealed within them.. are sick as heretics, and openly blaspheme God the Word Consubstantial with the Father, as though He had taken beginning of His Being of the Virgin mother of Christ, and had been built up with His Temple and buried with His flesh, and say that the flesh after the resurrection did not remain [miscuisse seems an error for mansisse] flesh but passed into the Nature of Godhead, and they refer the Godhead of the Only-Begotten to the beginning of the flesh which was connected with It, and they put It to death with the flesh, and blasphemously say that the flesh connected with Godhead passed into Godhead, using the very word deifying, which is nothing else than to corrupt both 26.'
Nestorius repeats the same in his second letter to S. Celestine 27. S. Cyril having in his first Ecumenical Letter to Nestorius put forth clearly the mode of the Union in these words, Nestorius does not understand the language and says thus of it,
'I come now to the second chapter of your Love, wherein I begin to praise the parting of the natures in regard to Godhead and Manhood and their connection into one |xxi Person, and that we must not say that God the Word needed a second generation out of a woman, and must confess that the Godhead is unrecipient of suffering. For such statements are truly orthodox and counter to the ill-reputes of all the heresies, as to the Lord's natures. As to the rest, whether they bring to the ears of the readers some hidden incomprehensible wisdom, pertains to your accuracy to know; to me they seem to overturn what preceded. For Him Who in the preceding is proclaimed Impassible and non-recipient of a second birth, they introduce as somehow passible and new-created, as though the qualities by nature adherent in God the Word were corrupted by connection with the Temple &c. 28 '
And yet S. Cyril's language is so carefully guarded, that no one who believed in True Union of Godhead and Manhood in the Incarnate Son would mistake it.
Nestorius does not appear to have taken any notice of S. Cyril's Paschal Homily, but he preached against the Letter to the Monks more than once, as we see from the extracts of such of his sermons as S. Cyril had access to. The passages of the Letter to the Monks referred to by Nestorius are;
' 29 These letters were directed by me against the Egyptian.... He, omitting to tell me by letter whether any thing appeared to him to need marking as blasphemous or wicked, moved by fear of proofs and looking out therefore for disturbances which should aid him, turns him to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to fathom the force of the doctrines. And finding the simplicity of the man in regard to this matter, he in childish fashion circumvents his ears with crafty letters, long ago sending him my writings, as a proof which might not be gainsaid, as though I were making Christ out to be a |xxii mere man, I who at the very beginning of my consecration obtained a Law against those who say that Christ is a mere man and against other heresies.
'But he compiled writings, interweaving extracts of my sermons, in order that the slander put on me by the piecing of extracts might not be found out. And some things he added to my sermons, he broke off bits of others and pieced what I had said of the Lord's Incarnation as though I had said them of a mere man. Things again which I had said in praise of the Godhead he cut entirely away from the context, leaving some out of their proper place, and thus made out a plausible misleading. And to publish his wickedness in a few instances such as it is in the rest, I said somewhere, speaking against the heathen who say that we preach that the Essence of God has been newly created from a Virgin, 'Mary, my friends, bare not the Godhead; she bare a man the inseparable instrument of Godhead.' But he changing the word, Godhead, made it, 'Mary, my friends, bare not God.' Here to say God, and to say the Godhead, makes very much difference. For the one signifies the Divine and unembodied Essence, but does not mean the flesh. For flesh is compound and created. But the word God belongs to the temple also of the Godhead, which obtains the dignity by union with the Divine Essence of God, yet is not changed into that Divine Essence.
'Again in another place I spoke against those who, hearing the like name, are offended as though like honour were also given. And when I say, Mother of Christ, they shudder as though the Godhead of the Lord Christ were denied by this name, seeing that many have been similarly called by this name in the Old Testament. And hence they think that we are calling Him Christ like these. Against these people therefore (as I said) I said in church-sermons, that equality of honour does not follow likeness of name. And this is what I said, 'Or if the Temple of Godhead, wo say that the descent of the Holy Ghost is not the same as was wrought on |xxiii the Prophets, not the same as was celebrated on the Apostles, nor yet the same as takes place in regard to the Angels who are strengthened unto the Divine Mysteries. For the Lord Christ is Lord of all, as to the body too. As therefore we say that God is the Creator of all things, yet does the Scripture call Moses too god, for it says, I have made thee a god to Pharoah, and yet we by no means attach equal honour to that word, so neither, because the word is common by which we say, Christ and Son, ought we to stumble at the likeness of expression. For as Israel is named son, for He says, Israel is My first-born son, and the Lord again Son, for He says, This is My Beloved Son, yet not, as the expression is one, is the meaning also one. And as Saul is called christ and David christ and again Cyrus christ and, besides, the Babylonian, albeit they were surely not equal in piety to David; so we call the Lord too Christ or Son, yet the community of names does not makes an equality of dignity.' From this which I said, he every where subtracting the last words, i.e. 'Christ,' and, 'we say, that not the same is the indwelling as was wrought on the prophets, not the same as was wrought on the Apostles,' and,' we by no means allot like honour by like words,' and, 'yet the community of names does not make equality of dignity;' cutting out all these expressions with the teeth of slander, he flings in the ears of men what precedes these words: i.e., ' 30 We call the |xxiv Creator of all God, yet does the Scripture also call Moses god:, and, 'Israel is called God's son, Son too is the Lord called;' and, 'Saul is called christ and David christ yea and the Babylonian; thus then do we call Christ the Lord also christ.' He therefore thus piecing these things and chipping them off from the rest (as we said), made up here by his slander like as if from Paul's words by which he contests writing, If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing, one were to rend off what he says first, If ye he circumcised, and accuse Paul as though he preached, Christ shall profit you |xxv nothing. And why need we prolong our recital by going through each instance? In short Cyril using many such robberies and additions as pleased him, soon not others only but Celestine also were led away by his misleadings.'
Much about this time S. Cyril probably wrote his Scholia on the Incarnation 31. The treatise is very simple and almost uncontroversial, illustrating the Incarnation by simple analogies and Bible-types 32. It contains one of S. Cyril's most careful statements of the doctrine, excluding Apollinarianism 33. In the concluding sections 34, which may have been written at the very beginning of the controversy with Nestorius, are striking and simple statements, how God the Son's Passion is His, though Godhead cannot suffer.
Soon after this S. Cyril wrote his first extant letter to Nestorius, a short letter, saying that he hears that Nestorius was very angry at S. Cyril's letter to the Monks, yet that since 'expositions,' whether Nestorius' or not, had been brought to Egypt and had gravely misled many, it became a duty to God to put forth the right doctrine. S. Cyril also says that S. Celestine and the Bishops with him had asked whether those 'expositions' which had come thither were Nestorius' or not. S. Cyril did not know. Finally, S. Cyril asked him to heal the confusion by the use of the one word Theotocos, of the Holy Virgin. For fear of misapprehension he mentions also a book, which he had written in the Episcopate of Atticus of blessed |xxvi memory, on the Holy and Consnbstantial Trinity, in which he had interwoven some things on the Incarnation, like what he had now written.
We do not know what time intervened between this and the second Letter which S. Cyril wrote in Synod to Nestorius, containing an exposition of the Incarnation, which, from its acceptance by the Council of Ephesus and the whole Church subsequently, has Ecumenical authority 35. It was probably written before the close of A.D. 429 and is the Letter quoted above 36, which Nestorius' reply shewed that he could not understand. It has been supposed that it was in consequence of Nestorius' allusion to the Imperial Court in the close of his reply, that S. Cyril wrote his Three Treatises de recta fide; whereof the first is to the Emperor Theodosius; the other two to the Emperor's Queen and Sisters. John Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, in the century following S. Cyril, quotes from both among his extracts in defence of the Council of Chalcedon 37. From the title with which he introduces his extracts, we learn that the longer Treatise was addressed to the Emperor's two younger sisters, the Princesses Marina and Arcadia, and the last of the Three to the Two Augusta's, Theodosius' Empress Eudocia, and his eldest sister Pulcheria who had the title of Augusta, from having been Regent for the Emperor in his minority. S. Cyril afterwards recast his Treatise to the Emperor in the form of a Dialogue, omitting what was specially addressed to the Emperor, and giving little touches here and there to the language. |xxvii Thus the expression " 38 neither do we say Two christs, even though we believe that the Temple united to the Word has been ensouled with rational soul," becomes in the Dialogue, " 39 neither do we say Two christs, even though we believe that out of perfect man and out of God the Word has been wrought the concurrence unto unity of Emmanuel." A little further on, " 40 we say that the whole Word out of Grod has been co-united with the whole manhood that is of us," becomes, "41 we say therefore that the whole Word has been united to whole man." This Dialogue was probably appended by S. Cyril to his older Dialogues de Trinitate. It is quoted as the seventh of those Dialogues. The other two treatises are chiefly made up of expositions of texts to prove that Christ is God and Man. Near the beginning of that to the Augusta's, S. Cyril alludes to his former treatise.
"In my treatise to the holy Virgins [i. e. the Princesses Marina and Arcadia who had embraced the virgin estate] I made a very large provision of more obvious sayings which had nothing hard to understand; but in this I have made mention of the obscurer. For your Pious Authority ought both to know these and not to be ignorant of the other, in order that by means of both, perfection in knowledge, like a light, may dwell in your most pure understanding 42"
Bishop Hefele 43 thinks that there are indications that the two Princesses had, in contrast with the Emperor, spoken for Cyril and against Nestorius.
Of the five sermons of Nestorius on the |xxviii Incarnation which Marius Mercator translated into Latin, S. Cyril has cited copiously from the second: the fourth and fifth of Mercator's collection belong to the close of A.D. 430; for the fourth is dated the eighth of the Ides of December (Dec. 6), the Saturday after Nestorius had received S. Cyril's four Bishops with S. Celestine's Letter and S. Cyril's with the 12 Chapters. In it Nestorius recapitulates some of the teaching which S. Cyril had quoted from an earlier sermon, i.e. on God sending forth His Son. Of that earlier sermon we have only fragments, but it was preached against S. Cyril's letter to the Monks 44. Nestorius speaks of S. Cyril as the " wrangler 45, " the heretic 46," and he apostrophises S. Cyril or S. Proclus, "O heretic in clerical form 47."
The last of that series in Mercator's collection was preached on Sunday Dec. 7.
Count Irenaeus has also preserved it; the compiler of the Synodicon gives it in another translation 48.
* * * *
One of the interests and employments of the Bishops during their first days at Ephesus will have been the becoming acquainted with some whom they had never before seen. This time was probably the beginning of a lasting friendship between S. Cyril and Acacius the metropolitan of Melitene, on the borders of Armenia towards Cappadocia: the long letter which he wrote to Valerian Bishop of Iconium points at S. Cyril's having |xxix readied some degree of intimacy with him; he wrote too to Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis, on the west of Greece, and no doubt there were other friendships too as the fruit of the long sojourn at Ephesus. Some of S. Cyril's letters shew how warm-hearted and sensitive he was, notwithstanding his mighty will and unswerving purpose.
But there were other sadder things belonging to that summer at Ephesus, sickness and death, the sickness probably the fever so prevalent now along all that poisonous coast, and passing in many cases into dysentery. "We do not know what Bishops the Council lost; for our knowledge of those who composed it is derived from the lists of names at the opening of the first and sixth session and the signatures to those two sessions. But the fact is mentioned several times: S. Cyril in the first session of the Council says,
"some have fallen into sickness and some are dead;"
the Council in its Relatio to the Emperors, says,
"and some of the holy Bishops weighed down by age did not endure their stay in a strange place; some were imperilled in weakness; some have even undergone the close of their life in the Capital of the Ephesians;"
in its account to S. Celestine,
"although many both Bishops and Clergy were both pressed by sickness and oppressed by expense and some had even deceased."
After waiting a fortnight, during which time, if all had been there, the business might have been completed and the Bishops dismissed, S. Cyril wrote to John Archbishop of Antioch. John, in his Relatio to the Emperors, says,
"and Cyril himself of Alexandria sent to me of Antioch |xxx two days before the assembly made by them [the Council], that the whole Synod is awaiting my presence 49."
S. Cyril too alludes to the Letter. He says of John,
"he who was ever friendly and dear, who never at any time found fault with my words, who wrote kindly and received letters from me 50."
While this letter was on its way, some of the Bishops of John's party arrived, and with them a letter to S. Cyril in which John spoke of being only about four days off. The Bishops of John's party were Alexander Metropolitan of Apamea and Alexander Metropolitan of Hierapolis; and, to all appearance, though we are not told so, Theodoret and Meletius bishop of Neocaesarea. The Council, speaking of the arrival in their Eelatio to S. Celestine, says,
"51 Nevertheless after the sixteenth day there preceded him some of the Bishops who were with him, two Metropolitans, Alexander of Apamea and another Alexander of Hierapolis; and when we complained of the tardy arrival of the most reverend Bishop John, they said not once but over and over, 'he bid us tell your Reverence that, if he should even yet loiter, the synod was not to be put off, but rather to do what was meet.' "
S. Cyril says nearly the same in his Apology to the Emperor 52. Nevertheless it is plain that John meant the words, 'if I yet loiter,' to be taken in connection with his own letter to S. Cyril that he was but 5 or 6 days off, and so that he should have that interval allowed him.
The Council however, in the distress of many of |xxxi its members, determined to assemble the next day. Nestorius' friends headed by Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, got up a memorial to the Council that they should wait for John of Antioch, "who is himself now at the door, as he has intimated by his Letters," and for some Western Bishops. The document further speaks of the unlawfulness of excommunicated or deposed Bishops being admitted into the Council and ends with the threatening words 53,
"And let your Reverence know, that all that shall be done in an abrupt way by daring men will be turned back against the daring of them who so presume, both by Christ the Lord and by the Divine Canons."
There follow 68 signatures, 16 of the Province of Antioch including the two newly-arrived Alexanders (an indication that they, while they delivered John's message, did not consider it as precluding four days' delay) about 30 other friends of Nestorius. They procured also about 23 other signatures. These 23 however joined the Council next day as a matter of course, and signed the deposition of Nestorius. Among the signatures is that of Euprepius Bishop of Byza who signs for himself and for his Nestorian Metropolitan Fritilas of Heraclea. But Euprepius did not remain with his Metropolitan. I do not see his name on the entry-roll of the Council at its opening session; but he signs the deposition of Nestorius. His name is among the last signatures, as though he had come in late.
No deliberative body whatever would accept such |xxxii an insulting memorial as this of the friends of Nestorius, and of course it does not appear in the Acts of the Council. Count Irenaeus, the friend of Nestorius, afterwards Bishop of Tyre, has preserved it to us with other curious documents of his party.
Christian Lupus at the end of the 17th century transcribed the greater part of an unique manuscript in the Monastery Library of Monte Cassino 54. The compiler is thought to be an African; he was a contemporary of Facundus, Bishop of Hermaeum, and just as Facundus wrote very eagerly in behalf of Theodore of Mopsuestia, this compiler wrote very strongly in defence of Theodoret. His principal material was a curious and extensive collection of documents and Letters made by Count Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, after the Council of Ephesus; it contains Letters that passed between the different Bishops in the Province of Antioch about Nestorius and S. Cyril, and their views as to reconciliation with S. Cyril, and one sees how eagerly the principal Bishops got hold of a copy of any fresh letter which S. Cyril wrote. This collection alone preserves S. Cyril's great Letter to Acacius Bishop of Beroea, in reply to the first demand of the Eastern Bishops that the Nicene Creed was enough and that S. Cyril should burn all else which he had written on dogma. S. Cyril alludes to this Letter of his in his letter to his Proctors at Constantinople 55 and a fragment of it is preserved |xxxiii by John Archbishop of Caesarea in Palestine in his Thesaurus of extracts of S. Cyril in Defence of the Council of Chalcedon, and two or three fragments of it by John's opponent, Severus of Antioch, both belonging to the earlier half of the sixth century.
Irenaeus being a contemporary of the Council of Ephesus, all the letters and documents collected by him seem to have been accepted without any doubt as to their genuineness. We also possess several from other sources. But the Compiler, who made use of Count Irenaeus' collection, has also inserted towards the end of his compilation, some documents from other MSS. to which he had access: one of these is absolutely worthless, viz. a confession of faith, purporting to be that of Acacius Bishop of Beroea, but evidently of later date.
Irenaeus' compilation is called a Tragedy 56. Renaudot, in his history, has pointed out that Ebed-jesu of Soba, who lived in the end of the 12th century, has mentioned the work in his catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers 57. Ebedjesu says 58, "Irenaeus of Tyre compiled five Ecclesiastica on the persecution of Nestorius and all that happened at that time 59." Two or three pages before 60, Ebedjesu, in his catalogue of Nestorius' writings, gives also, "A Book of a Tragedy."
The little treatise or rather Confession of S. Athanasius from which S. Cyril cites in his Book against Theodore 61 is put by Montfaucon, S. Athanasius' Editor, among the dubia. Montfaucon's grounds |xxxiv for doing so are twofold; 1, that the very famous expression, One Incarnate Nature of the Word 62, seems to contradict what S. Athanasius says in other writings; 2, that the treatise was objected to by Leontius of Byzantium, at the beginning of the seventh Century.
Of the first ground of doubt, no one but a student of S. Athanasius has any right to speak. The second dwindles to nothing. Leontius says,
"They [the party of Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop of Antioch] put forward another passage as S. Athanasius', from his treatise on the Incarnation. It is on this wise, 'And that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One Nature Incarnate of God the Word.' To this we say, that first it in no wise opposes us, for neither do we hold two natures, one to be worshipped, the other not, but we hold One Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Next it is not S. Athanasius'. For when they are asked by us, where it is, and cannot easily shew it, in their perplexity they put forward some small treatise, about two leaves, in which this passage is: but it is evident to all, that all S. Athanasius' writings are very large.
"But what can we say, when they put forward blessed Cyril, citing this against Theodore, as being S. Athanasius?' To this we say, that it does indeed lie in the blessed Cyril's utterings against Theodore, yet it is an old error. For Dioscorus succeeding blessed Cyril, and finding his works, would perchance not have minded |xxxv adding what he pleased: we might even conjecture that the blessed Cyril did not cite it against Theodore; and that it is so, is clear from this. For Theodoret speaking in behalf of Theodore, overturning all the passages which blessed Cyril cited against him from the holy Fathers, has no where mentioned this. To this they say that Theodoret passed it over craftily: for not able to answer it as patent, he of purpose passed it by. To this we say that so far from passing it by if it had been there, when S. Cyril said elsewhere, One Nature Incarnate of God the Word, if he had known that this passage had been put by blessed Cyril as cited from S. Athanasius, he would not so unlearnedly have said, 'Who of the Fathers said, the One Nature Incarnate of God the Word?' But they say again that he knew so certainly that it was said by S. Athanasius that he said, 'As the Fathers have said.' To this we say that every one is anxious to shew that the Fathers said what he says, if not word for word, yet in sense 63."
It is clear that no serious objection could be founded on a treatise or Confession of Faith being short, and that the fact of one's opponent passing over an objection would be no proof that the objection, which is confessedly there, was not made. The remainder of Leontius' objection lies in the, "perhaps Dioscorus added something."
This confession was very well known by S. Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes) almost the whole of it in the beginning of his Treatise de recta Fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, to shew that S. Athanasius used the term, Mother of God; S. Cyril also cited two pieces of it, to shew that in his eighth chapter in which he says, that 'Emmanuel must be worshipped with one |xxxvi worship, he had but said what S. Athanasius too had said 64. In all three citations occur the words, One Nature Incarnate of the Word, and in the case of S. Cyril's defence of his eighth chapter, the whole passage is extant in the latin translation (believed to be by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator) which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion: besides that the citation forms an integral part of S. Cyril's Defence of his chapter.
It is then proved that the words were cited as S. Athanasius' by S. Cyril, the same S. Cyril who had had his own mind moulded and taught by the writings of S. Athanasius, and who in A. D. 431, produced from the archives, probably of his own Church of S. Mark, an authentic copy of S. Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus.
If this Confession is not genuine, it is but an illustration of how, being but men, we make mistakes in what we know best.
Montfaucon sums up, "I would not venture to say whether the extracts were added in the writings of Cyril after his decease or whether before Cyril a little book of this sort was made up and ascribed to Athanasius."
----
[My son had had these fragments of a preface to the volume printed, before he was so suddenly called away. They seemed to me manifestly fragments of a larger whole. But there were no indications, how they were to be filled up. I have thought it might be useful to put together as a supplement, some notices of the course of the heresy of Nestorius, and of the character of S. Cyril as illustrating his controversy against him. E. B. P.] |xxxvii
----
THE special form of the disease, to which the name of Nestorius became attached, was hereditary in the great Province of Antioch. It is the sadder, because it came to him, lurking in the writings of men of even great name, commentators on large parts of Holy Scripture, who seem to have inherited it unawares; Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Both had fallen asleep in the peace of the Church. Diodore, of the very highest reputation, had shared in the persecution of S. Meletius by the Arians, had been one of the Bishops of the Second General Council, and had helped to form the mind of S. Chrysostom 65. Theodore, in whom the heresy appears more copiously yet incidentally, had, during the thirty-eight years of his Episcopate, written against other heretics, Arians, Eunomians, Origen, Apollinarius, and was intimate with S. Chrysostom and with S. Gregory of Nazianzus. The way of truth as well as the way of life is narrow.
It appears to have been a tradition of heresy over against the tradition of faith. Of the last two stages of the heretical tradition there is no doubt. Of both it is clear from the fragments of their writings still extant. S. Cyril speaks fully as to Diodore of Tarsus 66, 'by whose books,' he says, |xxxviii 'the mind of Nestorius was darkened.' Leontius says 67, that 'Diodorus had been to Theodorus the author and leader and father of those evils and impieties.' In the 9th century the Nestorians counted Diodorus, Theodorus and Nestorius their 'three fathers.' A Nestorian Patriarch elect promised, ' 68 that he would adhere to the true [Nestorian] faith, and the Synods of East and West, and the three fathers, Diodorus, Theodorus, Nestorius.' An eminent Syrian writer in the century after S. Cyril, Simeon Bishop of Beth-arsham (who had the title of honour of, 'the Persian Preacher or Philosopher ') says, that Paul of Samosata derived his heresy through Artemon from Ebion; that Diodore derived his from Paul, and Theodore from Diodore and Paul 69. Theodore held the true faith of the Holy Trinity, which Paul did not; but the heresy on the Incarnation was in much alike.
In an Adjuration publicly put forth by the Clergy of Constantinople at the beginning of the Nestorian heresy and published in a Church, a parellel was drawn between the teaching of Nestorius and that of Paul of Samosata on the doctrine of the Incarnation. The parallel ran 70;
Paul said, 'Mary did not hear the Word;' Nestorius, in harmony, said, 'Mary, my good man, did not bear the Godhead;' [the Anathema approved by Nestorius denied |xxxix that 'Mary bare God' not 'the Godhead.'] Paul, 'For he was not before ages.' Nestorius,---- 'And he assigns a temporal Mother to the Godhead, the Creator of times.' Paul, 'Mary received the Word and is not older than the Word.' 'Nestorius, 'How then did Mary bear Him Who is older than herself?' Paul, 'Mary bore a man like unto us.' Nestorius, 'He Who was born of the Virgin is man.' Paul,---- 'but a man in all things superior, since He is from the Holy Ghost, and from the promises, and from the Scripture is the grace upon Him.' Nestorius said, 'It saith, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove upon Him and abiding on Him," which bestowed upon Him the Ascension. "Commanding, it saith, the Apostles whom He had chosen He was taken up through the Holy Ghost." This then it was, which conferred on Christ such glory.' Paul said, 'that neither He Who is of David having been anointed be alien from Wisdom, nor that Wisdom should dwell in any other in like way, for it was in the Prophets and yet more in Moses and in many Saints, and yet more in Christ as in the Temple of God.' And elsewhere he says, that 'other is Jesus Christ and other the Word.' Nestorius said, 'That it was not possible that He Who was born before all ages should anew be born, and that, according to the Godhead.' See, the transgressor is made manifest, saying, that He Who was begotten of the Father was not born of Mary. See, he agrees with the heretic Paul of Samosata who says that 'Other is the Word and other Jesus Christ' and is not one, as the right Faith teaches.
The heresy stumbled at man's wonted stumbling-block, the love of God in the Incarnation, "when Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man, Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb." Theodore held it to be 71 madness to say that God was born |xl of a Virgin; he held that the man who was so born was united to God only by grace 72, that he was a son only by adoption 73.
This and other false doctrines had probably escaped notice, because they were scattered up and down in controversial writings against the Apollinarians, or in interpretations of Holy Scripture. They were brought out by the vanity of Nestorius.
Born of low parentage at least 74, he had the perilous gift of great fluency of extempore preaching and 'a very beautiful and powerful voice.' He was moreover accounted an ascetic. S. Cyril said to the Emperor,
' 75 he was chosen as one practised in the doctrines of the Gospels and the Apostles, trained in godliness, and holding the right faith, altogether blamelessly. Your Pious Majesty longed to have such a man, and all who were set over the holy Churches, and I myself also. And indeed when the letters of the most pious Bishops about his consecration were sent round by those who advanced him thereto, I wrote hack without delay, rejoicing, praising, praying that by the decree from above all choicest good should come to our brother and fellow-minister.'
S. Celestine wrote to Nestorius himself, that he had been anxious as to the Bishops successively appointed to his see,
' 76 because good is apt not to be lasting, and what joy |xli he had had in the successor of the blessed John [Chrysostom], Atticus of blessed memory, the teacher of the Catholic faith; then in the holy Sisinnius, who was so soon to leave us, for his simple piety and pious simplicity; and when he was removed, the relation of the messenger who came rejoiced our soul; and this was straightway confirmed by the relation of our colleagues, who were present at thy consecration, who bare thee such testimony as was meet to one who had been elected from elsewhere [Antioch]. For thou hadst lived before with so high estimation, that another city envied thee to thy own people... Evil (as far as we see) has followed on thy good beginnings; beginnings, so good, so well reported of to us, that, in our answer to the relation of the brethren, we shewed how we were partakers of the joy.'
S. Celestine lingers even fondly over the reminiscence, which was such a sad contrast to the letter which he had to answer.
'Who could readily believe,' asks Vincentius of Lerins 77, 'that he was in error, whom he saw to have been chosen by such judgement of the Empire, the object of such estimation of the Bishops? who was so loved by the holy, in such favour with the people, who daily discoursed on the words of God, and confuted the poisonous errors of Jews and Grentiles. Whom could he not persuade that he taught aright, preached aright, held aright, who in order to make way for his own heresy persecuted the blasphemies of all [other] heresies? But to pass by Nestorius who had ever more admiration than usefulness, more fame than experience, whom human favour had made for a season great in the eyes of the people rather than Divine grace----'
The outward change was sudden, Vincentius too says,
'77 What a temptation was that lately, when this |xlii unhappy Nestorius, suddenly changed from a sheep to a wolf, began to rend the flock of Christ, when they too who were torn, in great part still believed him to be a sheep, and so the more easily fell into his jaws!'
Theodoret 78, who had for so many years defended him, after he had once condemned him at Chalcedon, spoke more severely of him than any other writer. Theodoret was of an affectionate disposition. The great bane of his life was, that he would believe any evil of S. Cyril, rather than suspect his former friend Nestorius to be in the wrong. Under this prejudice, he believed S. Cyril to be an Apollinarian which he was not, rather than suspect Nestorius to be the heretic which he was. When then S. Leo espoused his cause against the worthless successor of S. Cyril, Dioscorus, and shewed at once how the two opposite heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius were equally inconsistent with Catholic truth, his eyes may have been opened, and he may have felt towards Nestorius as the occasion to him of an almost lifelong error, from which he was rescued by his own deposition and disgrace. Nestorius too had, as far as was known, died |xliii unrepentant in an heresy which denied the Incarnation. His later account of Nestorius is,
'79 From the first, Nestorius shewed what he was going to be all his life through: that he cultivated a mere popular eloquence, eliciting empty applause and attracting to himself the unstable multitude; that he went about, clad in a mourning garment, walking heavily, avoiding public throngs, seeking by the pallor of his looks to appear ascetic, at home mostly given to books and living quietly by himself. He went on to advanced age enticing the many by such habits and counterfeits, seeking to seem to be a Christian rather than to be one, and preferring his own glory to the glory of Christ.'
The course of his heresy Theodoret describes in summary.
'79 The first step of his innovation was that we must not confess the Holy Virgin who bare the Word of God having taken flesh of her, to be Theotocos, but Christotocos only, whereas the heralds of the orthodox faith long ago (tw~n pa&lai kai\ pro&palai) taught to call her Theotocos, and believe her the Mother of the Lord.'
Then he mentions the plea of Nestorius,
'that the name Christ signifies the two Natures, the Godhead and Manhood of the Only-Begotten, but that of God absolutely the simple and incorporeal essence of God the Word; and that of man the human nature alone; therefore it is necessary to confess the Virgin to be Christotocos and not Theotocos, lest unawares we say that God the Word took the beginning of His Being from the holy Virgin, and so should be obliged consistently to confess that the Mother was older than He Who was born of her.'
Lastly he mentions the preaching of Nestorius, |xliv that in the Church of the orthodox he shouted out many such words as 'Mary, my good man, did not bear God; she bore a man the instrument of God;' 'and again among other follies,' 'The Gentile is blameless, when he gives a mother to the gods.'
Such is the outline of his teaching at Constantinople. His efforts were concentrated on the substitution of Christotocos for Theotocos; for 'God made Man,' a human Christ connected with God, corrupting by flippant sayings the minds which he could influence.
He gained favour with Theodosius who leaned on those around him. His elevation to the Patriarchate was a marked distinction, as being a call from a different Patriarchate, at the nomination of the Emperor Theodosius, and the people received him with joy. He seemed to himself called to great things. 'He had not,' Socrates says 80, 'tasted, according to the proverb, the waters of the city,' when in an inaugural oration before the Emperor and a large concourse of people, he apostrophised the Emperor, "Give me, O king, the land clear from heretics and I in turn will give thee heaven. Destroy the heretics with me, and I will destroy the Persians with thee." He must have meant, of course, that he could promise victory over the Persians in the name of God. Men noticed, we are told 80, the vanity and passionateness and vainglory of the speech. It was, at the least, a calling in of the civil sword against those, of whom he himself knew nothing, and for whose conversion |xlv his predecessors had waited patiently, and promising victory over a warlike people, not upon self-humiliation before God, but upon the extirpation of men who had not the same errors with himself. An Arian congregation, seeing their church destroyed, in desperation fired it and threw themselves into the flames. This gained to Nestorius, with all the faithful as well as heretics, the title of 'the Incendiary.' The persecution occasioned much bloodshed at Miletus and Sardis. The Emperor had to repress his violence against the Novatians. The Macedonians 81 and the Quartodecimans in Asia, Lydia, Caria, were also persecuted. He had conferred with Theodore of Mopsuestia in his way from Antioch to his See; so that it was even thought that he had imbibed his heresy then 82. Those whom he brought with him were of the same school 83.
He began at first warily. He used ambiguous language, but all directed against the one crucial term Theotocos. Unless the blessed Virgin 'bare God,' i. e. Him Who was at once both God and Man, our Lord plainly would not have been God. And therewith would have perished the doctrine of the Atonement too, which also Nestorius did not believe. For a "brother cannot redeem a man; he cannot give to God 84 a ransom for him. Too dear is the redemption of their souls, and it ceaseth for ever."
He used what terms he could, to eke out the poverty of his conception. He could think of our |xlvi Lord as a man, an instrument of Deity;' '85 a temple created of the Virgin for God the Word to inhabit,' and haying a close or continual or the highest connection with God; but still the 'connection' was different in degree, not in kind, from that with any Saint.
The hereditary title of the Mother of the Lord, which even Theodoret, when his strife with S. Cyril was over, recognised as '86 the Apostolical tradition,' excluded this humanising of our Lord. And so Nestorius (a grave historian says 87) continuously teaching hereon in the Church, endeavoured in all ways to expel the term Theotocos, and dreaded the term as they do hobgoblins 88. This he did, Socrates adds, 'out of great ignorance.'
'Being by nature fluent of speech, he was thought to have been educated; but in truth, he was ill-trained, and disdained to learn the books of the ancient interpreters. For being puffed up for his fluency of speech, he did not attend accurately to the ancients, but thought himself superior to all.'
Yet the term Theotocos had been in such familiar use by every school for nearly two centuries, that the aversion of Nestorius to it can hardly have been simple ignorance. It was probably the instinctive aversion of heresy to the term which condemns it. Socrates himself mentions that it was used by Origen and Eusebius: it was used alike by Alexander, the predecessor of S. Athanasius 89, whose Council first condemned Arius; by |xlvii S. Athanasius himself 90; by the Arian Eusebius 91; and by S. Cyril of Jerusalem 92, who did not use the word Homoousion. The Apostate Emperor Julian said, in controversy with the Christians, '93 Did Isaiah say that a Virgin should bear God? but ye do not cease calling Mary Theotocos,' attesting that the word was in the mouths of all Christians. A little later it was used by the two S. Gregories 94. It was used also by the great predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople, S. Chrysostom, as also by Ammon Bishop of Adrianople in Egypt, and by Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais in Phoenicia 95. The corresponding title, Mater Dei, was used in the Latin Church by S. Ambrose 96, Cassian 97, and Vincent of Lerins 98.
John of Antioch, at a later period, entreating Nestorius to accept the term, in order to prevent the impending schism, said to him,
'This name no one of the ecclesiastical teachers has declined. For those who have used it have been many and eminent, and those who have not used it have never imputed any error to those who used it.' |xlviii
John endeavoured to smoothe to him the adoption of the word.
' 99 The ten days, which Celestine allowed, are very short, but it might be made matter of a single day, perhaps only of a few hours. For to use a convenient word in the dispensation of our Sovereign Ruler Christ for us, which has been used by many of the fathers, and is true as to the saving Birth of the Virgin, is easy; which thy holiness ought not to decline, nor take that into account, that one ought not to do things contrary. For if thy mind is the same as that of the fathers and teachers of the Church (for this, my lord, I have heard from many common friends), what grief has it, to utter a pious thought in a corresponding word?'
Nestorius seems to have thought it to have been his office to convert the Church to his misbelief. He says,
' 100 I see in our people much reverence and most fervent piety, but that they are blinded as to the dogma of the knowledge of God. But this is not the fault of the people, but (how shall I say it courteously?) that the teachers had not opportunity to set before you aught of the more accurate teaching.'
This was strong language, that the people of Constantinople were in error as to the faith through the fault of its former Bishops; but he also owned thereby, that his faith was different from theirs. 'Art thou then,' Cassian 101 apostrophises him, 'the amender of former Bishops, the condemner of former Priests? art thou more excellent than Gregory, more approved than Nectarius, surpassing John?' |xlix
Nestorius seems to have chosen for himself the office of arbiter between ideal parties. In his third Epistle to S. Celestine he says,
'102 It is known to your Blessedness, that if two sects stand over against one another, and one of them only uses the word Theotocos, and the other only Anthropotocos, and each sect draws the other to its own confession, so that, if it do not obtain this, there is peril lest it fall from the Church, it will be necessary, that one deputed to the consideration of this matter, having care for each sect, should remedy the peril of either party, by a word delivered by the Evangelist which signifies both natures. For that word, Christotocos, tempers the assertion of both, because it both removes the blasphemy of the Samosatene which is spoken of Christ, the Lord of all, as if He were a pure man, and also puts to flight the malice of Arius and Apollinarius.'
It is strange that he did not see (if indeed he did not see what every one else saw), that Christotocos, as opposed to Theotocos, could only mean 'mother of the Messiah,' i. e. mother of Him who should be the Messiah. Vincent of Lerins uses the homely illustration,
'103 as we speak of the mother of a Presbyter or a Bishop, not that she bare one who was already a Presbyter or a Bishop, but a man who was afterwards made a Presbyter or Bishop.'
S. John Damascene says,
'104 We do not call the holy Virgin Christotocos, because Nestorius invented it to deny the word Theotocos.'
The name 'Anthropotocos' must have been a fiction of his own, in order to make room for his |l own term Christotocos, as an intermediate term. No one would give the name as a descriptive name, however they may have held our Lord to be a mere man; and Nestorius speaks of those, who called the Blessed Virgin Anthropotocos, as in the Church.
However, in his own Patriarchate, for three years Nestorius had his own way. S. Cyril names that period in his full letter of explanation to Acacius of Beroea, who must have been cognizant of the accuracy of the statement.
'105 But when we all waited for Nestorius, while he spent a period of three years in blaspheming, and we and your holiness and the whole Council with us tried to bring him back from them, and to those doctrines which appertain to rightness and truth.'
Peter, the notary, rehearsed the same in the first session of the Council. '106 Not many days having elapsed' [after his consecration]. S. Cyril in his letter to S. Celestine says,
'107 During the past I have kept silence and have written absolutely nothing either to your Religiousness, or any of our Fellow-ministers, about him who is now at Constantinople and ruleth the Church, believing that hastiness in these things is not without blame.'
Within Constantinople, Nestorius, twice apparently, gave occasion to a great expression of popular feeling by utterances which he sanctioned, absolutely denying the doctrine of the Incarnation. The first was by Anastasius, a priest 108 whom he had brought from Antioch, whom 'he held in great honour, and employed as a counsellor; a fiery |li lover of Nestorius and his Jewish dogmas.' He burst out in a sermon openly, '109 let no one call Mary theotocos: for Mary was human; but it is impossible that one human should bear God.' This the people could ill-endure. Nestorius supported it with vehemence.
The other statement which reached S. Cyril, and which he mentioned to some at Constantinople, who blamed him for his letter to the monks 110, was by Dorotheus Bishop of Marcianopolis, who said openly, 'Anathema, if any call the holy Mary, Theotocos.'
This went much further than the former. It pronounced Anathema (as S. Cyril saw) upon all who held what all held and expressed, upon the whole Catholic Church. Nestorius at once received him to Communion.
Nestorius supported the denial of the Theotocos. In his first Sermon he says, that he had been asked whether the Blessed Virgin was to be called 'Anthropotocos or Theotocos.' He appealed to his hearers,
'111 Has God a mother? Then heathendom may be excused, bringing in mothers to its gods. Then Paul is a liar, who saith of the Deity of Christ, 'without father, without mother, without descent.' Mary bore not God, my good friends. For that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The creature bare not the Uncreated: the Father did not beget God the Word. For 'in the beginning was the Word,' as John saith. The creature did not bear the Creator, but she bare a Man, the instrument of Deity: the Holy Spirit did not create God the Word; for that |lii which was born of her was of the Holy Spirit; but He framed of the Virgin for God the Word a temple wherein He should dwell.'
Nestorius continued to preach the same, sometimes in terms, in themselves sound, but in the context of what is unsound.
From his position as Patriarch in New Rome, the residence of the Emperor, or his personal influence with Theodosius, he could overbear most opposition. What opposition there was came, it had been observed, first from the Laity, then from the Clergy, lastly from the Bishops.
Nestorius, in his first epistle to S. Celestine, told him that he had daily used both 'anger and gentleness' in repressing the Theotocos. His idea of 'anger and gentleness' may be gathered from a formal petition to the Emperors from Basil, a deacon and Archimandrite, and Thalassius a reader and monk, in their petition to the Emperors. In the words of this petition,
'112 By his command and invitation, we went to the See-house, to be fully instructed whether what we had heard concerning him is true. He put us off a second and a third time, and then scarcely bade us say what we wished. But when he had heard from us, that what he had said, that 'Mary only bore a man consubstantial with herself,' and 'what is born of the flesh is flesh,' is not orthodox language, immediately he had us seized, and thence, beaten by the crowd of the officers, we were led to the prison, and there they stripped us naked as prisoners and subject to punishment, bound us to pillars, threw us down and kicked us. What in the civil courts we do not say that Clerks, Archimandrites, or monks, nay, or any secular persons do not suffer, we endured |liii in the Church lawlessly from the lawless ones. Oppressed, famished, we remained a long time under guard, and his mania was not satisfied with this, but after all this, by some deceit we were delivered over to the most Excellent Eparch of this renowned city, and loaded with irons we were led back to the prison, and afterwards were brought up in the Praetorium in the same way with chains, and since there was no accuser, we were again led back by the guard in the prison and thus he again chastised us smiting us on the face, and having discoursed and agreed deceitfully (as appeared from what followed) about Him Who is by nature Son of Grod, that He was born of the holy Mary the Theotocos, since there is another Son; so he dismissed us.'
Basil who relates this, says also,
'113 Some of the most reverend Presbyters frequently rebuked to the face him who is now entrusted with the Episcopate (if he should be called a Bishop) and, because of his self-will that he will not call the Holy Virgin Theotocos, or Christ by nature true God, have put themselves out of his communion, and so still remain; others do so secretly; others, because they spoke in this holy Church Eirene-by-the-sea against the ill-renewal of this dogma, have been silenced. On this the people, desiring to have the wonted sound teaching, cried out, 'A King we have; a Bishop we have not.' But this essay of the people did not remain unavenged; some were seized by the attendants, and beaten in divers ways in the royal city, as is not practised even among the Barbarians. Some contradicted him publicly to the face in the Church and underwent no little trouble. A monk of the simpler sort was constrained by zeal in the midst of the Church to hinder this herald of impiety from entering in at the Celebration, being a heretic. Him having beaten, he delivered to |liv the Magnificent Governors and being again beaten and paraded publicly, the crier proclaiming (his offence), he [Nestorius] sent him into exile. And not this only, but even in the most holy Church after his impious homily, those on his side who held down every thing, would have shed blood, had not the aid of God prevented it.'
They conclude by asking the Emperor to convene a General Council, 'not, Grod knows, to avenge our wrongs,' but 'to unite the most holy Church, restore the priests of the true faith, before the untrue teaching spread abroad.' They speak of Nestorius as
'intimidating, threatening, driving, expelling, maltreating, acting recklessly and ill, and doing all unsparingly to establish his own mania and ungodliness, neither fearing God, nor ashamed before men, but clothed with contempt of all, confident in his wrath and in the might of some who have been corrupted, and (to speak fearlessly) in your Majesty.'
It is strong language, but language, the more responsible, as formally addressed to one who held absolute power, who used it as no modern Sovereign could, and who was known to favour the Patriarch, against whom it was directed.
Nestorius boasted to S. Celestine of his success against those who had departed from him.
'114 Moreover they have dared to call the Virgin who hare Christ (Christotocos) in a certain way Theotocos. For they do not shudder at calling her Theotocos, although those holy fathers above all praise at Nice are read to have said nothing more as to the holy Virgin than that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. I do not speak of the Holy Scriptures, which every where, both by Angels and Apostles, |lv set forth the Virgin as the mother of Christ, not of God the Word. For which things' sake what strifes we have endured, I suppose that report has, before this, instructed your Blessedness; observing this also, that we have not striven in vain, but by the grace of the Lord, many of those who were departing from us have been amended.'
To S. Cyril he says,
'115 Know that those hast been deceived by the Clerks of thine own persuasion, who have been deprived here by the holy Synod, because they were minded as the Manichees.'
S. Cyril in the Synodal letter 116 from Alexandria, announcing his impending excommunication, mentions those whom Nestorius had excommunicated or degraded, as he had 'indicated to Celestine the most holy Bishop of Great Rome and our fellow-bishop.' S. Celestine also requires as a condition of Communion that he should '117 restore to the Church all excluded for the sake of Christ its Head.' In his letter to John of Antioch he supposes that this may have been done by others also.
Within Constantinople Nestorius was opposed by those whose position secured them from his aggression: by S. Proclus, appointed Bishop of Cyzicus, whom the Cyzicans declined, wishing to appoint their own Bishop, and who remained a Bishop without a see; and by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who
'118 being of great piety and skill among the laymen, having gathered within himself no mean learning, was moved with fervent and devout zeal, and said with |lvi piercing cry, that the Word Himself Who is before the ages endured a second Generation by that after the flesh and from a woman.'
Nestorius answered him by speaking of the 'pollution' of these wretches and saying, "that if there were two births, there must be two sons," i. e. that our 'one Lord Jesus Christ' 'could not be Begotten of the Father before all worlds' and yet 'for us men and for our salvation' be born of the Virgin Mary.
Leontius 119 says that Eusebius was also said to be the author of the parallel between Paul of Samosata and Nestorius.
Different accounts are given of the way in which the minds of the people were affected. S. Cyril says that on the Anathema pronounced by Dorotheus,
'120 There was a great cry from all the people, and a running out [of the Church.] For they would not communicate with those so minded. And now too the people of Constantinople remain out of communion, except some of the lighter sort and his flatterers. But nearly all the monasteries and their Archimandrites and many of the senate do not communicate: fearing lest they should be wronged as to his faith and that of those with him, whom he brought when he came up from Antioch, who all speak perverse things.'
Nestorius, on the other hand, boasts at the close of his answer to S. Cyril's second letter 121,
'Church matters with us advance daily, and the people through the grace of God so grow, that those who see their multitude, cry out with the prophet, that the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as much |lvii water covereth the sea, and the Emperors are in exceeding joy, being enlightened as to the doctrine; and, to speak briefly, one may see daily, as to all the heresies which fight with God and the orthodoxy of the Church, that word is daily fulfilled with us, the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker, and the house of David waxed stronger and stronger.'
It is not much that the Emperor told S. Cyril 122, that the Churches were united and would be yet more, and that he [S. Cyril] was forgiven; (for Nestorius had persuaded him that S. Cyril was a mere disturber of the peace) or that Nestorius on one occasion speaks of the people being thronged 123. But some were even ready to turn against those who objected to his teaching 124, and 'many Clergy and laymen from Constantinople coming to Antioch and Beroea agreed with the saying of Dorotheus, as having nothing contrary to Apostolic doctrine or the faith of Nicaea 125.'
In these three years, S. Cyril had only broken silence three times; once in his letter to the monks in Egypt; a letter to Nestorius, explaining the occasion of that letter when he heard that Nestorius was offended by it; and the second full statement of doctrine in the Epistle, which was received by the Council of Ephesus.
i. The first was his 'letter to the Monks of Egypt.' Grave perplexity had been occasioned to some of them, even as to the Divinity of our Lord, through some writings attributed to Nestorius. S. Cyril |lviii answered them, but without any mention of Nestorius. He himself gives the account of his writing,
'126 When his [Nestorius'] homilies were brought to Egypt, I learnt that some of the lighter sort were carried away, and said doubtingly among themselves, 'does he say right?' 'Is he in error?' Fearing lest the disease should root in the minds of the simple, I wrote a general Epistle to the monasteries of Egypt, confirming them to the right faith.'
No Bishop, competent for his office, could have done otherwise than set himself to remove those perplexities in the minds of the people committed to his charge. Others circulated what he had written, in Constantinople. S. Cyril continues his account,
'Some took copies to Constantinople. And those who read them were much benefited, so that very many of those in office wrote, thanking me. But that too was fresh nutriment of displeasure against me, and he [Nestorius] contended against me as an enemy, having no other ground of censure than that I cannot think as he does.'
ii. iii. S. Cyril's two Epistles to Nestorius (previous to the sentence of condemnation which he was commissioned to announce, unless Nestorius should retract) were letters of explanation.
The first was to remove the offence, which Nestorius had taken at 'the letter to the monks.' It runs;
'127 Persons deserving of all credit have come to Alexandria and have informed me that thy Piety is exceeding angry, and setting every thing in motion to grieve me. |lix And when I would learn the cause of the grief of thy Piety, they said that some from Alexandria were circulating the letter written to the holy Monks, and that this was the occasion of the hatred and displeasure. I wondered then, that thy Piety did not rather think with Itself, that the disturbance as to the faith did not originate with my letter, but with some, whether written by thy Piety or no, but any how papers or exegeses which were circulated. We then toiled, wishing to restore those misled. For some would hardly admit that Christ is God; but that He was rather an organ or instrument of the Deity and a God-bearing man, and things even beyond this. I had then reason to complain of the things, which thy Piety did or did not write. (For I do not much trust the papers which are carried about.) How then should I be silent, when faith is so injured and so many are perverted? Shall we not be placed before the Judgement-seat of Christ? Shall we not give account for the unseasonable silence, having been appointed by Him to say what is meet? What shall I do now? For I must consult with thy Piety. And that, when the most religious and God-beloved Bishop of the Roman Church, and the God-beloved Bishops with him, report about the papers brought thither, I know not how, whether by thy Piety or no. For they write, as exceedingly scandalized. And how shall we soothe those who come from the East from all the Churches, and murmur against the papers? Or does thy Piety think, that only a little disturbance has sprung up in the Churches from such homilies? We are all struggling and toiling, bringing back those who are somehow mispersuaded to think otherwise. When then it is thy Piety, who made all of necessity murmur, how does It justly find fault? Why does It cry out against me, and that to no purpose, and does not rather correct Its own speech, to stop this world-wide scandal? For though the speech is past, yet as being diffused among the people, let it be set straight by revision, and do thou vouchsafe to concede |lx one word to those who are offended, by calling the holy Virgin Theotocos, that soothing those who have been, grieved, and having a right repute among all, we may celebrate the Communions amid the peace and harmony of the peoples. But let not thy Piety doubt, that we are ready to endure all things for the Faith in Christ and to undergo imprisonments and death itself. But I say the truth, that even while Atticus of blessed memory still survived, I composed a book on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in which I wrote also about the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten agreeably to what I have now written, and I read it to Bishops and Clerks and those of the laity who were fond of hearing, but I have not given it out hitherto to any one. If then it should be published, it is probable that I may again be blamed, whereas the little tract was composed even before the consecration of thy Piety.'
It was, of course, an unpleasant office to write to a Patriarch, in high favour with the Sovereign of both, who had no slight opinion of himself and of his writings, and was very angry with S. Cyril himself for writing against them, to tell him that he was in fact himself in the wrong; that he, S. Cyril, could not have done otherwise than he did, having before him the judgement-seat of Christ, and that Nestorius had to undo what he had done, which had set East and West against him. They were not smooth things to write; but I do not know how they could have been conveyed more smoothly. S. Cyril assures Nestorius, that there was nothing personal in what he had written, for he did not even know certainly, whose writings he was answering, but that they were conveying wrong doctrine among those with whom S. Cyril was put in trust; wrong doctrine, which Nestorius |lxi would not go along with; that he [S. Cyril] had had no part in the circulation of what he had written in Constantinople; that he had written the like many years before, and that this too might become a fresh subject of incrimination, if it should be published, whereas from its date it could have no bearing on Nestorius. One only request he makes him, the same, which John of Antioch the friend of Nestorius also made, by acceding to which he might have escaped his own evil memory and being the author of the miserable rent in the body of Christ, that he would vouchsafe to concede one word, Theotocos. But it would have been to give up his heresy.
The Presbyter Lampon who took S. Cyril's letter, could only obtain from Nestorius the following haughty answer, in which he avoided every topic of the letter of S. Cyril.
'128 Nothing is mightier than Christian equity. We have then been constrained thereby to the present letter through the most religious presbyter Lampon, who said many things about thy Piety to us, and heard also much, and at last did not give way to us, until he wrung the letter from us, and we have been conquered by the man's importunity. For I own that I have great awe of all Christian goodness of every man, as having God residing in him. We then, although many things have been done by your Religiousness (to speak mildly) not according to brotherly love, continue in long-suffering and the friendly intercourse of letters. But experience will shew, what is the fruit of the constraint of the most religious Presbyter Lampon. I and those with me salute all the brotherhood together with thee.' |lxii
The answer of Nestorius was in fact an apology to himself for vouchsafing to write to S. Cyril.
The second Epistle of S. Cyril is also Apologetic,
'129 in answer to some who are babbling to thy Piety against my reputation and that incessantly, watching, above all, the seasons of the meetings of those in power.'
The Epistle is throughout doctrinal. But there is not the slightest controversy with Nestorius, except in the appeal at the end that he would think and teach these things. It is only a careful statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation, expressly excluding what Nestorius called Apollinarian.
The answer of Nestorius 130 is in a tone of ironical condescension. He professes to pass by 'the contumelies of thy wondrous letters, as needing a medicinal long-suffering;' 'the all-wise words of thy Love;' advises him to attend to doctrine, i. e. not as he had, reading superficially the tradition of the all-holy fathers [the Nicene Creed] to shew an ignorance, which needed forgiveness; treated his letter as self-contradictory and ended in a tone of triumph. Further correspondence was of course useless. Indeed, the quotation from S. Paul seems intended by Nestorius to close the subject.
'These are the counsels from us, as from a brother to a brother. But if any one seem to be contentious, to such an one Paul will cry out through us also, We have no such custom, neither the Church of God.'
It may be that S. Cyril's letters to the Imperial family may have been occasioned by the statement which Nestorius gives of the joy of the Sovereign on being enlightened as to the dogma. But |lxiii although he states the fact clearly to them, he neither mentions Nestorius, nor quotes any known saying of his.
He himself waited. He had learned probably from his fiery adhesion to his uncle and early benefactor, Theophilus, and its injustice to the memory of S. Chrysostom. He says to those who reproached him for his letter to the monks of Egypt, that he might have returned anathema for anathema,
'131 Since we who are yet living, and the Bishops throughout the world, and our fathers who have departed to God have been anathematised. For what hindered me too from writing the converse of his words, 'If any one say not that Mary is Theotocos, be he anathema?' But I have not done this hitherto for his sake, lest any should say, that the Bishop of Alexandria, i. e. the Egyptian Synod, has anathematised him. But if the most religious Bishops in East and West shall learn, that all have been anathematised, (for all say and confess that the holy Mary is Theotocos) how will they be disposed? How will they not be grieved, if not for themselves, yet for the holy fathers, iu whose writings we find the holy Virgin Mary named Theotocos? If I did not think it would be burdensome, I would send many books of the holy Fathers, in which you may find not once but many times this word used, whereby they confess that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotocos.'
When at last he wrote to ask the advice of S. Celestine 132, he says.
'During the time past I have been silent and have written absolutely nothing concerning him who is now at Constantinople and rules the Church, either to your Piety or to any other of our fellow-ministers, believing that precipitancy in these things is not without blame.' |lxiv
Yet the confusion was already not slight. S. Cyril says to a friend of Nestorius;
'133 There is no one from any city or country, who does not say that these things are in every one's mouth, and, what new learning is being brought into the Churches?'
To Nestorius himself he said, '134 the books of your exegeses are circulated every where.'
Vanity probably precipitated the condemnation of Nestorius. He had a low estimate of the abilities of S. Celestine.
'135 The Egyptian [S.Cyril] terrified,' he says, 'by the dread of being convicted, and seeking for some trouble to stand him in stead, betakes himself to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to penetrate the force of dogmas. Finding moreover the simplicity of that man, he childishly circumvents his ears with the illusions of letters.'
It did not occur to Nestorius that Divine truth is seen by simple piety, not by proud intellect. He was not aware also, that S. Celestine had a deacon who, like S. Athanasius when a deacon at Nicaea, possessed that intuitive perception of truth which was afterwards to be developed on these very subjects; him, who became S. Leo the Great, who entrusted the letters of Nestorius to be translated and refuted by Cassian 136.
To this S. Celestine, of whom he thought so lightly, Nestorius wrote two letters 137, ostensibly to consult him about Julian and other Pelagians, but in reality to propound his own heresy in as |lxv plausible a manner as he could. He began by laying down,
'We owe to each other brotherly conference, as having to fight in harmony together against the devil, the enemy of peace. To what end this preface?'
Julian and others, alleging that they were Bishops of the West, complained both to the Emperor and to him, that they were persecuted being orthodox; so he, being in ignorance of the merits of the case, asked S. Celestine to inform him. 'For a new sect claims great watchfulness from true pastors.'
In the second letter, he says that he had 'often' written about these Pelagian Bishops. He himself might have known (S. Celestine reminds him) since Atticus his predecessor had written to S. Celestine, what he had done in their matter. In both letters, he speaks of his efforts against 'something akin to Apollinarianism:' in his second, that he is at much pains to 'extirpate' it. S. Cyril, in his letter to Juvenal 138, says that Nestorius wrote this letter to the Church of the Romans, hoping to carry it away with him.
By these letters to S. Celestine, he was himself the occasion of a letter, in which S. Cyril at last consulted him about the matter of Nestorius, being shewn to S. Celestine. For S. Cyril had given instructions to his Deacon Posidonius 139,' if he should find the books of his [Nestorius] exegeses and his letters delivered to him [S. Celestine], deliver my letters also; if not, bring them here [to S. Cyril] undelivered. He then, finding the exegeses and |lxvi the letters delivered, had himself also to deliver them.'
A synod then was held at Rome, in which, after many sessions 140, the Bishops declared him to have devised a new very grievous heresy, and condemned him.
A fragment of a speech of S. Celestine is preserved 141, in which he cited the authorities of S. Ambrose in his Veni redemptor gentium, S. Hilary and S. Damasus. S. Celestine announced to Nestorius the result;
'Unless you teach as to Christ our God the same which the Church of the Romans and the Alexandrians and the holy Church in great Constantinople held excellently well till you, and, within the tenth day counted from the day of this admonition, annul by an open confession in writing that faithless novelty which undertakes to sever what holy Scripture unites, thou art cast out of all communion with the Catholic Church.'
S. Celestine wrote the same to John of Antioch 142. This judgement he had entrusted to S. Cyril, holding his place. S. Cyril wrote what had passed and the condemnation of Nestorius by the Roman Synod to John of Antioch 143, telling him, that the Council had written the like to 'Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, and other Bishops of Macedonia, who always agree with them,' and to Juvenal Bishop of Aelia; that he himself should follow their decision, and asking him to consider what to do to hinder this breach of communion. |lxvii
John of Antioch was alarmed at this prospect of a rent, and wrote to Nestorius to prevent it by accepting the word Theotocos 144. He wrote not in his own name only, bat in that of six other Bishops who were then with him, among them Theodoret. He wrote in entire sympathy with Nestorius, in antagonism to those opposed to him. He speaks of the many, as 'unrestrained against us,' and asks, 'what will they be, now that they have gained support from these wretched letters? He takes it for granted that the faith of Nestorius was sound; he had heard that he had said that he would use the word [Theotocos] if any of those in high repute in the Church suggested it, tells him that he does not exhort him to disreputable change, or, so to say, 'boyish contradiction;' that 'though my lord Celestine had fixed a very narrow time for the answer, yet one day, perhaps a few hours would be enough; and urges him to take the counsel of those of his own mind, allowing them to speak fearlessly what was useful, not what was pleasant.' John himself held and stated the true faith, and thought the word Theotocos the convenient and true way to express it, and that to reject it would jeopardise the unspeakable mystery of the Only-Begotten Son of God.
Nestorius had however taken his line. He answers in apparent amazement;
'145 I thought that people could have set anything in motion against me rather than the calumny that I do not hold aright as to the piety of faith, I who hitherto have been delighted that many thousand hostilities rise against me on account of the battle which I have against |lxviii all heretics. But this temptation too I must bear with joy; for it too, if we watch very carefully, may confer on us much confidence to piety.'
He says in answer, that 'the word Theotocos is assumed by many heretics as their own;' that 'some here, using the word incautiously, fall thereby into heretical and irreligious thoughts, especially those of the impious Arius and Apollinarius:' that his own solution was that 'the word Theotocos should be explained harmoniously after the deliberation of us all.' He bids John
'dismiss all anxiety, knowing that hy the grace of God we have and do think the same in what relates to the piety of faith. For it is plain that if we meet, since He has given us this Synod which we hope, we shall dispose this and whatever else must be done for the correction and benefit of the whole, without scandal and in harmony; so that all things which may be ordained by a common and universal decree may receive the dignity of matters of faith, and shall give no one an occasion of contradiction even if he be very ready for it. But as to the wonted presumption of the Egyptian, your Religiousness ought not to wonder, since we have of old very many instances of this. After a little, if God shall will, our counsel herein also will be matter of praise.'
He adds in a postscript,
'We have by the grace of God attracted more both the Clergy and people and those who are in the imperial mansions, through the Epistles of your Religiousness, to that doctrine which we give publicly in the Church.'
To S. Celestine, after writing in his wonted strain about the terms Theotocos, Anthropotocos, Christotocos, he writes exultingly: |lxix
'146 The most pious Emperors have been pleased, with the help of God, to appoint a Synod of the whole world, from which no one is to excuse himself [inexcusabiliter] for the enquiry into other ecclesiastical matters. For any doubt about words will not, I suppose, involve any difficult enquiry, nor be a hindrance to treating of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus.'
S. Celestine says 147,
'He asks a field for battle; he calls for a sacerdotal examination, at which he would not be present. Who would have thought that he who asked for a synod [petitorem synodi] would be absent from the Synod?'
The relation of the Emperor to the Synod is best explained by the personal letter which he wrote to S. Cyril, commanding his attendance at it. The letter can hardly have had any other object than to intimidate S. Cyril. For he had already received the circular summons to the Council, of which the only extant copy is addressed to him. The letter was written altogether in the mind of Nestorius 148. For he treats S. Cyril as the author of the existing confusion, and the doctrine as one hereafter to be examined and settled by the Council.
'149 It is plain to every one that religion has its firmness not from any one's bidding but from intelligence. Now then let thy Piety instruct Us, why, overlooking Us (whom thou knowest to have such care of godliness) and all the priests every where, who could better have |lxx solved this dispute, thou hast, as far as in thee lies, cast confusion and severance into the Church. As if a rash impetuosity became questions as to godliness, rather than accuracy; or as if carefulness had not more weight with Ourselves than rashness; or as if intricacy in these things were more pleasing to Us than, simplicity. And yet we did not think that Our high estimation would be so received by thy Piety, or that every thing would be thrown into confusion, inasmuch as We too know how to be displeased. But now We shall take heed to the sacred calm. But know that thou hast disturbed every thing as thou oughtest not.'
Then, having reproached him, as having tried to sow dissension in the Imperial family, by his letters to him and the Empress Eudocia, and his sister Augusta Pulcheria, and told him that it belonged to one and the same, to wish to dissever Churches and Royalties, as though there were no other way of obtaining distinction, he resumes,
'But that thou mayest know Our state, be assured that the Churches and the kingdoms are united, and will be yet more united at Our command, with the providence of our Saviour Christ, and that thy Piety is forgiven, that thou mayest have no pretext, nor be able to say that thou art blamed on account of religion. For we will that all shall be laid open at the holy Synod and that what shall seem good shall prevail, whether the defeated obtain forgiveness from the fathers or no. We certainly will not endure that cities and Churches should be thrown into confusion, nor that the question should remain unsifted. Of these they must sit in judgment, who every where preside over the Priesthood; and by them We have and shall have firmer possession of the true doctrine. Nor shall any one, who has ever so little share in the polity, be allowed liberty of speech, if in his self-confidence he choose to evade such a judgement. He shall not be permitted; for Our Majesty [lit. |lxxi Divinity] must praise those who shall eagerly and readily come to this enquiry, and will not endure if any choose to command rather than be counselled about these matters. So then thy Reverence must come at the time appointed in the other letters, sent to all the Metropolitans; and must not expect to recover the relation to Ourselves in any other way than that, ceasing from all grievousness and turbulence, thou come willingly to the investigation of these questions. For thus thou wilt appear to have done what has hitherto been done harshly and inconsiderately, yet still in behalf of thy opinion, not through any private pique or undue hostility to any one, and to will to do with justice what remains to be done. For if thou willest to do otherwise, We will not endure it.'
A Caesar who so wrote could not be approached. It seems that he expected S. Cyril to be condemned rather than Nestorius. S. Cyril did not attempt to remove the offence of his letters to the Imperial family, until he had been allowed to return from the Council to his own diocese.
S.Cyril explains his own mind towards Nestorius to a zealous adherent 150 of Nestorius, with a singular simplicity.
'151 If I were writing to one who knew not my disposition, I might have used many words, persuading that I am a person exceeding peaceful, not given to strife, not fond of warfare, but one who longs to love all and to be loved by all. But because I write to one who knows me, I say briefly, 'If a brother's grief could be removed by loss of money or goods, I would gladly have done it, that I might not seem to hold anything of more value |lxxii than love. But since it is a question of faith, and all the Churches (so to say) in the whole Roman Empire are offended,---- 152 what shall we do, who are entrusted by God with the Divine mysteries?' For those who are taught the faith will accuse us in the Day of Judgement, saying that they held the faith as taught by us..... Only be the faith preserved, and I am his dear friend and yield to none as loving more than myself the most God-beloved Bishop Nestorius, who (God is my witness) I would might be of good repute in Christ and efface the blot of the past, and shew that what is commonly said by some as to his faith, are untrue accusations.'
And again to Clergy at Constantinople,
'153 I must make my meaning plain to you and so I write again, that although I by nature love peace, and am very ignorant of strife, yet I wish that the Churches should have peace, and that the priests of God living in peace should remember us, since Jesus Christ the Saviour of all saith, "My peace I give unto you, My peace 1 leave with you." Say then in conferences, that much has passed from them to injure us; yet there will be peace, when he shall cease to think or speak such things. If he profess the right faith, there will be a full and most firm peace. If he desires this, let him write the Catholic faith and send it to Alexandria. If this be written from his inmost heart, I too am ready, as far as in me lies, to write the like and publish a book and say that none of our fellow-bishops ought to be aggrieved, because we learn that his words have a right intention and manifest purpose. But if he continue in the perverseness of vain-glory and asks for peace, nothing remains but that we resist with all our might, lest we should seem to agree with him. For to me my chiefest |lxxiii desire is to labour and live and die for the faith which is in Christ.'
There could scarcely be a franker offer, putting aside every thing of his own, to 'write the Catholic faith.' Nestorius is tied down to no Theological expressions, but to the simple faith. He could not write it, because he had ceased to hold it.
The Bishops assembled in that Synod were of no ordinary character. Vincentius of Lerins, writing about three years after it was holden, speaks of its
'154 great humility and holiness, that they were for the more part metropolitans, of such condition and doctrine, that almost all could dispute about matters of faith, and yet they claimed nothing for themselves, but were careful to hand down nothing to those after them, which they had not themselves received from the Fathers.'
S. Cyril in his Apology to the Emperor, calls them '155 men, very well known to your Mightiness, and exceeding well spoken of for excellence in all things.'
Nestorius came to the Council ' 156 immediately after the Feast of Easter' with 10 or 15 Bishops, his adherents 157. He was also supported by a few Pelagian Bishops, whom he had admitted to Communion, and who for the time were retained in their office by the requirement of Theodosius, that everything should remain as it was, until the decision of the Council. He is said to have found |lxxiv many Bishops present. If so, they must have been Bishops from the Exarchate of Ephesus. For the rest are related to have arrived later. The Council was the plan of Nestorius, and he naturally came among the first, to guide, as he hoped, its decisions. S. Cyril, on his arrival, found that there had been active, though ineffectual, efforts against the faith. He wrote, '158 The Evil one, the sleepless beast, is going about, plotting against the faith of Christ, but avails nothing.' The Evil one is, of course, Satan; but Satan acts through human agents. Nestorius says, that he had no intercourse with S. Cyril. He wrote to Scholasticus, an Eunuch of the Emperor and his friend; 'Cyril has both heretofore entirely avoided any converse with us, and until now avoids it, thinking that he shall thereby escape the conviction of the Chapters [the anathemas] because without contradiction they are heretical 159.' If (as has been conjectured) it was at this time that S. Cyril made the extracts from the works of Nestorius, and possibly those from older writers 160, containing the true doctrine, he had |lxxv enough to do. There is no reason to think that S. Cyril preached at this time against Nestorius 161.
The pure humanitarianism of Nestorius was elicited by the attempts of Theodotus of Ancyra, and his pious friend, Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, to bring him back to the faith. To Theodotus and several others, he repeated the well-known blasphemies about our Lord's sacred Infancy and Childhood, that he would not call Him God, who was two or three months old, or who was nurtured at the breast, or who fled into Egypt 162. This was stated upon oath to the Council. There was nothing further to investigate. It supplied what was yet wanting, the knowledge that Nestorius had not laid aside the heresy, for which he had been condemned the year before. S. Celestine had given the formal advice to S. Cyril 163, that if |lxxvi Nestorius came to a better mind, he should be received. He had, up to the moment of the opening of the Council, made things worse. He had taken into his own mouth the blasphemies, which before he had sanctioned in his adherent, Dorotheus. If one who nakedly denied the Incarnation was not fit to be Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius had decided against himself. It brought out what lay in his letter to S. Cyril which was formally condemned by the Council, that our Lord's relation to God was the same in kind, although not in degree, as that of any devout Christian.
There could be no question among any who listened to the evidence, as there was none among any of those who heard it. He was deposed on the evidence of his own letter to S. Cyril, of twenty sayings in his acknowledged works, and of contradictions to the faith in Ephesus itself.
S. Celestine had, it seems, collected a new Synod 164 at Rome, from which he wrote to the Council. The Council itself reported that
'165 although the whole multitude of Bishops were hindered from coming to Ephesus by the distance, yet being gathered in those parts, they, Celestine presiding, with entire consent, uttered our mind as to the faith. Those who came, explained to this our Synod by letter the mind of the whole Western Church.'
Philip, a presbyter, and Roman legate, after reading the Acts, declared that all things had been adjudged '166 according to the Canons and Ecclesiastical discipline.' |lxxvii
After long canvass on the part of the deputies of John's party to obtain a rescinding of the sentence of the Synod, the Prefect at last wrote to Nestorius,
'167 We have delayed long what seemed to be done by the judgment of the Synod, although many greatly blamed us and were instant that it should be. But now the letters of your Holiness have been delivered to us, shewing that the lingering at Ephesus is distasteful to you, and that your Religiousness desires to journey, we have directed those, who ought to minister to you along the whole journey, to minister to you [by sea or land], on the whole way to your monastery.....We do not suppose that you need consolation, considering the wisdom of your soul, and the many thousand goods by which you are endowed above all others.'
Nestorius in his answer accepts as a gift the command to live in his monastery.
'168 For nothing is more honourable to us, than a removal for piety. But I beseech your Highness, for the sake of religion, often to remind the pious Prince to set a note everywhere, by public Imperial letters, on the verbosities of Cyril which his Piety has adjudged, so that it should be read throughout the orthodox Churches, lest in the absence of letters of the pious Emperor, if the writings of Cyril should be said to be condemned by him, an occasion of scandal should arise to the simple, as if it were not said truly.'
Nestorius does not seem to mind his own deposition, so that the sentence against Cyril and |lxxviii Memnon be also confirmed; as Count John reported to the Emperor, that the party of John bore patiently the notice of the deposition of Nestorius, when united with that of Cyril and Memnon 169.
The public account which Nestorius gave 170, was, that 'he was allowed, at his own request, to retire to his monastery,' which was not more than two furlongs outside of Antioch.
There, Nestorius says, he 'received all sorts of honours and respectful presents.'
There, he himself says, he remained for four years. The adjuration of S. Celestine to Theodosius 171 to 'remove him from all intercourse [with others], that he might have no facility to destroy others,' remained unheeded. After four years, by the decree of Theodosius, he was banished to the Oasis. Evagrius 172 supplies the fact, that his former friend John of Antioch reported to the Emperor his continued blasphemies, and so 'Theodosius condemned him to perpetual banishment.'
He was removed from propagating his heresy personally, but could and did write in defence of it. The Oasis, to which he was finally removed, was a place not unpleasant in itself. It was however open to the incursions of a hostile tribe, the Blemmyes. With his sufferings there, in consequence of edicts of the Emperor, the Church had nothing to do. His treatment by the Emperor is unexplained. But the sufferings were God's temporal judgement inflicted through the State. The |lxxix Church was guiltless of them. Yet since "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth," they shewed that God had not abandoned him to the last.
* * *
S. Cyril's relation to Nestorius ended with the sentence upon him. His own troubles then began. S. Cyril himself, on his arrival, had anticipated a speedy close of the Council 173. The Bishops had urged S. Cyril to hasten the hearing. '174 Some of the Bishops were weighed down by years; some were in peril of life through illness; some had died; some were straitened by poverty.' The Council had waited 16 days after the day of Pentecost, which the Emperor had peremptorily fixed for the opening of the Council. The whole Synod had exclaimed that he did not wish to be present. They supposed that he feared, ' 175 lest the Most Reverend Nestorius, who had been taken from the Church under his jurisdiction, should be deposed, and was perhaps ashamed of the business.'
John's delay might well be puzzling in those days when tidings travelled slowly. He himself did not explain it to the Council, although he did subsequently to the Emperor. There had been a scarcity at Antioch and consequent tumults among the people, so that much time was wasted in setting out. Incessant rains made the roads bad. Of all this the Bishops at Ephesus naturally knew nothing. They knew only that he had chosen the slow land-journey instead of coming by sea, and |lxxx even thus, under ordinary circumstances, he might have been punctual. Antioch was, by land, only 30 days' 176 journey from Ephesus. From the close of Easter-week to Pentecost there are 41 days, and 14 more had elapsed before there was any notice of his arrival. Why should he delay, except that he did not wish to be there? Even Eutherius 177, a Nestorian, thought that he delayed on purpose.
According to the statement of John, S. Cyril wrote to him two days before the opening of the Council, that the whole Council was awaiting his arrival. He meant then to wait for him. Moderns speak of S. Cyril as arbitrary; no one has ventured to say he was fickle. Something then must have intervened, which occasioned him to yield to the wish of the Bishops. The change would be explained, if S. Cyril had come in the meantime to know of the mind, in which the Antiochenes were coming to the Council. They made no secret of it. Their deputies may have informed S. Cyril. Theodoret, who was one of them, and who at that time used Nestorianising language which was condemned at the th General Council, says,
'178 Before we departed to Ephesus, the blessed John wrote to the most-God-beloved Bishop Eutherius of Tyana, and Firmus of Caesarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra, calling these Chapters, teaching of Apollinarius. And at Ephesus our deposing him of Alexandria and him of Ephesus had for its ground the setting forth and confirmation of the Chapters. And there were many Synodical letters written to the Victorious Emperor, and |lxxxi the High Magistrates, and in like way to the people at Constantinople, and the most reverend Clergy. And moreover, when summoned to Constantinople, we had five resolutions in the presence of the Emperor himself, and we sent three protests to him subsequently.'
These charges were the pith of the different documents put forth by John's Conciliabulum. Of course, contravention of the Emperor's orders was put in the forefront; but no assembly, calling itself a Synod, could have deposed a Patriarch and a Bishop for neglecting or contravening the orders of an Emperor. The heresy alleged could be the only ground of deposition. John set forth this in the preamble which was accepted by his Conciliabulum.
'179 I would that no one of those set apart as priests of God should be cast out of the Church. But since the excision of incurable members is necessary for the health of the whole body, it is meet that Cyril and Memnon should be deposed, as the chiefs of the past lawlessness and of the trampling upon Ecclesiastical ordinances and the pious decrees of our most pious Emperor, and on account of the heretical meaning of the aforesaid Chapters, and that those subject to them should be excommunicated, until, recognizing their offence, they anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril, and agree to abide by the holy faith set forth by the holy fathers assembled at Nice, not superadding any thing other than it or foreign to godliness, and come together according to the pious letter of our most pious Emperor and examine as brothers the subjects of enquiry, and establish the pious faith.'
This same note sounds throughout, in every document of John's Conciliabulum 180. |lxxxii
If S. Cyril had any intimation of this mind of the Antiochenes, it accounts for his sudden resolve not to wait for them, but to accede to the wishes of the other Bishops and open the Council without them. The mind of the Church had been expressed in the previous year. The Council itself was only a device of Nestorius to ward off his condemnation. He had already been severed from the Communion of the greater part of Christendom. The Council |lxxxiii represented the whole West, North Africa, Egypt, Jerusalem, Macedonia, Illyricum, Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia. The 15 or 17 181 Bishops of John of Antioch, even if united with the 10 or 15 182 Bishops of Nestorius, were but a fraction of the Church. No injustice was done to Nestorius. But grave confusion and scandal might have ensued upon John's arrival. If John had brought into the Council the charge of heresy, which his Conciliabulum alleged so perseveringly against S. Cyril and Memnon, it would have rested with Candidian, the friend of Nestorius, to rule in what order the charges should be taken. Candidian threw himself so entirely into John's side (even in intercepting the Relation of the Council to the Emperor), that he would, without doubt, have preferred the charge of heresy against S. Cyril. What the result would have been, He only can know, Who sees the things which have not been, as if they had been. We cannot write the things which have not been, since God Alone knows the hearts which He made, and how they would have developed under trials which He spared. But Nestorius had shewn himself practised in inflicting violence, as Dioscorus up to the eve of the Latrocinium had not. Soldiers of Theodosius had not much respect for Bishops. Those who carried the news of the deposition of Nestorius to Count Irenaeus brought back to the Council the marks of their ill-treatment 183. Nestorius had brought his own guard of soldiers and a great number of peasants and others from the worst parts of Constantinople. Candidian had |lxxxiv drawn troops from the garrison at Tripoli in Lydia. It has been noticed that the seamen who brought S. Cyril were ready to support him, and the peasantry of the lands of the see of Ephesus to support Memnon. The whole population of Ephesus were enthusiastic in behalf of the ancient doctrine, as they shewed by their exuberant joy 184, when the sentence, for which they had waited from morning to evening, was announced.
It would be mere matter of imagination to picture anything further. But the second Council of Ephesus, which became the Latrocinium under the guidance of Dioscorus, was called just as legitimately as the first.
However this may have been, it does not require much humility to think that S. Cyril, in the midst of the events, knew more than we, who see them only through some fragmentary records of the past. Even apart from the menace of Candidian, one so long-sighted as S. Cyril must have known that he would incur the grave displeasure of Theodosius, by superseding his orders; that there was a strong prima-facie case of contravening them against him; and that the Emperor, who had written to him as he had, was not one to be trifled with. Yet he braved it all. It was of moment to the Church, that the heresy of Nestorius should be condemned. The sentence once passed could not be reversed; because the whole Church except the Antiochenes agreed in it.
So S. Cyril assented to the wish of the Council not to delay, and braved the Emperor's displeasure, expecting it to fall on himself alone. |lxxxv
His earthly future, after the Council was over, remained for some time in the balance. Candidian sent to the Emperor an adverse report 185; John's Conciliabulum sent their complaints 186, as if they had been the Council; Nestorius sent his account 187; S. Cyril was not heard. Theodosius first condemned the condemnation of Nestorius; annulled the proceedings of the Council; forbade any Bishop to leave Ephesus, to come to his Court or to return home 188. The adherents of Nestorius in Constantinople hindered any tidings of his deposition coming both by sea and by land 189: Candidian precluded access at a distance 190. S. Cyril's deposition by John's Conciliabulum was reported at Constantinople, as if it were the act of the Council 191; it was (S. Cyril understood) consequently deliberated at Court, whether he should not be banished 192.
His deposition was accepted, and he himself put under a guard of soldiers placed even at his bedroom door. Memnon wrote 193, that they were sometimes deprived of necessaries 194, were insulted by the rustics and the rabble which Nestorius had brought. S. Cyril was at peace. He wrote,
'195 Since the letter of the most religious and Christ-loving |lxxxvi Emperors has been read, in which it was said that the deposing of the three was to be accepted, we have been kept in ward, not knowing what will be the issue. But we give thanks to God, if we be thought worthy for His Name's sake not to be prisoners only, but also to endure all besides. For it is not without its reward.----As the blessed David says, "I am ready for the scourge." '
At the wish of the Council, he employed the leisure of his imprisonment in explaining his Anathematisms 196.
The Conciliabulum, in transmitting 'the Alexandrian's new exposition of the heretical chapters,' said that he 'thereby shewed his impiety more evidently 197.' They even wondered at the perseverance of the Council, notwithstanding the imprisonment of Cyril and Memnon. They write as a Synod,
'198 Count John holds in most guarded custody Cyril and Memnon, thrusting [detrudens] each apart, and placing a multitude of soldiers around the house of each. Yet not even thus are they still, who turn every thing upside down and have filled the world with confusion and sedition, but acting as usual, make a confusion, and set in motion a rule against themselves. For, being excommunicated, they have audaciously assumed to themselves the ministry of the priesthood, &c.'
And again in their Epistle to Acacius of Berrhoea,
'199 Your Religiousness should know that they [the Bishops of the Council] have been excommunicated by us, because they co-operated with the insanity of the heretic Cyril and what he did unlawfully and iniquitously, and |lxxxvii have presumed to exercise their office and to communicate with the condemned.----And these things they commit, knowing that those most injurious persons Cyril and Memnon have been thrust [trusi] away and are kept by a multitude of soldiers. For thrusting [trudentes] each apart, they guard them night and day; wherefore let your Holiness pray &c.'
The Bishops of the Council seem also to have thought that it was the intention of the Nestorianisers to wear them out to undo what they had done. A brief memorial at the end of their letter to the Clergy of Constantinople says,
'200 We are being killed with the heat through the heaviness of the air, and some one is buried almost daily; so that all the servants are sent home, and all the other Bishops are in the same state. Whence we pray your Reverences to go to the gracious Sovereign and say that the Synod is oppressed by those, who prevent any term being given, so that we are altogether perishing by exhaustion. But your Reverences should know, that although they press upon us till we all die, we will not do any thing other than our Saviour Christ has taught us to decree.'
The cordon was drawn with all safety to hinder any report from the Council reaching the Emperor's ears. It was snapped by a mendicant. The Clergy of Constantinople wrote,
'201 Since no one can do any thing against God (for what is man?), by the ordering of God there arrived an Epistle written from Ephesus to the holy Bishops and monks sent by a beggar who tied it within a reed, and thus, begging and carrying his reed, brought it. Forthwith all the monasteries with the Archimandrites arose and |lxxxviii went to the palace. The holy Dalmatius, one of the Archimandrites, had not left his monastery for 48 years, but remained enclosed. Our most pious Emperor went to him and saw him. There being ofttimes earthquakes in Constantinople, the Emperor ofttimes requested him to come forth and say litanies; he never would. But when he was praying about this, a voice came down from heaven bidding him go forth. For He did not will that His flock should perish utterly.'
The Archimandrites, who were admitted, prevailed. Theodosius learnt with surprise 202 that while the Nestorians had free ingress and regress, the deputies of the Council had been refused access to him.
The Emperor tried in vain to reconcile the Antiochenes with S. Cyril.
The Antiochenes, in their third indignant protest 203, reproached the Emperor with their obedience, reminded him that the East was no small part of his Empire, that he needed the true faith to prevail in the war which then encircled Africa, that God would fight for him, if he would defend the holy faith, and would not allow the body of the Church to be cut of, but it would be cut off, if the meaning superinduced on the faith by Cyril and confirmed by others should stand; that persons intermixed with the Churches taught the doctrine of Apollinarius and Arius and Eunomius, and unlawfully and irregularly exercised the office of the priesthood. They conclude with the prayer that he |lxxxix would not allow any thing to be stealthily introduced against the faith of the holy fathers who met at Nice. If after this admonition before God the Emperor did not acquiesce, they 'with S. Paul shook off the dust from their feet against them, saying, "We are clean from the blood of all men." "We have not ceased night and day, from the time we came to the holy Synod to protest to the Emperor, Judges, soldiers, priests, and laymen, not to be the betrayers of the faith delivered by the fathers.'
It was an internecine war, continued even after the return of the Eastern Bishops to their sees; the Easterns still absolutely demanded the deposition of S. Cyril Memnon and all their adherents, and that their teaching should be proscribed.
* * *
S. Cyril shewed his peace-loving disposition on his return to Egypt. The Orientals had brought upon him his imprisonment, its privations and indignities, and the prospect of banishment. This they had done by aping a Council, yet without the formalities of a Council, without enquiring into anything which the real Council had done, assuming that they had done what they had not done----formally sanctioned the Anathematisms which S. Cyril had framed, not as a rule of faith but to cut off the evasions of Nestorius, and that these Anathemas were heretical. They had persuaded the Emperor, that their 40 Bishops, who represented one Patriarchate, were the Council of the whole world, which he had convoked. Until they found it useless to mention the name of Nestorius |xc to the Emperor 204, they urged his restoration and the deposition of S. Cyril. He had escaped in despite of them. They would not be persuaded that Nestorius was the heretic which he was; and they would repeat that S. Cyril was an Arian, Eunomian, Apollinarian, although they must have known that at the least he was neither Eunomian nor Arian.
There was nothing then for S. Cyril to do in regard to them. They had fallen into the trap which Nestorius had laid for them by sending the Anathemas meant to test his own sincerity, without the Epistle which would have explained them. It became an axiom with Theodoret that they were heretical. S. Cyril then could but wait. S. Sixtus iii., a peace-loving Bishop who had succeeded S. Celestine, bears him witness that he had shewed at once how mindful he was of the faith and how regardless of contumelies, which he suffered gloriously, according to the Apostle, wishing that the Churches should be well-ordered, rather than that he should be righted himself; that one [Nestorius] having wrecked himself, he was anxious that all the rest should be saved out of the waves. 'The same mind is in us also; to act tenderly towards them, when they cease to be impious towards God. Let those then, who will to return to the right way, be received.' He addresses S. Cyril himself,
'205 Hold fast, most beloved brother, what has been done by the Council, and what has been defined by us. For a brother dismisses contumelies which benefit him before the Lord of all. For such contumely is victory. |xci Whence he has borne meekly all the sharp blows, nor did those things grieve him, wherein he now rejoices; for he strove for a crown. For he knows what prizes are in store for the victors in such conflicts.'
S. Sixtus coincided altogether with S. Cyril, but spoke strongly; 'let him [John] know that he shall be one of the Catholic body, if, undoing all undone by the Synod, he shew himself a Catholic priest.'
S. Cyril required nothing for himself. The Bishops, whom the Emperor assembled at Constantinople, propounded the terms, at which the Emperor was 'exceedingly pleased.'
'206 The Bishop, full of piety, John of Antioch, must anathematise the doctrine of Nestorius, and acknowledge in writing his deposition; and this being done, the Bishop of Alexandria will, out of love, forget altogether and regard as nothing the contumelies which he endured at Ephesus, very grievous as they were, and hard to endure.'
John's party would not accept them. The first conditions of peace on John's side, which Aristolaus, the Emperor's deputy, selected as the mildest 207, were in fact, of unconditional submission.
The terms were,
'208 We acknowledge the Nicene Creed as sufficient, but the letter of S. Athanasius to Epictetus explains its meaning. We abide therefore therein, and cast off all |xcii doctrines recently superinduced, either by Epistles or Chapters, as disturbing the common faith:'
i. e. he was to acknowledge that he, not Nestorius, had been the disturber of the Church. S. Cyril most gladly 209 received the Epistle to Epictetus 210, but shewed them that their own copies had been corrupted by heretics 211. For the rest, he said that to withdraw what he had written would be to unsay all which had been said against the heresy of Nestorius. He was, in fact, to withdraw by his single act Epistles, of which one had been accepted by the Council of Ephesus, individually and as a body, the other, with the anathemas, had been placed among its Acts (no one excepting), and undo his whole work at the dictum of John and five other Bishops.
The Orientals then selected a wiser envoy, Paul of Emesa. Yet even him they burthened with complaints, 'as if some things had been said and done wrongly' in the Synod. This occasioned the only reminiscence of the past ill-treatment, ' 212 They who ought to seek pardon for the past, how do they add fresh contumelies?' When these were withdrawn, S. Cyril says, 'we were filled with gladness of heart;' and 'contrary perhaps to his expectations,' Paul found him fully disposed for peace 213. S. Cyril's relation shews how deeply he felt the rent as a work of Satan. He accepted at once a Confession, written (John said in his letter to S. Cyril) 'by us |xciii in harmony 214.' He gave to Paul a statement of faith, which John accepted. Paul preached in the great Church of Alexandria 215. 'The people cried out, This is the Faith, the gift of God, orthodox Cyril. This we sought to hear.' S. Cyril wrote to John the exulting letter, beginning with the words of the Psalm, 'Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad. For the middle-wall of partition is dissolved; what saddened has ceased; all manner of discord is removed. For Christ, the Saviour of us all, has bestowed peace upon all His Churches.'
He says, in a sort of under-tone to Maximian 216 who had succeeded Nestorius,
'Strife and contention reign not among us, but we have all one mark, looking to peace. And if those who from the first have differed in opinion from us and cut themselves off from us, had willed, there would have been no strife or difference among the Churches. But blessed be the Saviour, Who hath lulled the storm &c.'
It was S. Cyril's lot, then as now, to be misunderstood. He was blamed as to the peace, as, before, for the conflict. Theodoret could not but acquiesce in the acceptance of his own Synodal letter, but held it to be directly contradictory of the twelve Chapters 217. To his lord and truly God-loving and venerable holy father Nestorius' he apologises for the peace, and assures him, that he holds Cyril in abhorrence, as being the author of all the disturbance of the whole world 218. The |xciv Nestorianizers were of course very angry; but he had to explain himself, even to his old friend Acacius of Melitene as also to others 219. He whom the Orientals had so unrelentingly persecuted was now their defender, shewing that they were not Nestorians, and trying patiently to win back to the Communion of the Church individuals still alienated.
He had to bear what was still harder, the reproaches of S. Isidore, to whom he had a filial affection 220. S. Isidore 221 had told him before of 'the jeers of many at Ephesus, as if thou wert wreaking thine own enmity, and not seeking, as one orthodox, the things of Jesus Christ. For, say they, he is a nephew of Theophilus.'
He had again set forth to him the faith of the Incarnation 222 as something which 'thou thyself wouldest not deny,' and now, when S. Cyril had himself accepted the same statement as propounded by him, he wrote,
'223 Wondrous man, thou oughtest to remain ever unchanged, not betraying the things of heaven, nor appearing contradictory to thyself. For if thou comparest what thou hast now written with thy former writings, thou wilt seem chargeable with flattery, or the minister of off-handed ness, yielding to vain-glory, instead of imitating the strivings of all those great holy |xcv combatants, who endured to be ill-treated all their life in a foreign land, rather than even hear a thought of evil doctrine.'
S. Isidore, in his zeal for S. Cyril's perfecting, seems to have written to him according to the sayings of others. It must have been hard to be so unjustly blamed by a saint, but S. Cyril seems to have received the undeserved censure in silence.
* * *
One more occasion is recorded in which a public expression of opinion was asked of him, as to the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
The Council, while sparing his name, had already condemned a Creed of his, which had been presented by some Nestorians to many Quartodecimans and Novatians who wished to return to the Church 224. S. Proclus sent to John of Antioch a Tome containing Nestorian passages of Theodore (equally sparing his name), requesting him to have them condemned. Maximus, the bearer, contrary to his instructions, inserted the name. The Antiochenes, after this, would not condemn the passages, even without the name 225. Maximus 226, an Archimandrite, came to Alexandria, 'speaking much and strongly' against the Easterns, the 'orthodox have no room there nor freedom to speak the faith.' '227 A noble officer of the Palace presented to S. Cyril, when at Jerusalem, a long Epistle of many Clergy and monks and laity, accusing the Eastern Bishops, that they, suppressing the name of Nestorius, professed to be |xcvi averse to him, and bounded down to the books of Theodore on the Incarnation, in which lie many more grievous blasphemies than those of Nestorius. For he was the father of the ill-doctrines of Nestorius, and by speaking his words, the ungodly man is in his present condition.' The Alexandrians, having refused to sign the Tome of S. Proclus, appealed to S. Cyril 228. S. Cyril indignantly set aside any likeness of 'the ill-reputed doctrine of Diodore and Theodore' to that of the great fathers whom John alleged 229. To John of Antioch he wrote 230, that no one should utter in Church the ungodly doctrines of Theodore; but he dwelt on the tenderness, with which those returning should be received, and not be reproached for the past: to Proclus 231, that Theodore had died in the communion of the Church; that in rejecting his Creed the Council had purposely spared his name, lest some should separate from the Church; that in rejecting the blasphemies of Nestorius they had virtually condemned what was like them; that if it could be done without disturbance, it would be best for the sake of others; but that since John of Antioch wrote, that 'they would rather be burned with fire than do anything of that sort, why should we fan the stilled flame?' that those who wished the writings to be condemned might be persuaded to be quiet rather than give occasion of scandal to the Church. To Maximus, who would not communicate with John because of |xcvii some suspected of Nestorianism, he wrote 232 urging the reception of those willing to return to communion, even though ashamed to own their fall.
Everywhere he is the peace-maker. The veteran pilot, who, under God, had guided the ship through the storm, sat, watching each cloud, as it arose. His one thought was, 'Peace has been restored; take we heed that it be not again broken.'
S. Cyril thought it indeed right to correct in writing the errors of Theodore; but this disturbed no peace, since Theodore was gone. Theodoret, as usual, wrote against him, but Theodoret had not S. Cyril's accurate Theological mind. S. Cyril, in his 9th Anathematism, called God the Holy Ghost, 'the Very own Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ' adopting the language of S. Athanasius, that '233 the Holy Spirit was the Very own Spirit of the Son.' Theodoret declaimed chiefly, as if S. Cyril had said this of the Humanity of our Lord, not of His Godhead; but adds, at the end, the sad words, 'If he so calls Him as One in Nature and proceeding from the Father, we will receive it; but if, as having His existence from the Son or through the Son, we will fling it away as blasphemous and ungodly.' Theodoret could not have been, at that time, acquainted with the great writers before him, S. Dionysius of Alexandria, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, S. Epiphanius, S. Cyril of Jerusalem 234, who used the 'from' or the 'through' which he 'flings' from him. S. Cyril's well-weighed and |xcviii full language has continued to teach man until now. The impetuous language of Theodoret, if it had had any lasting weight, would have fostered the disbelief of any relation between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, contrary to our Baptismal Creed.
Theodoret thought good to defend Theodore against S. Cyril, arguing against all the authorities which S. Cyril had adduced 235. The one fragment which remains is written sharply 236. S. Cyril had explained and re-explained his Anathematisms against Theodoret's attacks; for the alienated Antiochenes had to be reconciled, and a breach to be healed. This censure of his work against Theodore concerned only himself, so he went on his way in peace.
* * *
S. Cyril's strong natural love has been incidentally noticed 237. One could hardly picture him, such as he has been ordinarily represented, in advancing years, enfolding and kissing the letter of his friend Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, enquiring about a type in the Old Testament, 'the scapegoat 238.' Yet since all service to God must involve self-denial, perhaps one of strong natural love was the fitter instrument of God for the hard service of that dreary warfare, as it must have aided him in the congenial office of reconciling the alienated.
Outward events give but little insight into the inward mind. S. Cyril is now chiefly known (as far as he is known at all) as the zealous defender of the Faith. But it was the Faith in Him, his |xcix God and his All. Many must have been his peaceful years before he was called out by the needs of his own people, to defend the truth of God against a living assailant. His work against the Emperor Julian (which even his opponent Theodoret admired 239, in the midst of his hottest hostility) was written, he says, on the exhortation of many, because the heathen perplexed Christians, alleging that he was not refuted, because he could not 240. This then too was written out of a love for souls. He himself explained to Nestorius that, in his book on the Holy Trinity, he had written some things akin to what he then wrote, but with no reference to him, since it was written before Nestorius himself wrote.
Controversy was not his natural element. Cassiodorus counts him among those who were said 241 at least to have commented on the whole of Holy Scripture. His Commentaries are the largest portion of His extant works, yet these are but a part of a larger whole 242. From these peaceful meditations on God's word he was roused by the disturbance of his monks through writings of Nestorius. |c
It has been noticed already 243 that types of our Lord were the chief object of interest to him in his first book on the Pentateuch, 'on the adoration in spirit and in truth:' his faith in the Incarnation and our union to God through It, are naturally prominent, as indeed it gleams through everywhere 244. His was the exact contrary of the mind of Theodore of Mopsuestia of the Antiochene school: as has been said of our Bishop Horne and another, 'the one sees Christ every where, the other no where.' A mind which so meditates on God's word, not on particular expressions, but on the whole, is not that of the fierce controversialist which some of late have pictured him.
* * *
It remains only to collect what has been said as to the contents of this volume.
i. The Five books against Nestorius. 'These,' it has been said 245, 'may be well called, a Defence of S. Proclus. For S. Cyril in it mainly answers the |ci sermons preached by Nestorius against S. Proclus. For the first two books are on the Virgin being Θεοτόκος, and the term 'birth' ascribed to God; the third is of His being our Priest, Who is God; the fourth and fifth are for the most part on God suffering and dying.'
S. Cyril himself says that he undertook the work with reluctance, but that the homilies were written in a popular and attractive style and were full of heavy accusations against the doctrines of the truth, and left him no choice 246. Nestorius is not named in it. Hence it has been inferred that the work was written before the Council of Ephesus 247. Photius notices that 'in the first book, he refutes six heads of the blasphemies of Nestorius; in the second, 14; in the third, 6; in the fourth and fifth, 7 each.' He adds 248 that 'his mode of interpretation is framed according to his wonted way of expression, yet brought down to a lower style.'
ii. The Scholia are said by Photius to 'contain much which is useful.' S. Cyril, with his wonted simplicity, speaks of them as '249 brief expositions of the dispensation of Christ, very good and useful.' A modern writer says, '250 The value of the work may be inferred from this, that scarce any subsequent writer, who employed the authority of Cyril in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation, failed to take a passage or more from the Scholia.' This work also was quoted, with two other passages of S. Cyril, among the testimonies from the books of Catholic fathers, appended to the Epistle of S. Leo |cii to the Emperor Leo 251. It closed the collection laid before the Council of Chalcedon 252 and then ensued the acclamations, 'Eternal be the memory of Cyril.----Leo and Cyril taught alike.' It is quoted even by Theodoret 253 with sayings of 19 other fathers, in proof that 'Saints distinguished the Natures after the Union.' He alleges three places from it 254, two from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews 255, one from the Epistle to Nestorius 256, one from the defence against the Easterns 257, and two more not identified. The Scholia are quoted also by Facundus 258, Leontius of Byzantium 259, and S. Ephrem of Antioch repeatedly 260. They not only quote it as S. Cyril's, but confirm the faith by testimonies from it.
It was translated into Latin by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator. It is extant also in a Syriac translation, from which my son, here and there, corrected or explained the Latin text of Mercator.
Garnier remarks upon the careful arrangement which S. Cyril employed in its construction. 'He first explains single words; what is Christ; what, Emmanuel; what, Jesus; what, One; what, Union. Then, he turns to the propositions, commonly used |ciii herein, and discusses in what way Christ is One; Emmanuel, One; Jesus, One; i.e. One Lord, &c. Further, how the Word is said to have been 'emptied,' united with the flesh, made Man, and yet not therefore changed, or ceasing to be God. Thence, how Christ is not a man Θεοφόρος, [bearing God,] or inspired by God, but is really man-God [better, God-Man]; then, in what way the Word is said to dwell in us, to be sent to us, to have His own proper Body, and how the Holy Virgin is said to be Theotocos. Lastly, that the Only-Begotten, appearing in visible flesh is called God and Man; how He suffered: in which last he refutes those who suppose, that things belonging to man can be spoken of God, relatively only. I have already said, that almost every chapter is full of distinctions useful in turning aside the objections of heretics.' Photius divides it into ten heads; '261 These things,' he said, 'are clearly explained in it; What is Christ; in what way the word 'Emmanuel' is to be understood, and what is 'Jesus the Christ;' and in what respect the Word of God is called Man; then, in what respect the Word of God is said to have been emptied; and how Christ is One, and how Emmanuel is One; and what we say is the Union, and about the coal which Elias saw, and other things like these.'
iii. That Christ is One. The treatise must have been written after the condemnation of Nestorius, since he is refuted by name in it. It must, however, have been written not later than A. D. 441, since it is quoted by Andrew of Samosata. It is |civ quoted with praise by S. Eulogius 262 and Leontius of Byzantium 263... The Père Garnier says of it; '264 Eo nihil exactius elucubratiusque ad historiam dogmatis Cyrillus scripsit, ut videatur opus artificis praecedentibus laboribus absolute eruditi.'
iv. S. Cyril wrote the three books against Diodore and Theodore of Mopsuestia and that against the Synousiastae or Apollinarians at a later period, when, the writings of Nestorius being proscribed, Nestorianisers betook themselves to those of Diodore and Theodore, the real originators of Nestorianism. The fragments have been collected with great pains from every source, hitherto known. Some were ready at hand, having been collected for the th General Council, and embodied in its Acts; others were collected by John, Bishop of Caesarea, in his defence of the Council of Chalcedon, which is still extant in MS., in Syriac and in Greek at Venice and at Cairo (where my son saw it); others by Severus of Antioch 265. The sources, whence the extracts are derived, are mentioned in the notes. The originals, as extant in Greek and Syriac, are among the collection of Fragments appended to my son's third volume of S. Cyril's Commentary on S. John 266. It is the completest collection extant.
* * *
S. Cyril was my own early teacher on the connection of the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Eucharist, which Hooker all but reached. It |cv was at my wish that, in his uniform filial love, my son took as the central work of his life, to make the text of his works as exact as it could be made. For this he visited libraries in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Mt. Athos, Cairo, Mt. Sinai, and applied to this the knowledge of Syriac, which he had perfected in view of another object which I had suggested to him, the re-editing of that now much undervalued Critical authority, the Peshito. Almighty God was pleased to break off the work "in the midst of the years." If in this completion of his Preface to his volume I have cleared any thing as to the self-forgetful, God-devoted character of my early Benefactor, S. Cyril, thanks be for this also to Him Who gave and Who took away.
E. B. P.
CHRISTMAS EVE, 1881.
[Footnotes numbered and placed at the end]
1. a S. Cyrille d' Alex. Art. i. init.
2. b Ep. 370.
3. c Ep. 25.
4. d Synodicon c. 56.
5. e So the three Paschal homilies of the Archbishop Theophilus preserved by S. Jerome, are addressed, To the Bishops of the whole of Egypt, t. i. 555, 577, 605 Vall.
6. f hom. 7. p. 87 init.
7. g hom. 1. 3 c. 4 a.
8. h pp. 174 d e 175, 176.
9. i "With chapter 7 compare S. Greg. Nazianzen's very similar Anathema directed against Appollinarius' teaching, in his Letter to Cledonius.
10. k p. 263.
11. l [Had he sent the Epistle, John must have known them to have been S. Cyril's.]
12. m Synod. c. 4.
13. n [Passages from Theodoret's reply to the first, second, fourth and tenth anathematism and from his letter to the monks were read in the th General Council before the condemnation of his writings against S. Cyril. Also from allocutions in behalf of Nestorius from Chalcedon after his condemnation at Ephesus; from a letter to Andrew of Samosata, in which he speaks of Egypt [i.e. S. Cyril and the Egyptian bishops] being 'again mad against God,' but owns that those of Egypt, Palestine, Pontus, Asia, and with them the West are against him, and that the greatest part of the world has taken the disease; a letter of sympathy with Nestorius after the reunion of the Easterns with S. Cyril, declaring that, if his two hands were cut off, he would never agree to what had been done against Nestorius, (which however he did when required by the Bishops at Chalcedon); a letter to John of Antioch still condemning the Anathematisms, although accepting the subsequent explanation. Apart from the 'atrocious letter' full of conceits which it is inconceivable how any one could have written, Mercator, a contemporary, says it was one of the charges against Archbishop Domnus, that he had been present when Theodoret preached a sermon, exulting in the peace which would ensue from S. Cyril's death. 'No one now compels to blaspheme. Where are they who say, that He Who was crucified is God?' Mercator from, Gesta quae contra Domnum Antioch. Ep. conscripta sunt p. 276. ed. Garn.]
14. ° There is extant a very careful letter of Theodoret on the Incarnation, written to Eusebius scholasticus, in which Theodoret says, "Nevertheless we do not deny the properties of the Matures, but as we deem those ungodly who divide into Two sons the One Lord Jesus Christ, so do we call them enemies of the Truth who attempt to confuse the natures: for we believe that an union without confusion has taken place and we know what are the properties of the human nature, what of the Godhead." Then after mentioning the two natures of a man which do not part him into two, "thus do we know that our Lord and God, I mean the Son of God the Lord Christ, is One Son after His Incarnation too; for the Union is inseverable even as without confusion." Ep. 21. p. 1085.
15. p Ep. 151.
16. q See bel. p. 20 n. k; p. 24 n. 9; p. 243 n. i.
17. r Ep. 147.
18. s Hom. Pasch. vii. 102 d.
19. t Thes. Dial. i. p. 398 c. quoted p. 192 n. i.
20. u Hab. iii. 2, 550 d.
21. x Ep. 1 ad Nest. Epp. 20 b.
22. y Ep. 1 ad Monach. Epp. 3. a b.
23. z See S. Cyril's first letter to Nestorius, Epp. pp. 19 e 20 a.
24. a Nestorius alludes to this, in the sermon which he preached on the Saturday after he had received S. Celestine's final Letter. Mercat. Opp. p. 76 Bal.
25. b see his sermon just quoted, p. 78 Bal.
26. c Conc. Eph. P. i. c. 16.
27. d Ib. c. 17.
28. e Ib. i. 9.
29. f Epist. v. in Garn. Diss. v. ap. Theodoret Opp. T. v. p. 625 ed. Schulz.
30. g The passage occurs, just as Nestorius accused S. Cyril of garbling it, in Book ii. § 4 p. 54. "We do not possess the complete sermon from which this extract is taken: we do possess in Mercator's translation four sermons on the subject of the Incarnation, from the second of which S. Cyril has several extracts. In the case of this sermon the context leaves no doubt that Nestorius spoke of our Lord's manhood as a separate man, whom our Lord had indefinitely connected with Himself. This long extract of Nestorius has been given in full as matter of candour. The thing itself we have not the means of explaining. Although he makes S. Cyril's extracts from his writings the cause of S. Celestine's belief that his teaching was heretical. S. Celestine, in his letter to himself, says expressly, that his conviction came from his own letters.
"In your letters you have given sentence not so much in respect of our Faith as of your own self, choosing to speak of God the Word differently from what is the Faith of all." Ep. Celestin. ad Nestorium, Conc. Eph. 1. n. 18.
Again to the Clergy and people of Constantinople S. Celestine says,
"he preaches things not to be uttered, persuades things which ought to be shunned, as both his writings sent us by himself with his own signature, and also the memorial of my holy brother and co-Bishop Cyril" &c. Ib. n. 19.
and again writing to John Archbishop of Antioch S. Celestine says,
"he pours into the people most devoted to Christ certain perverse things against the reverence of the Virgin-birth and the hope of our salvation. These things have come to us from the sorrow of the faithful; these things have been published in the books himself sent, and stronger proof yet, these things have been so conveyed to us in letters fortified with the very signature of their author, that one may not any longer doubt." Ib. n. 20.
Helladius bishop of Tarsus and Eutherius Bishop of Tyana in their memorial to S. Sixtus, against S. Cyril, the Council of Ephesus, and the reconciliation thereto of John Archbishop of Antioch, mention this "garbled extract," Synodicon c. 117.
31. h See pp. 185-236.
32. i § 27, pp. 214, 215.
33. k § 36 and 37.
34. l pp. 228, 229 and 232, 233.
35. m See it in S. Cyril's 3 Epistles pp. 55. sqq Oxford, 1872.
36. n p. C.
37. o see p. 321.
38. p p. 16 b.
39. q p. 690 a.
40. r p. 18 d.
41. s p. 692 b.
42. t Opp. v. P. ii. 2. 131 a.
43. u Hist. Conc. § 129 near the end.
44. x See S. Cyril's books against Nestorius, pp. 20, 51, 141, 164.
45. y see Ib. p. 51.
46. z see p. 141.
47. a sec p. 164. g.
48. b Synod. c. 3.
49. c Ep. Conciliab. Eph. (post Conc. Eph. Act.i.) ad Imp.
50. d S. Cyrilli Apol. ad Imp. p. 252 c.
51. * Conc. Eph. Act. v. n. 2.
52. e l. c. p. 251 b c.
53. f Synod, c. 7.
54. g It forms Vol. 7 of his collected works, also published by Stephen Baluz, is incorporated into subsequent editions of the Concilia, and again with some additions and corrections, after a fresh inspection of the manuscript by Mansi.
55. h Epp. Opp. v. 2. p. 152 c.
56. i See the Compiler's words at the end of cap. 94, "are put in order by Irenaeus in what is called his Tragedy."
57. k Published by Assemani, Bibl. Or. t. 3. 1. pp. 4 sqq.
58. l c. 25.
59. m Ib. pp..38, 39.
60. n c. 20.
61. ° p. 341.
62. p See on this Formula Card. Newman's exhaustive treatise, 'On S. Cyril's formula of the μία φυσις.' Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, 1874; who however says 'whether S. Athanasius himself used it, is a contested point.' p. 335.
63. q Leontius Scholast. Byzant. de sectis, Actio 8. §§ 4, 5 in Gall. Bibl. Vett. Patr. xii. 651, 652.
64. r Apol. adv. Orient, cap. 8 p. 178 b c d e.
65. s See below p. 320. n. a.
66. t Ep. 1 ad Succens. p. 135. d e: see below p. 321 note. Photius saw it in various writings of his, "These were contained therein [in the codex] various essays of Diodore of Tarsus on the Holy Spirit, in which he too is convicted of having been sick beforehand with the disease of Nestorius." cod. 102 p. 86. Bekk.
67. u Contr. Nest. et Eutych. L. iii. de Nestorianorum impietate secrcto tradita principio. Bibl. Patr. T. ix. p. 696.
68. x Assem. B. O. iii. 1. p. (233 arab.) 236.
69. y Assem. B. 0. i. 347, 348. quoted in Card. Newman's Arians of the th. Cent. p. 24. ed. 4.
70. z Contestatio publice proposita &c. Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 13.
71. a c. Apollin. L. iii. in Synod. v. Coll. iv. n. 1.
72. b 'Uniens eum sibi affectu voluntatis, majorem quandam praestabat ei gratiam.' de Incarn. L. 14. Ib. n. 54.
73. c "He too, meriting adoption by grace, calls God His God, because in like way with other men he received his being." on S. John L. 6, Ib. n. 13.
74. d αἰσχρογενὴς. S. Cyr. Hom. div. p. 383.
75. e Apol. ad Theodos. Conc. Eph. P. 3. c. 13.
76. f Ep. S. Celestin. ad Nest. Conc. Eph. P. i. c. 18.
77. g Commonit. l. c. 16.
78. h Haeret. Fab. iv. 12. Leontius (A. D. 610.) quotes this work in proof how Theodoret held Nestorius in abhorrence, (against a spurious correspondence between Theodoret and Nestorius in which they were made to acknowledge each other) de sectis. iv. 5. Photius (cod. 56.) says of this work of Theodoret, which he had read, 'he goes down to Nestorius and his heresy, pouring upon him unmingled censure. He goes on also to the Eutychian heresy,' (the two last chapters of the ivth. book.) No one attends now to Garnier's paradox that the account of Nestorius was substituted from a younger Theodoret for the original statement of Theodoret, while the account of Eutyches connected with it is to be from Theodoret himself.
79. i Haeret. Fab. iv. 12.
80. k Socr. vii. 29.
81. l Ib. 31.
82. m Evagrius says this on the authority of Theodulus [a presbyter of Coelesyria about A.D. 480.] i. 2.
83. n S. Cyril Ep. 9 ad S. Celestin. p. 37.
84. ° Ps. xlix. 7, 8.
85. p Expressions of Nestorius, while denying the Theotocos. Serm. 1. ap. Mercator.
86. q Theod. Haeret. Tab. iv. 12.
87. r Socr. H. E. vii. 32.
88. s τὰ μορμολύκια.
89. t Ep. ad Alex. in Theod. H. E. i. 3.
90. u Against Arians Orat. iii. n. 14, 29, 30. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. quoted in Newman's S. Athanasius ag. the Arians. Disc. iii. 25. 8. p. 420. n. 1. Oxf. Tr.
91. x Vit. Const, iii. 43. in Ps. 109, 4 p. 703. Montf. Nov. Coll.
92. y Catech. x. 19.
93. z in S. Cyril c. Jul. L. 8. p. 262.
94. a S. Greg. Nyss. Ep. ad Eustath. p. 1093. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29, 4. Ep. 101. p. 85. Ben.
95. b both quoted by S. Cyril de recta fide 49, 50.
96. c de Virg. ii. 7.
97. d de Incarn. ii. 5. vii. 25.
98. e Common. ii. 21. The above are all quoted in Newman's notes on S. Athanasius against the Arians Disc. iii. 26. nn. u and x. Dr. Bright adds Tertullian, de patientia n. 3, 'Nasci se Deus in utero patitur Matris,' and S. Irenaeus, 'ut portaret Deum,' v. 19. See further Dr. Bright's History of the Church p. 312. ed. 3.
99. f Joh. Ant. ad Nest. Conc. Eph. P. 1. c. 25.
100. g Serm. 2 in Marius Mercator ii. 9. ed. Garn.
101. h de Incarn. vii. 30.
102. i in Mercat. pp. 80, 81.
103. j quoted by Pet. de Incarn. v. 15.
104. k Damasc. de fide Chr. vii. 12.
105. l Synod, n. 56.
106. m Conc. Eph. Act. i. init.
107. n Ep. 9. ad Celestin. p. 36.
108. ° Socr. vii. 32.
109. p Evagr. i. 2.
110. q Ep. 6. p. 30.
111. r Nest. Serm, i. in Merc. p. 5.
112. s Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 30.
113. t Ib.
114. u Ep. 1. ad Celestin. Conc. Eph. p. i. c. 16.
115. v ad S.Cyril. Ep. 5. p. 29.
116. x Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 26.
117. y Ep. ad Nest. fin.
118. z See below ad Nest. i. 6. pp. 25, 26.
119. a Cont. Nest. et Eutych. L. iii. He says 'ut aiunt.'
120. b Ep. ad Celest. Conc. Eph. P. 1. n. 16.
121. c Conc. Eph. P. 1. n. 9.
122. d Sacr. Theod. ad Cyril. Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 31.
123. e constipatione laboratis. Nest. Serm. 13. p. 93. Garn.
124. f Merc. Nest. Blasph. Capit. xii. p. 117. Garn.
125. g Ep. Acac. Ber. Cyrillo Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 23.
126. h Ep. ad Celest.
127. i S. Cyr. Ep. 2. Sec an abstract of it, ab. p. xxv.
128. k ap. S. Cyr. Ep. 3.
129. l Ep. 4.
130. m Ib. Ep. 5.
131. n Ep. 6. p. 30.
132. o ad Celestin. Ep. 9. p. 30.
133. p ad quend. Nestorii studiosum Ep. 7. p. 31.
134. q Ep. 3 ad Nest.
135. r Synod, c. 6.
136. s de Christi Tncarnatione adv. Nestorium. Libb. 7.
137. t Ep. ad Celestin. Conc. Eph. P. 1. nn. 16, 17.
138. u Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 24.
139. x Conc. Eph. Act. i. init.
140. y S. Cyril Ep. ad Joh. Ant. Ib. P. i. c. 21.
141. z Arnob. jun. c. Serapion. Bibl. Patr. T. 8. p. 222.
142. a Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 20.
143. b Ib. n. 21.
144. c Ib. n. 25.
145. d Synod. Ep. 3.
146. e Ep. Nest. ad Celestin. in Mercator. P. 2. p. 81. Evagrius quotes from a book, which he wrote in answer to those who blamed him for having wrongly requested that the Synod at Ephesus should be convoked, i. 7.
147. f Conc. Eph. P. 3, c. 23.
148. g Liberatus (c. 4.) says that Nestorius obtained it from him.
149. h Conc. Eph. P. 1. c. 31.
150. i ζηλωτὴν.
151. j Ep. 7. p. 31. Neither the date of the Epistle nor the person to whom it was written is known. It must have been written before the heresy of Nestorius had become so plain.
152. k as ab. p. lxiv.
153. l As translated by Mercator. Opp. T. 2. pp. 53, 54. § xix-xxi. ed. Garn.
154. m Common. i. 42.
155. n Apol. ad Imp. Conc. Eph. P. 3. n. 13.
156. o Socr. vii. 34.
157. p Ten Bishops signed with him "the relation of Nestorius and the Bishops with him to the Emperor concerning the things done in the holy Synod &c." Conc. Eph. Act. i. n. 6. In Baluzii Conc. nova coll. p. 699. six names are added, one omitted.
158. q Ep. ad Alex. Conc. Eph. P. 1. c. 34.
159. r Synodicon c. 15.
160. s S. Cyril has been criticised, because words of Apollinarius were quoted among the authorities as from S. Julius. The words themselves, in their simple meaning, express the truth, and contradict Apollinarianism. Leontius (A.D. 590), who first detected the forgery by use of MSS. says, it contains nothing 'quod nobis adversetur,' i.e. to the Catholic Faith. (de sectis Act. 8.) The words are, 'perfectus Deus in carne et perfectus homo in Spiritu.' Vitalis confessed that 'Christ was a perfect man,' but explained it to mean, 'We say so far that Christ was a perfect man, that we ascribe Divinity to Him instead of a mind.' S. Epiph. Haer. 77. n. 23. See Coustant. Epp. Rom. Pont. App. p. 71. sqq.
161. t The language which Mr. Neale censures [Hist. of the Holy-Eastern Church B. ii. s. 2. p. 237.] occurs in a Homily utterly unlike S. Cyril's style, which Aubert admitted among his homilies, [T. v. 2. p. 279] but not the Editors of the Councils. [See further Dr. Bright's Hist. of the Church, p. 330. n. o.] Of the homilies delivered at Ephesus, the οἱ τοῖς ἱεροῖς [Aub. p. 350] is said in the collection of Baluzius [pp. 546-551] to have been delivered after the deposition of Nestorius. So is the nd τῆς μὲν τῶν ἁγίων Aub. p. 352. These have no allusion to him, nor has the ὁ μακάριος προφήτης p. 354. The φαιδρόν ὁρῶ τὸ σύστημα [Aub. p. 354 also in the Acta Conc. Eph. Act. 1. n. 13. upon which the homily quoted by Mr. Neale seems to be founded] speaks of the condemnation of Nestorius as past, σεαυτὸν ἐξήλειφας, p. 357. ὁ Θεὸς καθεῖλέ σε καὶ ἐξέτιλε. p. 358. The homily, ἒδει μἐν ἀρκεῖσθαι placed by both after the deposition [Aub. p. 358. Bal. p. 548.] scarcely alludes to Nestorius.
162. u Conc. Eph. Act. 1. A Bishop, among his associates, justified the Jews, as having only slain a man.
163. x Ep. ad Cyrill. in Conc. Eph. Act. 2. n. 3.
164. y See Baronius H. E. A. 431. n. 7. sqq. and Pagi. Ib.
165. z Relat. Conc. Eph. ad Imper. Act. iii. n. 1.
166. a Conc. Eph. Act. iii. init.
167. b Synodicon c. 24. The report mentioned by the delegates of John's party that Nestorius 'was sent from Ephesus, to go where he liked' [Epist. Schismat. ad suos. in Eph. Conciliab. n. 12] was accordingly inaccurate.
168. c Synod. c. 25.
169. d Synodicon c. 26.
170. e In a writing, which Evagrius had seen. Evagr. i. 7.
171. f S. Celest. Ep. ad Theodos. Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 21.
172. g l. c.
173. h Conc. Eph. P. 1. n. 34.
174. i Relatio Synodi ad Imp. Conc. Eph. Act. l. n. 7.
175. k S. Cyrill. Epist. ad Com. et Potam. Ib. n. 5.
176. l Evagr. H. E. i. 3.
177. m Synodicon Ep. 201.
178. n Ep. 112. ad Domnum.
179. o Acta Conciliab. post Conc. Eph. Act. 1.
180. p The Synod speaks of 'the Chapters sent lately to Constantinople by Cyril, as agreeing mostly with the impiety of Arius, Apollinarius, and Eunomius;' 'the Sentence' states that the Synod was 'hurried by Cyril, in order that the Chapters which agree with the evil and ungodly doctrine of Apollinarius and Arms and Eunomius might not be enquired into.' The letter to the other Bishops of the Council whom they had excommunicated, says that they had 'abetted the lawless things done by Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon the Ephesian, and maintained intercourse with men of an heretical mind.' They tell the Emperor, that they had so done, 'until they cast out and anathematize the Chapters sent out by Cyril, full of the evil doctrine of Apollinarius and Eunomius and Arius.' John, in his own letter to the Clergy of Constantinople, says that the sentence was passed 'until they anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril the Alexandrian, and receive without guile the faith of the holy fathers gathered at Nice.' To the Senate in Constantinople, they speak of their 'ceasing from their heretical and evil doctrine and recovering the faith of the holy fathers of Nice,' as the condition of their being restored. To the people of Constantinople they say, that they 'do not refuse repentance to the deposed and excommunicate, but would open the doors of loving-kindness, if they will very speedily anathematize the Chapters sent out by Cyril, which are alien from the Apostolic and Evangelic teaching.' They still repeat in their Relation to the Queens, that they 'had deposed Cyril and Memnon, and removed them from the Episcopate, until they become conscious of their wounds and truly repent and anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril, agreeing with this impiety of Apollinarius etc.' (Acta Conciliabuli post Act. 1, Conc. Eph.) The like was repeated in the later Acta of the Conciliabulum and in Theodoret.
181. q See Tillemont, S. Cyrille, Note 43.
182. r See ab. p. lxxiii.
183. s Epist. Memnon. ad Cler. Const. Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n. 14.
184. t S. Cyr. Ep. ad Cler. Const. Conc. Eph. Act. 1. n. 9.
185. u Acta Conciliab. init. (post Conc. Eph. Act. i.)
186. x Lit. Conciliab. ad Imperat. l. c.
187. y Nest. &c. Relat. ad Imp., Conc. Eph. Act. i. n. 6.
188. z Sacra, ap. Acta Conciliab. post Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n. 3.
189. a Rescript. Epp. Const., Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n. 9
190. b Relat. Conc. Ib. n. 8.
191. c Relat. Synod. ad Imp. l. c. Act. v. n. 1. and more fully Relat. 2. Act. vi. n. 12.
192. d Epist. S. Cyr. ad cler. et pop. Const. Act. vi. n. 13.
193. e Ep. Memnon. ib. n. 14.
194. f πάντων ὁμοῦ τῶν ἐπιτηδείων.
195. g Ep. ad Theopempt. Ib. Act. vi. n. 18.
196. h Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 1.
197. i Orient. Ep. ad suos in Const., Acta Conciliab. post Act. vi. Conc. Eph. n. 20.
198. k Svnodicon c. 18.
199. l Ib. c. 19.
200. m Common. ad Cler. Const. Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n. 16.
201. n Rescript. Epist. Const., Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n. 9.
202. o Emperor. 'If it be so, let the Bishops who have arrived come.' Dalm. 'No one allows them to come.' Emp. 'No one hinders.' Dalm. ' They have been controlled and hindered from coming.'
203. p Synodicon c. 35.
204. q Ep. Theodoret. ad Alex. Hierap. Acta 2. Conciliab. n. 13.
205. r Xysti Ep. ad Cyr. in Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. T. i. pp. 46, 47.
206. s S. Cyr. Ep. ad Acac. Melit. Conc. Eph. P. 3. c. 35.
207. t Ep. Alex, ad Andr. Samos. Synod, c. 58.
208. u Propositiones directae ab Acacio Berrh. Cyrillo Alex, in Concilio &c. Synodicon c. 53. The Bishops in whose names Acacius sent it, were John of Antioch, Alexander Hierop., Macarius of Laodicea, Andr. Samos., and Theodoret.
209. v Gratissime.
210. x Epist. Joh. Antioch. per Paul. Emis. Cyrillo, Synod. c. 80.
211. y S. Cyr. Ep. 31. ad Joann. fin. p. 109. Ep. 38. ad Success. v. fin. p. 140.
212. z S. Cyr. Ep. ad Donat. Conc. Eph. P. 3. n. 38.
213. a S. Cyr. Ep. ad Joh. Ant. Conc. Eph. P. 3. c. 34.
214. b Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 30. It is translated by Dr. Bright, Hist. of the Church, pp. 350, 351.
215. c Homil. Paul. Ib. n. 31.
216. d Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 39.
217. e Ep. 171 ad Joh. Ant.
218. f Ep. 172. A very bitter letter against S. Cyril is ascribed to Theodoret in the Synodicon c. 121.
219. g See Tillemont S. Cyrille d'Alex. Art. 126. and the extracts in Liberatus Breviarium c. ix. 'De Cyrilli Epistolis pro Orientalibus scriptis.'
220. h see above p. viii.
221. i S. Isid. Epp. i. 310.
222. j 'That the Very and supreme God became Very Man, not changed from what He was, and taking what He was not, being from two natures One Son, without beginning and without end, recent and Eternal, thou thyself wouldest not deny, having very many evidences thereof from our holy father Athanasius, a man, who, above nature, soared aloft to the things of God.' Ep. i. 323.
223. k Ib. 324.
224. l Conc. Eph. Act. vi. S. Cyril says that it was the Creed of Theodore, in his Epistle to S. Proclus Ep. 54. p. 199.
225. m Fac. pro def. 3 Capp. viii. 2.
226. n S. Cyr. Ep. 59, ad Cler. et Lampon. p. 194.
227. o Ib.
228. p Johan. Ant. et Syn. S. Cyrillo, in S. Cyril. Ep. 50. pp. 192, 193. This in itself refutes the calumny of his old enemy, Count Irenaeus, that S. Cyril, for private reasons, suggested this censure of writings of Theodore.
229. q S. Cyr. ad Joann. Ep. 51. p. 195. ad Acac. Ep. 52. p. 197.
230. r Ep. 51. p. 196.
231. s Ep. 54. p. 199, 200.
232. t Ep. 49. p. 192.
233. u Ep. i. ad Serapion. n. 32. p. 681
234. v See at length in 'On the Clause "And the Son," in regard, to the Eastern Church &c.' pp. 113-123. or Preface to S. Cyril's Commentary on S. John T. i. pp. xxi sqq. 1874. Oxf.
235. w Leont. de sect. Act. 8. B. P. x. 672.
236. x Conc. v. Coll. v.
237. y by my son above, p. xxix.
238. z Ep. 36 ad Acac. p.121.
239. a mentioned Ep. 83.
240. b Praef. ad libb. c. Julian. Opp. T. vi. P. ii. p. 6. Aub.
241. c 'Ferunt.' Cassiod. Praef. ad Institt. init.
242. d His Commentaries on select passages of the Pentateuch, on Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, S. John, are known to all, as forming four out of the seven volumes of his works. Besides these, much of the Commentary on the Gospel of S. Luke has been preserved in the Syriac [published with a translation by Dr. Payne Smith]. Fragments of the Commentary of the Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Hebrews were recovered from Catenae by Cardinal Mai and Dr. Cramer. The Collection, weeded of some passages wrongly ascribed to S. Cyril (as is the wont of Catenae), was edited by my son: some things were added from a MS. of Mount Athos, and the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum [S. Cyril. in D. Joan. Evang. Vol. iii. Oxon.]. Various old authorities say that he also wrote a Commentary on S.Matthew, (Tillemont, S. Cyr. d'Alexandrie Art. 158. v. fin). [The fragments on the Acts and Catholic Epistles, published by the Abbe Migne, did not appear to my son to furnish evidence of having formed a part of a regular Commentary l. c. p. 441. 445]. Of the O.T. large fragments of the Commentary on the Psalms and fragments of a Comm. on Jeremiah have been recovered by Card. Mai. It is certain that he wrote a Commentary on Ezekiel. There are not a few fragments of his Comment. on the Canticles. He also wrote on the book of Wisdom. (See Card. Mai Bibl. Nov. Patr. T. iii. Praef.)
243. e see ab. p. x.
244. f see ab. p. xix.
245. g Garnier, Pref. to 'the fifth Sermon of Nestorius de Deo nato et Virgine Qeoto&kw|, the second against S. Proclus,' in his edition of Marius Mercator P. 2. p. 29.
246. h p. 4.
247. i Tillemont Art S. Cyrille d'Alex. c. 156.
248. j cod. 169.
249. k Common. ad Eulogium. Conc. Eph. P. 3. n. 37.
250. l Garnier Praef. in Scholia in M. Mercator. p. 218.
251. m Ep. 165 ed.Ball.
252. n Conc. Chalc. Act. ii. fin. The passages quoted are from c. 4. init., below p. 189. and c. 13. p. 201.
253. o Dial. ii. fin.
254. p § 4 init. bel. p. 189. § 13. bel. pp. 200, 201. § 27. bel. p. 215.
255. q See my son's S. Cyrilli Comm. in D. Joann. T. iii. App. pp. 420, 421.
256. r S. Cyr. Opp. T. v. P. ii. p. 23. Aub.
257. s Ib. T. vi. p. 157 sq.
258. t pro defens. 3 Capp. L. vi. 3. xi. 7.
259. u c. Nest. et Eutych. L i. quoting c. 35 bel. p. 224.
260. x in Photius cod. 229.
261. y Cod. 169.
262. z in Photius Cod. 230. p. 272 Bekk.
263. a Act, 10. p. 329. d. e.
264. b Diss. ma de haeresi et libris Nestorii, in his edition of Marius Mercator p. 319.
265. c See below, p. 321 note.
266. d S. Cyrilli in B. Joannis Evang. Vol. iii. è Typogr. Clar. 1872.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: cyril_against_nestorius_01_book .htm
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius (1881) Book 1. pp.1-37.
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius. Oxford (1881) Book 1. pp.1-37.
A library of fathers of the holy Catholic church: anterior to the division of the East and West, vol. 47
CYRIL
THE MOST HOLY ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA
FIVE-BOOK CONTRADICTION OF THE BLASPHEMIES OF NESTORIUS
OR THE FIVE TOMES OF S. CYRIL.
[Translated by P.E. PUSEY]
Truth of human writings must be tested by Scripture. Arian errors and against Holy Ghost. Errors of heretics on their heads. Nestorius' book of Homilies. S. John i. 1,3,14,18. True Union of Person. Mother of God. "Made Flesh;" Manichees have no plea; without it, the curse and decay would still have been our lot. " Mother of God" except it express a Truth, may no ways be allowed. 'Passed through,' objected to. To be Incarnate, belongs to one who was, before He was Man. " Mixture " of old used in right sense. One of Nestorius' sermons quoted as owning God and Man in one. συνάφεια. A mother, mother of a man, though the body only is taken of her. Elizabeth mother of S. John the Baptist. Eusebius of Dorylaeum opposes Nestorius in church. GOD the SON had two Births. The Creed of Nicea on the Incarnation. The Creed recited. Nestorius cites from that of Constantinople. "Incarnate" begotten after the flesh. If it did but mean indwelt it would be common to all. S. John's most careful accurate language. That the Virgin Mary bare God, does not exclude the Eternal Generation, nor render her an object of worship.
THOSE who wish to explore the holy Scripture and who drive away negligence in doing so, and thirst rather for the attainment thereof, and apply themselves vigorously and apart from all sloth----the being in every good shall be their's, for they fill their mind with the Divine Light: and then applying it to the doctrines of the Church, they admit every thing that is right and unadulterate, and that most readily, and lay it up in the hidden treasures of their soul, and rejoice as much in what they in their desire of knowledge have collected, as others who are worldly, in insatiably collecting Indian gems or gold, yea rather, yet more: for wisdom is better than costly stones, and every precious thing is not worthy of her, as it is written. For I say that they who are wise and prudent and skilled in the Divine doctrines, ought to remember what has been profitably written by one of the holy Disciples, Brethren try the spirits whether they he of God. And the Divine Paul says that to the saints has been given discerning of spirits. |2
For the one who say Lord Jesus, will say it none otherwise than through the Holy Ghost: and they who out of unlearning let loose a contradicting tongue against them, and wherein those think rightly, these all but say Jesus Anathema, from Beelzebub will they do so. We must then studying to prove all things subtilly and in a finished manner and with mind awake, light on the writings of certain, and test skillfully what words they use of Christ the Saviour of us all, and imitate, and that aright, the most approved and experienced of money dealers, who admit proved coin, and diligently reject the counterfeit and amiss. And to this the blessed Paul invites us saying, Be ye skilful 1 bankers, prove all things, hold fast that which is good, abstain from every form of evil. And it is in other ways also all-disgraceful and unseemly, that in the affairs of this life we should be seen no whit sparing of what conduceth to profit, but rather make it of moment to aim and strive after those things whereby we may live splendidly, and neglect things so sacred and count for nothing the salvation of the soul, but let it sink down in pits and swamps, sometimes exposing unto the mere pleasure of those who choose to say what they ought not, our mind, not vigilant for the truth, nor choosing to search diligently what is the true and profitable meaning of what has been read, what the perverted one and that outsteps accuracy in doctrine and works loss in the soul that looks to it. Yet to the soul is there nought equal in value in their sight who are perfect in understanding.
We must try therefore and that most straitly, writings on the Divine doctrines, and if any should go along with the sacred Scriptures and speed its clear and most unerring way therein, let it be acclaimed by us too with testimonies to its orthodoxy: but if it form its language cold and astray and amiss, yea rather giver of destruction to the readers, let it hear from every mouth, But ye are uttering and telling us another error. |3
Therefore either let them make the tree good and his fruit good, or let them make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt; for the good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bring eth forth evil things, according to the unlying word of the Saviour. For the god of this world blinded the understandings of the unbelieving heretics, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ should shine: and they have been deceived manifoldly. For some (miserable!) say that the Word sprung of God the Father is lesser than He that begot Him, and have not shuddered at apportioning to Him an alien and slave-befitting measure; others, whetting against the Holy Ghost their unholy and intemperate mouth, do rightly hear the Prophet say, But draw YE near hither, ungodly sons, seed of the adulterers and the whore, against Whom did ye sport yourselves? and against Whom opened ye your mouth and on Whom let loose your tongue? are YE not children of destruction, a lawless seed? But these shall walk in their own light and find the flames that themselves kindled: for us whose care is orthodoxy, it is meet that we should give a wise and accurate account of each of the Divine doctrines and should shun the charges [put forth by] their unbridled mouth, lest in ought stumbling and sinning against the brethren and wounding their weak conscience, we sin against Christ, Let us therefore hearken unto Him Who saith, If the enemy had reproached Me, I could have borne it, and if he that hated Me had spoken proudly against Me, I would have hid Myself from him, but THOU, a man Mine intimate, My guide and My friend, who sweetenedst food together with Me, in the house of God we went in harmony. But let these things go upon the heads of the enemy, who war against the glory of our Saviour, and esteem blasphemy against Him, their delicate meat: for us it is meet and necessary (as I said) that we, zealous to savour those things that please Him, should not follow [doctrine] which is alien from truth or which diverges in any other direction, and tends to decay, [but |4 follow] that which is for the good of our flock and is crowned by the Truth itself with testimonies to its rightness.2
And this I say having met with a certain book compiled by some one, having a large collection of homilies, orderly and systematically arranged and in no wise lacking in due appliances for the reader. And if ought had been said by its author, which by passing into forgetfulness should come to nought, I would have deemed it a duty both myself to hold my peace and to counsel others to do the same; lest things so unmeetly and unheedfully said should become known to many others, and to those after us. But since a multitude of blasphemies has been heaped into this book and some great accusation has been made, baying against the doctrines of the truth, how was it not necessary that we in turn should (so to say) strip for combat and should fight in behalf of its readers, that they may not take harm thence, but may rather know how to repulse bravely the damage from what is unrightly said? For the Divine John was called by Christ the Saviour of us all the Son of thunder, and with reason, for that he well-nigh sounded forth o'er all beneath the heaven and thundered over the earth, uttering something vast and immense. For he makes known full well the truly dread and mighty Mystery of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten: for he said, In the, beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: all things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made. But when he had made accurate and complete initiation, and declared that the Only-Begotten being God and ineffably begotten of God by Nature, is Maker and Creator of all things; then, then, in fit season, does he at length begin the allwise economy that for our sakes and in our behalf was wrought, and says, And the Word was made flesh and tabernacled in us (and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. For he said that the Word was flesh, shewing the force of the true union, i.e., understood as one "of Person:" and by saying that He tabernacled in us, he does not |5 allow us to conceive that the Word which is out of God by Nature passed into flesh which is of the earth. For one not thoroughly exact as to what the Divine Nature Which surpasses every thing generate is, might (I suppose) have deemed that It was haply recipient of change and could become regardless of Its own Essentially-accruing goods, and change (so to say) into something other than what It is, and be brought down to the measures of the creation, subjected in unlooked-for way to changes and alterations. But that this is utterly impossible (for the Nature of God is stablished and hath unshaken abidance in that wherein it is), he hath testified saying, that the Word tabernacled in us, albeit made flesh: both skilfully explaining the wisdom of the Economy and guarding full well that the Nature of the Word be not accused by any as though It had become flesh by change and turning aside.
We ourselves too then say, tracking the aim of the inspired, and in no way outstepping the definition of the Faith, that He Who is out of 3 God by Nature, the Only-Begotten, He Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He through Whom are all things and in Whom all things, albeit having before every age and time His Own Existence, and ever co-existing with Him Who begot Him, descended unto voluntary emptiness in the last times of the world, and took the servant's form, i.e., became in our condition and Man economically, and was made like in all things unto His brethren, by partaking similarly of blood and flesh, and that He thus underwent birth with us and like us, and took into Himself the passing into being of His own Flesh, not as needing a second beginning unto being (for the Word was in the beginning and was God) but, that He might gather together the human race, a second first-fruits of all things after that first one, born after the flesh of a woman, according to the Scriptures. For so being Rich, became He poor, bringing us again unto His own wealth and having all in Himself through the flesh which was united to Him. For thus |6 have we been buried with Christ through Holy Baptism, have been raised and made to sit with Him in heavenly places. For so hath written the steward of His mysteries, the herald and Apostle, and minister of the Gospel oracles, the most wise Paul. Necessary therefore, alike to the faith of the Mystery and to the exact demonstration thereof, is the fact of true Union, I mean of Person, that the mode of generation according to the flesh of the Only-Begotten may be without blame, Who was (as I said) called to no second existence (for Himself is the Maker of the worlds), but lowered Himself economically to manhood for our sakes, and despised not the laws of human nature but chose rather to have as His own together with the flesh the fleshly generation too. Therefore do we say that He was born after the flesh Who is ever Co-existent with the Father. For thus condemned He sin in the flesh and He hath brought to nought the might of death in us, made as we, Who knew no sin, in Whom we live and move and are.
But some (I know not how) wrong the most sacred beauty of the dogmas of the Church and wrinkle the holy and all-pure Virgin, bringing her down to the unseemly rottenness of their own ideas and arming against us a multitude of new-fangled inventions. For they accuse, as something bastard and uncomely, yea rather as going beyond all fit language, the word Mother of God, which the holy fathers before us have constructed for the holy Virgin; and sunder, dividing into two several sons, the One Lord Jesus Christ, and take away from God the Word the sufferings of the Flesh, though not even we have said that He suffered in His own Nature, as God, but we attribute rather to Him along with the Flesh the Sufferings also that befel the Flesh, that He too may be confessed to be Saviour (for with His stripes were WE healed, as it is written, and He has been wounded for our transgressions, albeit not recipient of suffering any wound): and WE have been saved by His undergoing death for us through His own Body.
But I will essay to demonstrate clearly what I said, for I will now read the words of him who has compiled this book, |7 and first of all those which he made, inveighing in no slight terms against the word Mother of God. But since he repeatedly goes through the same words, and it is necessary that we should repeatedly go through the same ideas, pardon (I pray) pardon us who do not wilfully repeat ourselves but have resolved that in whatever direction the aim of his words goes off, thither we too ought to oppose. He then spake thus, debasing the title of the Holy Virgin, I mean Mother of God:
Nestorius. "I often (he says) asked them" (i. e., those who contradict him) "do you say that the Godhead has been begotten of the holy Virgin? They straightway recoil at the saying: who (says one) is sick of such exceeding blasphemy, as to say that in her who bare the temple by the Spirit, in her was God formed? then when I reply to this, What then that is incongruous do WE say in advising to flee the word, and come to the common phrase significant of the two natures? then seems it to them that what is said is blasphemy. Either clearly acknowledge that the Godhead has been born of the blessed Mary, or if you flee this expression as blasphemy, why saying the same as I, dost thou feign thou sayest it not?"
§1. They therefore who think contrary to what yourself said and think good (I know not how) to hold, these have been clearly testified to by your own mouth as having a right and most unerring opinion in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, and as holding with their mind the faith which they had delivered to the churches which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word and priests of our Mysteries and faithful stewards. For they shake off (and that most rightly) as a patent proof of unlearning alike and extremest impiety, the mere imagining that the Word from forth God the Father has been called unto a second beginning of being or took flesh of the holy Virgin as a root of His own existence: still they call her Mother of God, as having borne Immanuel Who is by Nature God: |8 for the Word has been made with us, being God by Nature and above us. Do they therefore say contrary to what they think? For some one of those who think with thee will (I suppose) say, "If thou say that the Nature of the Word is not Offspring of the flesh, and free thyself from this charge, how dost thou affirm that the holy Virgin bare God?" But thou in turn wilt hear from us, The God-inspired Scripture says that the Word out of God the Father was made Flesh, i. e., was without confusion and Personally united to flesh: for not alien to Him is the Body which was united to Him and born of a woman, but as with each of us his body is his own, in this same way is the Body of the Only Begotten His own and none other's: for thus was He also born according to the flesh. Then how (tell me) would He have been made Flesh, except He had received birth of a woman, the laws of human nature calling Him thereto, and bodily existence being able no otherwise to have its beginning? For not (I suppose) giving heed to the juggleries of the Greeks, shall we too romance that the bodies of men are born of oak or rock: but our laws nature set us, yea rather nature's Creator, for as of each of existing things is the kin to it born, so of ourselves too, and no otherwise (how could it be?) For nought at all of what It willeth to accomplish is impracticable to the Divine and Ineffable Power, yet doth It proceed through what befits the nature of things that are, not dishonouring the laws set by Itself. And it were not impracticable to the Word That can do all things, having determined indeed for our sakes to become as we, yet to refuse the birth of a woman, and from without to fashion to Himself a body by His own Power, just as we say was done in the case of our forefather, Adam: for God took (it says) dust of the ground and formed man. But since this were occasion to the unbelievers who desire to accuse the Mystery of the Incarnation, and (before all) to the unholy Manichees, whom thou sayest over and over that thou fearest lest they should spring upon those who call the holy Virgin Mother of God, as though they were affirming that the Incarnation of the Word existed in mere phantasy; needs did He progress |9 through the laws of human nature, and since His aim was to assure all that He hath become truly Man, He took hold of the seed of Abraham, and the blessed Virgin being the mean to this same end, He took part like us in blood and flesh; for so and no otherwise could He become God with us. Most needful in another way too unto those on the earth was the Incarnation or Inhumanation of the Word. For if He had not been born as we according to the flesh, if He had not taken part like us of the same, He would not have freed the nature of man from the blame [contracted] in Adam, nor would He have driven away from our bodies the decay, nor would the might of the curse have ceased which we say came on the first woman; for it was said to her, In sorrows shalt thou bring forth children.
But the nature of man hath fallen into the disease of disobedience in Adam, it has become now approved in Christ through the utter obedience: for it is written. As by one mail's disobedience many were made sinners, so too by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. For in Adam hath it suffered, Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, in Christ hath it gained the riches of being able to be superior to the toils of death, and (so to say) to exult over decay, saying those words of the Prophet, O death, where thy victory? o grave, where thy sting? it became accursed, as I said, but in Christ was this too brought to nought. And verily it has been said somewhere to the holy Virgin, Elizabeth prophesying in spirit, Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Sin hath reigned over us and the inventor and father of sins behaved himself proudly over all beneath the skies, objecting [to them] the transgression of the Divine Laws: but in Christ we see the nature of man, as in a second firstfruits of our race, having confidence with God. For He said clearly, The prince of this world cometh, and in Me shall find nothing.
But, good sir (would I with reason say) except the Only-Begotten had become as we, had become as we no otherwise than by means of birth in the flesh from forth a woman, WE had not been enriched with what is His. For as the most |10 wise Paul writeth to us, Emmanuel the second Adam hath appeared to us, not from the earth like the first, but from Heaven. For the Word That is from above and from forth the Father hath come down not into the flesh of any one nor into alien flesh (as I already said), nor again hath He descended upon any one of those like us to dwell in him, as He was in the Prophets; but having made His own the body which was from forth a woman and born from her after the Flesh, He gathered up man's birth through Himself, made as we after the flesh, Who is before all ages from the Father. This confession of faith the Divine Scriptures delivered to us. But THOU feignest to fear lest any of us should suppose that the Word Begotten of God had the beginning of His Being from earthly flesh: thou takest away utterly the Mystery of the Economy with flesh, saying that the holy Virgin ought not to be called by us Mother of God: thou turnest round those who call her Mother of God unto a confession inevitable and as of necessity, of supposing that the Word out of God became fruit of flesh. But it is not so, far from it. For He That hath His Being of God the Father before all time (for He is the Framer of the ages), in the last times of the age, since He became Flesh, is said to have been begotten after the flesh. For if the Body is conceived of as His own, how will He not wholly and entirely appropriate the birth of His own Body? Yea yourself too would have approved the right and undefiled faith of these who thus hold, if you would have persuaded yourself to reason and to confess that Christ is truly God, the One and Only of God the Father, not severed into man separately and likewise into God, but the Same, both Word out of God the Father and Man out of woman as we, while He abideth God.
But that thou dost accuse the Birth after the flesh of the Word, every way declaring two sons and dividing the One Lord Jesus Christ, shall be shewn not by my words but by thine own.
"Look what follows, heretic. I grudge not the word to |11 the Virgin mother-of-Christ, but I know that she is august who received God, through whom the Lord of all passed, and through whom the Sun of righteousness beamed. Again I suspect your applause: how did ye understand passed through? I have not said passed through, in the sense of born, for not so quickly do I forget my own words: that God passed through from out the Virgin mother of Christ was I taught by the Divine Scripture, that God was born from her, was I nowhere taught." And after more; "Never therefore does the Divine Scripture say that God was born of the mother of Christ, but that Jesus, Christ, Son, Lord, [was so born]."
And hereto he subjoins that Christ was not truly God, but rather a God-bearing man, as he supposes, putting forward the Angel's voice saying to blessed Joseph, Arise take the young child, and says that the Angels too, though wiser than we, knew that He was a child.
§2. Herein therefore he stiles heretic him who holds the right and admirable faith about Christ, and who since He is truly God, calls her mother of God who bare Him. But there will be no doubt to any of those who think aright, that it is himself who, fastening the blame of heresies on them who choose to deem aright, is establishing the unbeauty of his own words, and has all but confessed openly that he is being borne outside of the straight way, and is making crooked paths. Next how (tell me) do you not grudge this title to the holy Virgin, albeit you take away the dignity of the Divine Birth, and say that she is not Mother of God? but debasing the expression and affirming that it is full of blasphemy, how do you bid those who so will, to apply it to the holy Virgin (though I hear you call her august)? and then deem the so blasphemous word (as you alone think it) meet to adorn the most august one, and you feign to crown her, putting about her as some choice honour, a calumny against God the Word? For if it be wholly abhorrent to the Word Who is sprung of God to endure fleshly birth and you permit her who did not bear God to be called Mother of God, is it not true to say that |12 you have openly depised the Lord's will? will you not be caught insulting rather the august one, than (as you suppose and say) electing to honour her, by allotting to her a name hated of God? For not to those whom we determine to honour [do] we give names whereby the glory of the Supreme Nature is dishonoured, first of all we shall unawares be involving our own selves in the charge of such impiety, next we shall do them no slight wrong, decking as if in honour those we praise with what is no praise, and weaving for them a laudation hated of God.
One may moreover marvel at this too: that striking right and left at the words of the unholy heretics and in no wise allowing them to prevail, because they take away the truth of the Divine doctrines, next allotting no slight blame to the word Mother of God and accusing it amongst other things as untrue and impious, you said that you pardon it and will not grudge it to the Virgin even if one should choose to call her Mother of God. Will you permit it therefore to those too who are diseased with the madness of Arius, to say that the Son is inferior to the Father? or again to the rest who bring down the Nature of the Holy Ghost from its God-befitting excellency? But you would not choose to do this; and if any one desire to learn why, you will (I suppose) surely say, I do not endure a blasphemous word. Hence if she be not Mother of God, and you permit this to be said, know that you are deserting the truth, and reck little about any longer appearing wise. For do you not say that Elisabeth too or any other of the holy women is worthy of all reverence? will you then not grudge it, if any one choose to call them too mothers of God? But I suppose that you will surely and utterly withstand them and say, This is not so; for they bare sanctified men and none among them was God by Nature. Hence either drive away this from every woman; or if you allow the holy Virgin alone among all to have it, what words will you use for your defence? For if it be true of her and she has truly borne God, in that the Word of God has been made flesh, confess this with us, and you will free yourself |13 from the charge of impiety: but if she hath not borne God, to permit any to call her Mother of God is to partake of their impiety. But she is Mother of God, because the Only-Begotten has been made man as we, united of a truth to flesh, and enduring fleshly birth and not dishonouring the laws of our nature, as I said before.
But since he says that he knows that she, i.e. the holy Virgin, is august, come I pray come let us consider the reason too of the reverence that was done her: "for I know (he says) that she is august 4, through whom the Lord of all passed, through whom the Sun of righteousness beamed." How then do you say that she received God? or in what way did the Lord of all pass through her? or how beamed the Sun of righteousness? For if she hath not borne God, after the flesh I mean, how received she God? how passed He through her? But haply you will say this wise word of yours as you think and dare to speak it " The Word was God both connected with man and indwelling him." But the tradition of the faith makes itself ready against your words as to this, No God-bearing man, but God Incarnate have we been taught to worship: but not so speakest THOU: how then do you not see that you are babbling and falsely marking the truth that is in the Divine dogmas? For the Word has been made flesh. How did you now say that she received God except you have believed that she hath borne Emmanuel Who is God by Nature? how passed the Lord of all through her and how beamed the Sun of righteousness? And who is he that you think fit to embellish by such names? is he a common man, like one of us, yet hallowed, as having the Word of God indwelling? Then how will such an one be Lord of all, and Sun of righteousness? For the power of lordship and dominion over all and of illumining things possessing intelligence, will pertain not to our measures, but will be attributed to the Supreme and Most High Nature alone. |14
But since taking (I know not whence) the word passed through, you have applied it to God, explain the word; the meaning of the passage through here spoken of, will belong to your wisdom to tell us who know it not. For if the Word of God so passed through her, as to pass from one place to another, you cast Him down forthwith; for you will hear Him saying by the voice of the saints, Do not I fill Heaven and earth saith the Lord? For not in place is the Godhead nor knoweth It bodily changes of place, for it filleth all things. But if while awaiting the fit period of birth, He made an incidental indwelling in man, and so you say that God made passage through the holy Virgin, or passed through her (for I will use in all thy holy words): we see nought in the holy Virgin more than in other women. For Elisabeth bare the blessed Baptist who had been hallowed through the Spirit through Whom the Son Himself also makes His abode in us. And the wise John will witness saying, Hereby know we that He is in us, because He gave us of His Spirit. The Word of God therefore passed through Elisabeth herself too, indwelling in the babe through the Spirit even before its birth.
But you feel suspicious of the applause as though it came to you from the people for having chosen to speak right things? for having called Him Who was born of the holy Virgin Sun of righteousness and Lord of all; you then again feign to speak with precision, and find fault with the applause, and accuse again those who are rejoicing over you of not having understood. O great strength which is in your words! you have made no delay in the needed vexing of them, you turned straightway their joy into mourning, you rent off their rejoicing and girt them with sackcloth, straightway adding, "Again I suspect your applause, how did ye understand passed through? I have not said passed through in the sense of was born, for not so quickly do I forget my own words. That God passed through from out the Virgin Mother of Christ, was I taught by the Divine Scriptures, that God was born of her, was I nowhere taught." |15
Those therefore are thy perverted sayings; the applause was of love, in that your mind had some guise of orthodoxy. But I will press on now too no less and say, What is passed through, if it mean not birth? will you say that the Word out of God Himself by Himself and apart from flesh hastened through the Virgin? yet how would not this be replete with all folly? For it would be necessary to suppose that the Godhead were recipient of quantity, and of movement which bears from one place to another; or if the Godhead be unembodied, at large and everywhere, and not in place and circumscript, how will it pass through a single body? But whatever it be that you are saying, how do you not need to clear it up and say it more openly, if confident in your own opinions about it, you are able to testify to their incorruption? where (I pray) have you heard the God-inspired Scripture say that the Word of God passed through the holy Virgin? For that brief and contracted is the life of those upon earth, the blessed David taught saying, Man, I his days as grass, as a flower of the field so he flourisheth; for the wind passeth through him and he shall not be, but of the holy Virgin what thing of this sort can you say has been written? That God has been born of her, after the flesh I mean, God-inspired Scripture has clearly shewn.
But I will go again to your own words, O all-excellent, for you have yourself too confessed and this most often that the Word has been made Flesh, and you reject it not. And this too you say besides: for you say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten was clearly and openly Incarnate. You have written in this wise,
"Thus it says elsewhere too, He spoke to us in His Son Whom He appointed Heir of all things through Whom also He made the worlds, Who being the Brightness of His Glory:5 having put Son, it calls Him fearlessly both Brightness of His Glory, and appointed Heir; Heir, appointed after the Flesh, Brightness of the Father's Glory after the Godhead: for He departed not, made flesh, from likeness to the Father. And in addition it again says thus, for the times of ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men to repent, because He fixed a Day in which He will judge |16 the world by the Man Whom He appointed, having given assurance unto all men in that He raised Him from the dead. Having first said, By the Man, he then adds, In that He raised Him from the dead, that no one might suppose that the Godhead Incarnate had died."
§3. Who then is He Who was Incarnate, or in what way was He incarnate, what Godhead was incarnate, tell (O most excellent sir) to us who would learn it. Shall we grant that the Word, God out of God, was Incarnate, and say that He was made Man, as having been made as we and born in flesh? or shall we allow this in no wise, but suppose that a man came hereto, connected with God, according to thee? But you will (I suppose) say, that it is better and wise to think that the Word out of God was Incarnate and made flesh, according to the Scriptures: for one is not I suppose seen assuming that wherein one is, but if one come somehow to be in that wherein one was not at first, reason will forthwith admit that something new has been wrought regarding him. Hence it is unlearned to say that any of us having stepped forth of the definitions of human nature have been incarnate and been made flesh; but the Incarnation, or being made flesh, will beseem (and that with much reason) the Nature That is beyond humanity. But if He was truly Incarnate and has been made flesh, He is accredited as Man, and not connected with a man, by mere indwelling or external relation or connection, as you say. Yet even though He became Man, He possesseth the being God in all security, nor do we say that any change took place of the flesh into the Nature of Godhead, and we hold that neither did the reverse take place, for the nature of the Word hath remained what it is even when united to flesh. What no one therefore even in bare idea thinks of holding, why do you putting this in your book, as though actually uttered, pretend to be contending for the doctrines of piety? For the name mixture, some of the holy fathers too have put: but since you say that you are afraid lest any confusion be deemed to take place, as in the case of liquids mingled with one another, I rid you from your fears, |17 for not so did they deem (how could they?) but they used the word improperly, anxious to declare the extreme union of the things that had come together; and we say that the Word of God came together with His proper Flesh, in union indissoluble and unalterable. And we find that the God-inspired Scripture itself too, does not look minutely into the word, but uses it rather improperly and simply. And verily the Divine Paul hath written of some, But the Word preached did not profit them, who wore not mixed in faith with its hearers. Were they of whom he spoke going to be mixed one with another, after this fashion, as wine with water, and to undergo a confusion of persons, or were they rather to be united in soul, as it is written in the Acts of the holy Apostles, And of the multitude of them that believed was the heart and the soul one? But this I suppose is the truth, not the other. Be free then from all fear on this score, for firmly established is the mind of the saints.
But since to say that the Nature of the Word was Incarnate is (I deem) nought else than to hold that It has been made Man and not without birth of woman (for this only way does the nature of human bodies know of), how were you not taught by the God-inspired Scripture the Birth after the flesh of the Only-Begotten? albeit yourself too, when the prophetic lessons were before you, Unto us a Child was horn, unto us a Son was given, say thus of the Child that was born, " Great the mystery of the gift, for this is the Babe That is seen, this the new-born That appears, this that needed bodily swaddling bands, this the just-born after the Essence that is seen, in the hidden part Everlasting Son, Son Creator of all, Son Who by the swaddling-bands of His own aid binds the instability of the creation. " And elsewhere again, " And the Babe |18 is God All-free, so far removed is God the Word, O Arius, from being subject to God." In which words he styled even the body connected with Him God. And again, We recognise therefore the human nature of the Babe and His Godhead, we preserve the oneness of the Sonship in the nature of manhood and Godhead. " Lo here with all clearness you say that the Babe, the just-born, the visible, the new-born, the swaddled, is Son and Creator of all; and the Babe the holy Virgin hath borne to us. You know therefore that God has been born after the flesh, and this you have learnt out of the God-inspired Scripture. For who will be conceived to be Creator of all, save He alone through Whom the Father hath made all?
But I said (you will haply say) " in the secret part Son and Creator of all." Well, I agree, but I will ask you: You say that the hidden is the Word of God and that this is the Creator of all: how then did you but now point out as with your finger the Babe just-born and new-born and in swaddling clothes, and called this same both Son of God and Creator of all? or do you haply suppose that the Word out of God has been transformed into the nature of the flesh, and accuse yourself, not others, of daring to say this? Surely if the Babe be the hidden Son and Creator of all, and have been born of the holy Virgin, you have acknowledged with us even against your will that she is Mother of God in some unlooked-for way, since how is a babe God all-free? For if you use the word, all-free, in the sense in which each one of us too may be so conceived, as entrusted by God with the reins of his own free-will, what is there special in Him beyond the rest? or why do you put about Him the freedom, as some God-befitting and truly choice Dignity? albeit it is in the power of all upon the earth to possess it and indeed they already have it. But if the freedom here signify the being not subject to the laws of another, and He be free in such sort as the Divine Nature itself too is conceived of, how do you say that the new-born Babe is in case so august and befitting only the Supreme Nature and glory? albeit that all which is called into being |19 is subject unto God and runs under the yoke of bondage. But you will perchance deem that that empty word 6 of |20 yours suffices unto all this, that I mean in respect of the natures being connected one with another, and that, not Personally, but rather in honour unvarying [in each] and equality of rank: for this is what you are always unlearnedly saying to us. But that in saying such things, you will be caught to be staying yourself upon rotten and fragile conceptions, will be shewn and not at length, when opportunity offers to us to speak upon this too.
But to these he subjoins some others by which he deems that he can shew and that skillfully that the mode of a generation like ours is unmeet and impossible. And our words he arrays against himself, and deems that he can over-master them easily and shew that they are nothing although they set forth the truth. He says thus:
"'If Christ (says he 7) be God, and Christ be born of the blessed Mary, how is not the Virgin mother of God?' I hide none of their objections: for the lover of the truth takes and objects to himself all that comes of the |21 falsehood;" and then he endeavours to apply the solution, using some such conceptions as these. " For the babe (he says) is formed in the womb, but so long as it have not yet been formed, it hath no soul, but being formed at length, it has a soul made it of God. As then the woman bears the body, God ensouls it, and the woman is not called mother of soul, because she bare a man endowed with soul, but rather mother of man, so (he says) the blessed Virgin too, even though she have borne a man, the Word of God passing forth along with him" (for this word did he use) "not therefore is she mother of God."
§4. Is therefore (tell me) that blamed by you which is said by us? does it seem right to you without understanding to find fault with what is so rightly and purely said, and do you not rather attach the blame of not being able to think aright to your own understanding? For they to whom the truth is repugnant, to them will belong (and too readily) the receptivity of what is not so, and the rebuke of those who are wont to speak most excellently, will not be without its harm, yea rather will be even a manifest demonstration of the having declined unto falsehood and of choosing to honour what it would be more right to hate, in that one has missed of right reason. But no man, having conceived of things so base... 8, he said that himself was the lover of the truth, and that we had contrived the lie; albeit one may see on the contrary that ours is right and true. For the advocate of the lie and fraud endeavours to fasten the blame of his falsehood on the champions of the truth, haply driven to forgetfulness of the Prophet who says, Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness.
But I will endeavour to shew by the example adduced by him that he does not even clearly know what he is saying. For flesh confessedly is born of flesh, and the Artificer of all performs the ensouling in the mode and way that He knows. Yet is the woman who bears, albeit |22 she is the source of the flesh only, believed to bear the whole man, made up (I mean) of soul and body, although she contribute nothing of her own to the being of the soul. Yet when one says man, one signifies surely the soul united to the body. As therefore the woman, albeit she bear the body alone, is said to bear him that is made up of soul and body, and this no wise damages the account of the soul, as though it found in flesh the origin of its being; so will you conceive as to the blessed Virgin too: for even though she be mother of the holy Flesh, she hath nevertheless borne God the Word out of God truly united thereto 9, and though any call her Mother of God, he will not be defining a more recent beginning of God the Word nor that the flesh hath been made the commencement of His Being: but will understand rather the mode of the economy and wondering at it will say, O Lord, I have heard Thy hearing and was afraid, I considered Thy works and was astonished.
Bat our all-wise and prudent expounder, having pondered the force of the example says, "Thus the holy Virgin, too, even though she hath borne man, God the Word passing along with him, yet not therefore is she Mother of God: for not from the blessed Virgin was the Dignity of the Word, but He was God by Nature."
What therefore is the meaning of, that the Word passed forth along with the flesh, he alone knows, but I marvel much at his subtil refinement. For the word of truth |23 sets forth that the Word of God has been Personally united to the Flesh; and he keeps affirming the passing forth along with, meaning I know not what. Next, when our 10 discussion was all about nature and Personal Union, and aimed at enquiring not what the Word out of God is in respect to Dignity, but whether He has been made Man economically, making His own the flesh born of a woman: he removing the question to quite other matters says, "Not from the holy Virgin was the Dignity of the Word, but He was God by Nature:" albeit how are not Dignity and Nature two entirely different things? But our discourse hereupon does not need overmuch skill4: we must therefore see what comes next. For he fortifies yet another outpost against what has been said by us, as he thinks invincible and competent to shew with all force that the Birth out of woman of Emmanuel is empty talk of ours: he says again thus,
"The blessed John Baptist is fore-heralded by the holy Angels, that the babe shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb, and having the Holy Ghost, was this blessed Baptist born. What then? call you Elizabeth mother of the Spirit? apply your mind here, although there be some among you who are startled at what is said, pardon their inexperience."
§5. And who on hearing such words will not straightway say in Prophet's voice, For the fool will utter folly and his heart will conceive vanity, to accomplish iniquity and to utter error against the Lord? For error confessedly is it and nought else, to trust in such frigid and childish thoughts as though they were true. One may then marvel at him for his gentleness, for he said that they ought to be esteemed worthy of pardon and clemency who had no acquaintance with those words of his: yet were it a thing thrice-longed for by us ourselves (if so be), yea rather by all too who are Christians; for how should not all long to be rid from words so burdensome and perverse? But we say this: |24 Elizabeth hath confessedly borne the blessed Baptist anointed in the womb with the Holy Ghost: and if it had been any where said by the God-inspired Scriptures, that the Spirit too was made flesh, rightly would you have said that she ought to be called by us mother of the Spirit; but if the bairn is said to have been honoured with bare anointing only, why deem you it right to put the fact of incarnation on an equal footing with the grace of participation? for it is not the same thing, to say that the Word was made flesh and that one has been anointed through the Spirit with prophetic spirit. For of the holy Virgin it is written, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and He who is born is called the fruit and moreover Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us; but of Elizabeth, she shall bear a son who shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, and shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways. By no means therefore is Elizabeth mother of the Spirit, for she bare a prophet of the Highest: but the holy Virgin is truly mother of God 11, for she hath borne carnally, i. e., according to the flesh, God united to flesh. For since she is human who bare, therefore and rightly do we say that the mode of generation has been wrought in human wise; for thus and no otherwise was it possible that He Who is over all nature could become as we, not slighting the being what He is (how could He?) but rather abiding what He was and is and will be: for superior to change is the Divine and Most High Nature. |25
That we therefore think aright in affirming that God has been born according to the flesh for the salvation of all,.. God-inspired Scripture hath testified: but since to his most novel dogmas he opposes the truth and the very symbol of the Church's Faith, which the fathers once gathered together at Nicea through the illumination of the Spirit defined; he, fearing lest any should keep whole the Faith, instructed unto the Truth by their words, endeavours to calumniate it and alters the significance of the words, and dares to coin with false stamp the very force of its ideas. For while himself in the midst of the Church was using profane babblings, a certain man 12 of those who were of |26 great piety and yet among the laity, but who had gathered within himself no mean learning, was moved with fervent and devout zeal and with piercing cry 13 said that the Word Himself Who is before the ages endured a second Generation also, viz., that after the flesh and forth of a woman; the people being disturbed hereat, and the more part and wiser having honoured him with no mean praises, as pious and most full of wisdom and not imparticipate in uprightness of doctrine, the rest being mad against him, he [Nestorius] interrupting, straightway approves those whom by teaching his own he had destroyed, and whets his tongue against him who could not endure his words, yea and against the holy fathers who have decreed for us the pious definition of the Faith which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, as it is written.
"For (said he) I rejoice at beholding your zeal; but from the thing itself is a clear confutation of what has been said by the pollution of this wretched man 14; for whereof the births are two, two sons are they, but the Church knoweth one Son Christ the Lord."
§6. Most foolishly therefore put he forth the definition of his ideas on this matter saying, "for whereof the births are two two sons are they." But letting alone for a while his subtil accuracy herein, come, come let us gather what pertains to accurate investigation for the consideration of the matter. He therefore made it inadmissible [to speak of |27 two generations 15] but says that one ought to be confessed by us, that we conceive not of two sons (as though it were necessary if the births be two, that two sons also should be introduced): let him come forward and tell us which of the generations he will admit, that before the ages from out the Father, wherein the Word was God not yet Incarnate, or this one, recent and out of a woman.
If then he say that alone, I mean the one before the ages from out the Father, that one alone will be Son Who is out of Him by Nature and not yet participate of flesh and blood: and vainly (as it seems) is the Mystery of the Incarnation uttered, and in no wise hath He emptied Himself nor been made in servant's form, but hath remained thus, rejecting the true concurrence with flesh even until now. But he who is in the last times out of woman, shall be styled by himself son, and we will admit this one generation, I mean out of woman; needs has the Word out of God the Father fallen away from being by Nature Son.
But the pious man sees full surely the absurdity of such ideas and its exceeding swerving unto impiety. In order then that we may proceed along the royal road, we say. that two were the Births, one the Son through both, the Word out of God not yet made in flesh, the Same afterwards Incarnate and enduring for us the birth of a woman after the flesh. For if one said in regard of men that two sons must surely be conceived of, if we speak of two births, he would say rightly and it would be true; but since the Mystery of Christ and the mode of the Incarnation hath another path, and is not beheld in like wise with what is ours, why is he, looking at our habits, and then fastening his mind on what is marvellous and above speech, caught fall ing into feeblest and unlearned pettiness of belief? What surprises me is this: he confessing herein that the Church knows one Son, and adding, The Lord Christ, hath no longer kept One, for he sunders one from another things united, and putteth each apart, not enquiring what the |28 Word is by Nature, what the flesh also; but gathering rather into one, man and God in equality of glory only, as he deemeth, which is a thing utterly implausible, yea rather impossible, he casts down the scheme of the mystery unto uncomeliness. Thus he saith:
"But we must (for it has now come into my mind) learn that the Synod of Nicea too nowhere durst say that God was born of Mary; for it said, We believe in One God the Father Almighty and in One Lord Jesus Christ. Observe that having first put the word Christ, which is the indication of the two natures, they did not say, in one God the Word, but took the name that signifies both, in order that when lower down you hear of death, you think it not strange; in order that the words crucified and buried may not strike the ear as though the Godhead suffered these things." Then it goes on, "We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, the Begotten out of the Father, the Consubstantial with the Father, Who came down from the heavens for our sakes, and was Incarnate of the Holy Ghost. They said not, and begotten of the Holy Ghost." And he says that the holy fathers interpreting what is the meaning of Incarnate say, Made Man. And what being made Man means he himself making clear, said again, "His own Nature not undergoing change into flesh, but inhabitation in man. "
§7. Will any one of those who rank as Christians endure either the infatuation that there is in these words or the impiety of his ideas? To those of really sound mind are not these things a manifest ribaldry, and no mean kind of openmouthedness against Christ? for he slanders the truth, he says that He is not truly Son, allotting this to another (for " observe, he says, that having first put the word Christ which is the indication of the two natures, they did not say, We believe in One God the Word)." And as regards the Name, I mean Christ, 16 I will presently enquire whether it be significative of the two Natures or |29 not, but what is before us we will exercise ourselves in, as we can. For in no wise to be borne may those things be that are so absurdly and heedlessly babbled forth by him, but one might (I deem) say, speaking in behalf of the holy fathers, What art thou doing, noble sir, putting forth rude tongue against holy men, to whom will beseem that which was said by Christ Himself the Saviour of us all, It is not YE that speak, but the Spirit of your Father Which speaketh in you? for what has there not been conceived of by them of things exceeding well polished unto an admirable subtilty? what of needful doctrines has been overlooked, or what method of safeguard neglected by them? " They have not dared (he says) insert in their words concerning the Faith that God the Word was born of Mary." If therefore thou for this reason accuse those who have been before us, and sayest thou art aggrieved because they are not found to use thy exact words, it is time (I suppose) to accuse along with them the holy Apostles and Evangelists too, for they have compiled the books of instruction concerning Christ, yet one will not find them using word for word your expressions. But (if it please you) pass this over as 17........but consider rather that they have well wrought out their explanation of this matter, for faith in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity is exacted of us. But since they say that they believe in One God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and none other (according to us) is Jesus Christ the Lord than the One and by Nature and truly Son, Who beaming from out of God and being God the Word has been made Man, by birth (that is) out of woman, how will they who proclaim the mode of the economy not be found to speak also of His Birth of a woman after the flesh? for then in truth has the Word which is God and Wisdom and Life and Light, the Son, been named Christ Jesus. It is manifest therefore that the time of such naming has |30 concurrent with it the Birth, that I mean through the holy-Virgin. That believing on Christ Jesus, we believe in the One and by Nature and truly Son, our faith mounting up unto the Father through Him, will be clear, in that He Himself hath cried aloud to the whole world, He that believeth on Me believeth not on Me but on Him that sent Me, and he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me, and again, Believe on God, and believe on Me. And we do not (I suppose) say that He asks of us two faiths, but rather He teaches that if any admit the faith to Himward, he hath believed on the Father Himself.
But since (as is probable) he will be making use of the community of the names, saying that Christ and Lord, yea and Son, are common titles, and will be affirming that they suit the Word That sprung of the Father even though He be conceived of as alone and not yet participate of flesh, and likewise the Temple that sprang of a virgin, this matter needs (I think) considerable investigation: putting it off' for the present to a season (as I said) fitly belonging to it, let us go to another utterance of the holy Synod which this man perverting unto his own liking, does violence to the force of truth. For he says that the fathers have written, We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son, the Begotten from forth the Father, the Consubstantial with the Father, Who came down for our sakes, and was Incarnate of the Holy Ghost. He adds hereto and says of che holy fathers, " lower down they interpret that He who was made man, He it is who is said to be Incarnate, the Divine Nature not enduring change into flesh but inhabitation in man." In his explanation he again keeps hold of the same mind and moreover says thus;
"They followed the Evangelist, for the Evangelist too when he comes to the being made man, shunned saying Birth in respect of God the Word, and hath put Incarnation. Where? Hear, And the Word was made flesh; he said |31 not, Was born through the flesh. For where the Apostles or the Evangelists make mention of the Son, they put that He was born of a woman. Give heed to what is said, I beseech you; for where they utter the name of the Son, and that He was borne from forth a woman, they put the word, Born; where they mention the Word, no one of them durst speak of birth through the human nature. For the blessed John the Evangelist, when he came to the Word and to His Incarnation, hear what he says, The Word was made flesh."
§8. Come therefore putting beside what he said, the definition of our Creed, let us see if ought has been innovated by this man regarding it too.
WE BELIEVE IN ONE GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, MAKER OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, AND IN ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OUT OF THE FATHER, ONLY-BEGOTTEN THAT IS OUT OF HIS ESSENCE, GOD OUT OF GOD LIGHT OUT OF LIGHT VERY GOD OUT OF VERY GOD, BEGOTTEN NOT MADE, CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER, THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE, BOTH THOSE IN HEAVEN AND THOSE ON EARTH: WHO FOR US MEN AND FOR OUR SALVATION CAME DOWN AND WAS INCARNATE AND MADE MAN, SUFFERED AND ROSE THE THIRD DAY, ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS, COMETH TO JUDGE QUICK AND DEAD, AND IN THE HOLY GHOST.
Come now therefore, noble sir, where (tell me) have they put of the Son, Incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary 18? but this he can by no means shew. But |32 consider this. They say that the Word out of God, the Only-Begotten, He That is from forth the Essence of the Father, He through Whom are all things, the Very Light, was both incarnate and made man, suffered and rose, and too, that He will in season come again the Judge.
But in order that submitting to accurate scrutiny his words also, we may see what is the amount of the unlearning that is in them, he affirms in plain terms that they say that the Word out of God was both incarnate and made man, and he crowns them with his vote unto their truth as saying what was convenient. Do they therefore (tell me) in saying that He was both Incarnate and made Man mean ought else than that He was begotten after the flesh? for this would be (and alone) the mode of incarnation to one who has his existence both external to flesh and in his proper nature; for no one would say (I suppose) that flesh has been made flesh nor will any one be made what he was [already]. But if one should conceive a certain economic change to have been made regarding him unto somewhat else which he was not, the expression will then have great fitness. Hence if they say that the Only-Begotten has been Incarnate, and this would be wrought (I suppose) through fleshly generation and in no other way, how have they not plainly said that the Word being God has been begotten after the flesh?
But (he says) the Birth is not named in plain terms. Yes, but the nature of the thing knows (as I already said) no other way of being incarnate. So that, although it be not in plain terms said in matters of this kind, we will not for this, forsaking the only way recognized by nature, go off to another. For it is written in the Book of Genesis, And to Seth there was made a son, and he called his name Enos. Shall we then, because the Scripture has put, was made, not admit the mode of birth? how would not this be |33 unlearned? for the very nature of the thing will all but compel us even against our will to confess the idea of birth. How then on hearing of the Incarnation does he not forthwith admit the idea of Birth? and when the being made man has been plainly mentioned, how did he not straightway understand, that being made man would befit not a man, lest he should seem to be made that he already was, but the Word originating from God? But where being made man is believed to truly take place, there is full surely the birth whereby he may be seen to be made man.
But not thus does it seem to you is the saying to be conceived of, that the Word of God was both Incarnate and was made Man; for you said again, endeavouring to oppose the idea of every one else, that the being made man, means, not the change into flesh of the Divine Nature 19, but its indwelling in man. He says then that the conversion into flesh of the Divine Nature is both impossible and that it in no wise befalls it (and very rightly, for we will approve him who herein has chosen to speak aright; for I say that It is stable and that It will not be transformed into ought else than what It is believed to be): but that his discourse hath missed of the fitting and true, in that |34 he maintained that the being made Man is the indwelling in man, I shall essay to shew. For if he says that this matter is true of Emmanuel singly and alone, let him teach the reason why (for I cannot learn it), or no one will tolerate him as a definer and layer down of the law in respect of those things as to which he is pleased to speak inconsiderately. But perchance the force of the things defined does not extend unto one [alone], there will then be no blame, even though it extend unto all. Hence not once for all but many times over shall we find that God has been made man, and not only the Word out of God the Father, but I will add both the Father Himself and besides, the Holy Ghost. For He said through one of the holy Prophets of them that have been justified in faith, I will dwell in them and walk in them and I will be their God and they shall be My people. And Christ Himself also said, And if any man hear Me, we will come I and My Father and make Our abode with him and lodge in him 20. The most wise Paul too hath somewhere written, And Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of the things which were to be spoken of, but Christ as a Son over Bis own house whose house are WE; and moreover of the Holy Ghost too, Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Hence if when the God of all is said to dwell in any, if this be the being made man or the incarnation, let it be said in respect of each one also of those who were made partakers of the Divine Nature and have moreover had Him indwelling them, that he has both been made man and besides was incarnate. This now being so and admitted as true, the Word out of God the Father might even be said to have been most often made flesh, yea and He indwelleth even now in many of those who fear Him.
Yea (he says) for it is written of God the Word, that He tabernacled in us; the Divine-uttering Paul too said of Christ the Saviour of us all, that in Him hath dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. |35
He tabernacled in us confessedly, for so it is written; and moreover that He hath dwelt: I will not oppose you saying it, but rather will I search into the words of the Divines. For the blessed Evangelist, having aforesaid, And the Word was made flesh, profitably added too the, tabernacled in us, that by means of both he might work in us unmutilated the knowledge of the mystery Christward. For that the Word out of God the Father was united Personally to flesh, he hath openly declared 21 by saying that He was made flesh: that made flesh, He hath not passed into the nature of flesh, undergoing change into what He was not, but together with becoming as we, hath abode what He was, he again clearly states, adding to the former, the tabernacled in us. And the Divine-uttering Paul saith that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that no one might suppose that the Indwelling was simple or accidental but (as I said just now) Very and Personal. For that the Word of God is Incorporeal and not subject to touch, the Spirit-clad was not ignorant; but since it was needful that the declaration of the mystery should be seen to be in no wise a matter of blame, but should be made so accurate and exact unto what is right and true as to be beyond all marvel:----he is doing violence (it seems) and all but overlooking what befits the Unembodied and Supreme Nature, for he hath added, Bodily, being able in no other way to speak than may be attained by our mind and tongue.
Do not therefore, when he tells us of simple indwelling, think that he is saying ought that needs not the strongest reprobation. For overthrowing as he thinks and that with vigour the birth according to the flesh of the Son, he |36 compounds an argument befitting old wives and foolish and having no foundation of truth. For he writes again after this manner; his discourse was made touching the Arians:
"Yet 22 though they prate that God the Word is junior to the greater Godhead, these make Him second to the blessed Mary, and over the Godhead, Creator of times, they set a mother born in time, yea rather they do not even allow that she who bare Christ is mother of Christ. For if not the nature of man but God the Word was, as these say, that which is of her, she that bare was no mother of that which was born. For how will any one be mother of him who is alien from her nature? But if she be called mother by them, that which is born is manhood not Godhead, for it is the property of every mother to bear what is consubstantial [with her]. Either then she will not be mother, not bearing what is consubstantial with herself, or being called mother by them, she bare that which was in essence like to herself."
§9. How deep the matter of his cogitations! dread and hard to escape is clearly the compulsion resulting from the reasonings of him who hath compiled such things! Whence comes he having gathered into the midst unto us such fables? or who ever sank down to this extent of unlearning in his conceptions, as to think or say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten has not its existence before the ages from the Father but rather makes flesh and blood the beginning of its passing into being? who is so distraught and slight of understanding and wholly without ear for the holy Scriptures? who remembereth hot Isaiah who hath cried aloud of Him, Who shall declare His generation? John too who hath written clearly, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God; all things were made through Him and without Him was not any thing made? And if all things through Him, how will He Who is before every age and time be later in birth than |37 the things that were made through Him? why then do you bring in what is repudiated by all, as though it had been said? cease accusing those who rightly blame what you say, and who laugh at the vastness of the unlearning that is therein. Since therefore there is no one who says that the Virgin hath borne from forth her own flesh the nature of the Godhead, do not contend to no purpose, twining for us reasonings not made out of premises that are true and acknowledged by all.
But what was it that persuaded you to let loose a tongue so sheer and unguarded against those who are zealous to think aright, and to pour down accusal dire and all-cruel upon every worshipper of God? For you said again in Church,
"But I have already full often said that if any simpler one either among us or any other, rejoice in the word Mother of God, I have no grudge against the word; only let him not make the Virgin a goddess."
§10. Again dost thou rail upon us, and put on a mouth so bitter? and reproachest the congregation of the Lord, as it is written? But WE, my friend, who call her mother of God, have never at all deified any one of those that are numbered among creatures, but are accustomed to know as God the One and by Nature and truly so: and we know that the blessed Virgin was woman as we. But thyself wilt be caught, and that at no long interval, representing to us Emmanuel as a God-bearing man, and putting upon another the condemnation due to your own essays.
[A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical references, follows]
1. a τρόφιμοι, reared up, unless it be an error of the single Manuscript which has preserved to us this work for the usual δόκιμοι, approved. For the citation itself see Translation of S. Cyril's homilies on S. Luke by the Very Rev. R. P. Smith, p. 149 note y.
2. c The Greek as it stands is hardly translateable.
3. d ἐκ. See "on the clause And the Son, in regard to the Eastern Church and the Bonn Conference," Oxford 1870. pp.128 sqq.
4. f The words, who received God, alluded to immediately after, appear to have dropped out of the single existent Manuscript. The passage is one of those cited before the council of Ephesus (Act. i. t. iii. 1064 ed. Col.), and translated by Marius Mercator, p. 202 ed. Bal. Mercator seems to translate less correctly, conceived.
5. Serm. 2. p. 59 Bal.
6. k This word συνάπτω and its noun συνάφεια, S. Cyril had used long before to express the kind of Union which Christ gives us with Himself. S. Cyril says, "For as elsewhere He says that He is a Vine, we the branches, shewing that not alien nor of other kind are the branches from the Vine but of it by nature, so here He says that He is our foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11) in order to shew the natural kindship to Him when He was made man, of them which are built upon Him. For then are we connected (...) with Him by nature too, and suspended as it were from our relation to Him as the branches from the vine, we bear the fruit of piety to God-ward," Thes. cap. 15. p. 171 c d. "If on receiving Christ's Spirit we are through It brought near to God the Father, as made partakers of His Divine Nature, how is It a thing made, through which we are connected (...) with God as being now His offspring?" Thes. cap. 34 p. 360 D. And in his treatise de Trinitate written more than five years before this date, S. Cyril says, "Nor could human nature any otherwise have been partaker of the Divine Nature, had it not gained this through the Son as Mediator, receiving it as a natural (...) mode of connection (...)," Dial, i. p. 406 a: "we are temples of the Spirit Who existeth and is, we are called therefore gods as being participant with the Divine and Ineffable Nature, by connection (...) with It," Dial. 7 p. 639 fin. Of God the SON's union with His human nature, S. Cyril says, "But that the SON was Lord, before His concurrence with flesh and His connection therewith through union (...) we shall see without any trouble," Dial. 6. p. 605 d. S. Cyril then used the word to denote our union with Christ in which our own personality is preserved to us entire. When he speaks of the Incarnation in which God the Son's human nature was so made His own, by Union with Him, as to have no distinct or separate personality, S. Cyril uses connection by way of union, a connection that makes the Two natures but One.
Nestorius on the other hand following his own earlier teaching speaks of a connection between God the Son and His human nature no closer than that of any holy person with Christ.
The empty word is found in the creed against which Charisius priest and steward of the Church in Philadelphia brought a complaint before the Council of Ephesus (t. iii. 1205 sqq. ed. Col.), and of which Marius Mercator gives a Latin Translation (see On the Clause And the Son, pp. 76, 77 and note): he gives it at pp. 41 sqq. ed. Baluz. with the heading, Now the setting forth of the corrupt faith of the above mentioned Theodore, and further on, pp. 186 sqq. when giving the session that was holden about Charisius, he gives it over again in a slightly different translation with the heading Nestorian Creed. This Theodore to whom it is attributed was a contemporary of S. Chry-sostom about half a century before and was Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia.
To this empty word S. Cyril opposed his Personal Union (...). Fleury (Eccl. Hist. Bk. 25 § 8 fin.) speaks of, as the first place in which he has met the expression S. Cyril's nd Letter (the first (Ecumenical Letter) to Nestorius in which he says, "The Word having united to Himself Personally flesh ensouled with a rational soul" (see 3 Epistles Parker 1872 p. 56). In the final Letter which S. Cyril and his Council of Alexandria wrote A. D. 430 to Nestorius were appended 12 Anathemas which Nestorius was required to sign (3 Epistles p. 68). These Anathemas or Chapters were much misunderstood by John Archbishop of Antioch, and his suffragans in Cilicia, Palestine, Euphratesia &c, who thought that they contained Apollinarian error; Liberatus who wrote about 125 years after tells us in his Breviarium (cap. 4 Gallandi Bibl. Patr. Vet. xii. 127) that John of Antioch "sent to Andrew and Theodoret, Bishops of his Council to reply in writing to the 12 chapters as renewing the dogma of Apollinaris.'' Theodoret too in sending his replies back to John sends him aletter beginning," I was greatly grieved on reading the Anathemas which you sent me, bidding me answer them in writing and lay bare to all their heretical meaning." S. Cyril defended his Anathemas or Chapters against the exceptions made by Andrew and Theodoret separately: in the close of his Letter to his Priest Eulogius, his Proctor at Constantinople, he says that he sends the Provost (inter alia) copies of his answers to each of these Bishops. The second chapter begins, "If any confess not that the Word out of God the Father has been united to flesh Personally,...." No possible misunderstanding of this term, Personal Union, united Personally, seems to have occurred to S.Cyril, for in his Explanation of his Chapters made at the request of the Synod in order that they should he clearer (as the title tells us), during the days while the Council was awaiting its dismissal, as Alexander of Hierapolis writes to Constantinople to John of Antioch, S.Cyril does not allude to this. There is no trace of Andrew Bishop of Samosata having written against this nd chapter nor against the fifth and sixth: so prohably no objection occurred to him either. Nor does Eutherius bishop of Tyana in his Letter to John of Antioch, running briefly through the chapters, except against the Personal Union. Theodoret objects to the term, Personal Union, from its novelty and from its appearing to imply mixture. Again in his letter to the monks of Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia and Cilicia, giving briefly his objections to some of the chapters, he repeats that the expressions Personal Union and concurrence (...) by Natural Union, teach some mixture and confusion of the Form of God and the form of the servant (Ep. 151 p. 1292 fin.) In answer to Theodore t's objection to the second chapter( written perhaps but a few weeks after this present treatise,) S. Cyril explains the term and says, Seeing that Nestorius is always undoing the birth after the flesh of God the Word and insinuating merely an union of dignities and saying that man is connected (...) with God, honoured with the co-name of Sonship; needs do WE opposing his words say that a Personal Union took place, Personal (...) having no other meaning than only that the nature or Person of the Word, i.e. the Word Himself, united in truth to human nature, apart from any turning and confusion (as we have full often said) is conceived of and is, One Christ, the Same God and Man.
S. Cyril uses the word habitually e.g. it occurs five times in his Treatise to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina on the right faith: he uses also other like expressions, true union, true and Natural Union, inseverable, indissoluble. S. Eulogius, one of S. Cyril's successors in his see (A. D. 581) and a contemporary of Pope S. Gregory, in his famous explanation that the Council of Ephesus forbad oppositions to, not definitions of, the Faith, alludes to this expression and says, For it [the Council of Ephesus] does define what none before it defined. Nay its ἡ καθ' ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσις is a definition not made by the elder Synods. (S. Eulogius in Phot. Bibl. cod. 230 translated in the above-cited On the clause, And the Son in regard &c. p. 80.)
7. l i. e. Nestorius is citing S. Cyril himself in his letter to the monks; see Epp. p. 3 d, and S. Cyril's reply just below, is that blamed by you which has been said by us?
8. m The Roman Editors of the Concilia, who first published this treatise in 1608, conjectured that οὐδεὶς, no one, might be a slip for οὐδὲν, nothing, translating, But with no thought of how base these things are. Perhaps some words have slipped out.
9. o See S. Ath. against Arians, iii. § 29 p. 410. O.T. note e. where this passage is translated. S.Cyril in his 16th Paschal homily, about this same time (A.D. 430) says, "Yet He was (as I said) God in the manhood too, allowing to the nature that is ours to advance through its own laws, yet along therewith preserving the genuineness of the Godhead: for thus and no otherwise will both the bairn (τὸ τεχθὲν) be conceived of as by Nature God, and the Virgin which bare will be said to be mother, not of flesh and blood simply, like the mothers with us, but of the Lord and of God Who hath hidden Himself under our likeness."... "For as the Precious and all-holy Flesh which was forth of the holy Virgin hath become the own of the Word who is forth of God the Father, so too all things beseeming the flesh save only sin: but chiefly and before all else will birth of a woman beseem the flesh. Hence the Godhead by Itself if it be conceived of apart from flesh will be 'without mother' and that full rightly: but when the mystery Christ-ward is brought forward, the truth as to this will be other and subtil exceedingly. For we shall deem, if we choose to think aright and go the most unerring way, that the Virgin bare not bare (γυμνὸν) Godhead but rather the Word from forth of God the Father, Incarnate and United to flesh, she who was taken to aid in bearing after the flesh Him who was united to flesh. Emmanuel therefore is God: and mother of God will she too be called who bare after the flesh God who for our sakes appeared in flesh." t. v. ii. pp. 227. 228.
10. p i. e. S. Cyril's Letter to the Monks, above-cited, which Nestorius was in part contradicting in the sermon to which the extract belongs.
11. q S. Cyril uses exactly the same expression in his Letter to the Monks (Epp. 8 c) and in the first of the chapters that he appended to his great Letter to Nestorius (see note k), "If any confess not that Emmanuel is God in truth and consequently the holy Virgin Mother of God: for she hath borne after the flesh the Word from forth of God made flesh, be he anathema." But the word carnally or after the flesh was not understood by many: e. g. Andrew Bishop of Samosata thought that it contradicted the miraculous Birth from a virgin. S. Cyril explains his meaning in his reply to Andrew; " we said that the Virgin bare the Word of God made flesh according to the Scriptures, i. e, Man: bare Him carnally, i.e. according to the flesh.... Saying according to the flesh is not taking away the miraculousness of the Birth.... but teaches that as God begets Divinely or in God-befitting manner according to His own Nature, so too man humanly or flesh carnally." Def. xii capp. adv. Episc. orient, cap. 1. p. 100 d e. See also below Schol. §31.& above p. 22. note o. Theodoret's objection to S. Cyril's first chapter is of a different kind and is identical with that of Nestorius (above p. 7, below p. 33 and note b): the notion that γεγέννηκε, she hath borne, necessitates the conversion of the Godhead into flesh. In Andrew's case, the meaning of the word carnally was misunderstood, in Theodoret's, the word was apparently unnoticed.
12. r Eusebius an Advocate at Constantinople; he afterwards put out a protest addressed to the Clergy and Laity of that City (Conc. Eph. part. i. cap. 13 t. iii. 888 ed. Col.) that Nestorius was reviving the false teaching of Paul of Samosata, condemned nearly two centuries before (Marius Mercator, whose translation into Latin of S. Cyril's Defences of his 12 chapters or Anathemas against Nestorius' errors and of his Scholia on the Incarnation, has come down to us, likewise put out a paper of like kind, Opera pp. 50 sqq. ed. Baluz 1684). Many years on we read of Eusebius, as Bishop of Dorylaeum in Phrygia, as a friend of Eutyches, but after fruitless efforts to reclaim him, also his accuser before S. Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople. In November 448, a Synod was called of Bishops who chanced from one cause or another to be there: these amounted to thirty. The circumstance of Constantinople being the capital of the Eastern Empire occasioned Bishops to be often there. (The Archbishop of Alexandria though apparently he had habitually one of nis Deacons there, as a sort of deputy, or Proctor, in the Imperial City, seems on more especial occasions to have had a Bishop there: e.g. S.Cyril sent his great Synodal Letter to Nestorius by four Bishops, Theopemptus, Daniel, Potamon and Comarius: of these Theopemptus Bishop of Cabasa and Daniel Bishop of Darnis, went to Ephesus and voted in the Council: Potamon and Comarius remained at Constantinople, for one of S. Cyril's earliest Letters after the Council (Epp. p. 81) was directed to them conjointly with the great Archimandrite Dalmatius, the Priest Eulogius, S. Cyril's Proctor, and another. A brief letter of S. Cyril's written a few days later (pp. 91 sq.) when he was in ward at Ephesus, is directed to Theopemptus, Potamon and Daniel. Fleury (bk. 26 § 3) suggests that Theopemptus and Daniel went back to Constantinople with Letters from the Council.) Before this Synod the Bishop Eusebius accused Eutyches, who was condemned. The August of the next year, 449, the Robber-Council of Ephesus deposed S.Flavian (whose Martyrdom followed immediately for he was driven into exile to Epipa in Lydia and died there) and Eusebius. Eusebius was likewise ejected from his See and stayed at Rome as Pope S. Leo tells the Empress Pulcheria in a letter (S. Leo ad Pulch. 59 [79 col. 1037 ed. Ball.] cited by Fleury 27, 49 english translation): Eusebius was at the Council of Chalcedon, he was vindicated at the close of the st Session (t. iv. 1189 Col). In the third Session he presents to the Council a petition against Dioscorus (ib. 1249,1251). In the fifth Session he was one of those engaged in the handling concerning the holy faith, τρακται̣σάντων περὶ τῆς ἁγίας πίστεω (ib. 1452): he signs in the sixteenth session (ib. 1737). A rescript of the Emperor Marcian annuls all that had been done against him. This Rescript addressed to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect, Valentinian, Praefect of Illyria, Tatian Praefect of the City, Vincomalus Master of the offices (see Theod. Ep. 140 tit.) and Consul-designate, is given as a sequel to the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (part. 3 cap. xi. t. iv. 1809 ed. Col.). See Fleury Eccl. Hist. Books xxv. xxvii.and xxviii. in the English translation edited by Dr. Newman, Oxford, 1844.
Eusebius' brave and loyal conduct on this present occasion while yet a layman, is mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon itself; for when that Council had heard the Letter of S. Cyril to John Archbishop of Antioch to which they gave the Ecumenical sanction of the Church, some of the Bishops called out,..., Eusebius deposed Nestorius. It is likewise mentioned by Evagrius (Eccl. Hist. i. 9) who says,..., exercising the Bishop's office at Dorylaeum, who while yet an advocate first convicted the blasphemy of Nestorius. Leontius (in the th century) writing against Nestorius and Eutyches (contra Nest. et Eutych. lib. 3 in Galland. Bibl. Vet. Patrum xii. 697) speaks of it too.
13. s The people's applause during the sermons of S. Augustine and S. Chrysostom are often mentioned: Nestorius alludes to the applause of his own sermons a little above, p. 11. Two or three years later when the troubles which followed on the council through the Eastern Bishops misunderstanding S. Cyril and his language, were beginning to be allayed, and one of them, the pious and aged Paul Bishop of Emesa, was preaching at Alexandria before the Archbishop, the very words that the people uttered in their delight are preserved to us (concilia t. iii. 1617, 1621 ed. Col.). Here Eusebius' cry was one of zeal for the Faith, contradicting the denial of Truth which he heard.
14. i.e. Eusebius afterwards bishop of Dorylaeum.
15. t See the same objection brought forward in the treatise Quod Unus Christus, given below.
16. x see Book 2, beginning of Book 5 and §§ 4.5. Def. xii capp. contr.Theod. cap. 7 init. de recta fide to the Emperor, pp. 32, 37, 38, to the Princesses, 47 b 70 e 85 c 115 c d 120 d, to the Empresses Pulcheria and Eudoxia 131 b & § 18 p. 148 b Quod Unus Christus see below. See also Theodoret in his letter to Bishop Timothy (Ep.130).
17. y Here the MS. leaves a blank of about 12 letters: these blanks sometimes indicate that the scribe could not decipher the word in the ms. which he was copying.
18. a The Creed that S. Cyril (here as elsewhere) recites above is the Nicene Creed, as actually put forth by that Council: Nestorius, being Archbishop of Constantinople, had (not unnaturally) been quoting from that of Constantinople, which is the Nicene Creed in the form in which it was afterwards put forth by the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381), and in which it is familiar to us. See the two in Rev. Dr. Heurtley's De Fide et symbolo, pp. 5 and 17 ed. 18G9. and translated in parallel columns with the variations marked in my Father's, The Councils of the Church to the close of the second general Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, 1857 pp. 312 sqq. For the very slow steps by which the Creed of Constantinople became well-known beyond the more immediate neighbourhood of Constantinople itself see "On the clause, And the Son, in regard &c." pp. 37 sqq; for the beginnings of its Liturgical use, in Spain, pp. 49, 65; in France p. 66; Germany, Rome p. 66; the East, note 2 pp. 184, 185. Even John Archbishop of Antioch in his Letter to S. Proclus written a few years after this treatise of S. Cyril, inserts the Creed of Nicea, Synodicon cap. 196. Conc. iv. 452 Col. Diogenes bishop of Cyzicus, in the Council of Chalcedon, said, "The holy fathers who were afterwards, explained the, was Incarnate, which the holy fathers in Nicea said, by 'From forth the Holy Ghost and Mary the Virgin.'" The Egyptians and the most pious Bishops with them called out, No one admits addition (Conc. Chalc. Act 1.1. iv. 913 ed. Col. quoted On the &c. p. 40.): probably with a keen recollection of what their great Archbishop had here said, objecting to Nestorius as adding them: for the Council was holden in 451, only 7 years after he had departed to his rest.
On the antiquity of these words though not in the actual Nicene Creed, see my Father's note P to Tertullian in the Library of the Fathers, pp. 503, 504.
19. b Theodoret, having lived amid the same school of thought as Nestorius, shares with him the dread of the Divine Nature being imagined to be changed into flesh. In his objection to S. Cyril's first chapter (see above p. 24 note q) Theodoret says, "It is plain then from what has been said that the form of God was not turned into servant's form but remaining what it was, took servant's form.....having moulded Himself a Temple in the Virgin's womb, He was co-with that which was moulded and conceived and formed and borne: wherefore we style that holy Virgin too, Mother of God, not as having borne God by Nature but man united to God Who moulded him(p. 204 c d e)." In his Letter to the Monks of the province he says, "For in his first chapter he casts out the economy that was wrought for our sakes, teaching that God the Word hath not taken human nature but was Himself changed into flesh," Ep. 151 p. 1292; Migne, t. 83. col. 1417. In his letter to the Monks of Constantinople written in his later years (Tillemont Art. xi. fin. thinks about 451) he says that SS.Basil, Gregory, Amphilochius, Pope Damasus, Ambrose, Cyprian, Athanasius, Alexander his teacher, Meletius, Flavian, lights of the East, Ephraim the lyre of the Spirit; John [Chrysostom], Atticus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, Hippolytus, and (he then Bishop of Rome, the most holy Leo, all taught that "One Son is the Only-Begotten Son of God and God before the ages Begotten ineffably from out the Father, and that after the Incarnation He is called both Son of man and man, not turned hereinto but assuming what is ours." Ep. 145 p. 1253. Further on in the same Epistle Theodoret speaks also of the Manhood remaining: he says that whereas our Lord raised other bodies free from all blemish, "in His own He left the tokens of sufferings that He might through the sufferings convict of erring those who deny the assumption of His Body, and through the print of the nails might teach them who imagined that the Body had been changed into another nature, that it had remained in its proper form." ib p. 1254.
20. c This addition occurs in the same words on S. John i. 13 p. 107 O.T. (cf. an allusion on S.John xiv. 24) and in Scholia, § 18.
21. d διαμεμήνυκεν. This emendation of the Roman editors for διαμεμένηκεν is confirmed to us by citations of Niketas in his catena on S. John. (This Niketas was Archbishop of Heraklea in Thrace in the xith century, he compiled ample Commentaries on Holy Scripture made up of copious extracts from the Fathers: those on the Psalms, SS. Matthew, Luke, John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, perhaps a fragment of that to the Romans have reached us either published or in MSS.: for the psalms and S. John at least Niketas made use of the labours of those who before him had constructed catenae of Fathers and he had besides access to works of the Fathers now lost, of which he has thus preserved something.)
22. f This passage is given rather fuller, and at greater length by Mercator, with the title, Also in the nineteenth quire, when he is speaking as it were against Arius. (p. 112, Bal.)
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: cyril_against_nestorius_02_book .htm
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius (1881) Book 2. pp.38-80.
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius. LFC 47 (1881) Book 2. pp.38-80.
TOME II.
[Translated by P.E. PUSEY]
The Word after the Union One Incarnate Person. Similitudes of unlike things united. ' Connection ' does not unite. The Name Christ means God the Son Incarnate. Jacob's pillar a type. To His human nature belong the anointing and His subjection to the Law: yet He is God. Cyrus how christ, the Babylonians how holy. Personal Union. Christ's glory no imparted glory but His own inherent glory. If community of names unite, Emmanuel has nought more than we. The human cannot be allotted to a distinct person. God the Son incarnate to be worshipped just as before His Incarnation. Speak not of 'hidden' and 'manifest' as though Two, they are One. Worship of Him taught by God the Father.
The tongue is a fire and an unruly evil, as it is written; thrusting from him the mischief therefrom, the Divine-uttering David says, Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, a door of fencing around my lips, incline not mine heart to words of wickedness. For to be able to speak aright, and to have an exact control over the tongue, as to what it should speak, what not, is of a truth God-given, and is no slight matter with those who practise a conversation not void of admiration. But recklessness in speech and unbridled licence unto trickery, are replete with danger and bear down to the pit-fall of hell those who use it. And it is written, Death and life are in the hand of the tongue, they that master it shall eat the fruits thereof. A certain other too of the wise men hath said to us, If thou hast a word of understanding, answer, if not, lay thine hand upon thy mouth; for how is not silence better than unlearned speech? But accursed is it in another way too to belch forth bitter words, and to heap down sinful sayings upon the ineffable Glory, albeit it ought to be honoured by us with unceasing praises. And when we sin against the brethren and wound their weak conscience, we sin against Christ, for so hath written the Divine-uttering Paul. |39
And this I say having read Nestorius' words and observing that he not only says that we ought not to say that the holy Virgin is Mother of God and that she hath borne Emmanuel Who is God, but yet in addition to this and in many ways is he minded to make war upon the glory of Christ. For he endeavours to shew us that He is God-bearing and not truly God, but man associated with God; as in equality of rank. For thus seems good to him alone apart from every one else, to think and to speak, albeit the Catholic Church, which Christ Himself presented to Himself, has not the wrinkles of him who has compiled such things, but rather as unblemished, she keeps wholly without rebuke her knowledge of Him, and hath made full well her tradition of the Faith. For we believe in One God, the Father Almighty, of all things both visible and invisible the Maker, and in One Lord Jesus the Christ, and in the Holy Ghost: and following the confessions annexed hereto of the holy Fathers, we say that the Very Word Essentially sprung from forth God the Father, was made as we and was Incarnate and made Man, that is, took to Himself a Body from forth the holy Virgin, and made it His Own: for thus will He be truly One Lord Jesus Christ, thus let us worship Him as One, not putting apart Man and God, but believing that He is One and the Same, in Godhead and in Manhood, that is, God alike and Man.
But the inventor of the most recent impiety, albeit making feint of saying One Christ, ever divides the Natures and sets Each by itself, saying that they did not truly come together; but making excuses in sins, as it is written, devises some mode of connection, of merely (as I said) equality of rank, as shall be shewn from his own words: and he makes the Word out of God indwell by participation, as in a common man, and distributes the sayings in the Gospels, so as one while to attribute certain to the Word alone 1 and by Himself, other while to him that is |40 born from forth a woman separately. Yet how is it not obvious to all that the Only-Begotten being God by Nature has been made man, not by connection simply (as he |41 says) considered as external or accidental, but by true union, ineffable and passing understanding. And thus He is conceived of as One and Only, and every thing said befits Him and all will be said of One Person. For the Incarnate Nature 2 of the Word Himself is after the Union now conceived of as One, just as will reasonably be conceived in regard to ourselves too, for man is really One, compounded of unlike things, soul I mean and body. But it is necessary now too to notify that we say that the Body united to God the Word is ensouled with a reasonable Soul. And I will for profit's sake add this too: other than the Word out of God is the flesh, in regard to its proper nature, other again Essentially the Nature of the Word Itself. But even though the things named be conceived of as diverse and sundered in diverseness of nature, yet is Christ conceived of as One out of both, the Godhead and manhood having come together one to another in true union.
And the God-inspired Scripture confirms us hereto by ten thousand words and acts: using similitudes whereby one may (and that without labour) clearly advance so as we may behold the Mystery of Christ. The blessed Prophet Isaiah said therefore, And there was sent to me one of the Seraphim and in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar and he touched my mouth and said, Lo this hath touched thy lips and shall take away thine iniquities and purge thy sins. And searching according to our power into the depth of the vision, we say that none |42 other save our Lord Jesus Christ is the spiritual coal laid on the altar whereon by us it gives forth the sweet savour of incense to God the Father: for through Him have we had access and are acceptable, offering the spiritual worship. This Divine Coal therefore, when it touches the lips of him who approaches thereto, will straightway exhibit 'him pure and wholly imparticipate in any sin. And in what way it touches our lips, the blessed Paul will teach saying, Nigh thee is the word, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that if thou say with thy mouth Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised, Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. And He is compared to a Coal, because conceived of as from two unlike things, yet by a true concurrence they are all but knit together unto union. For the fire entering into the wood, will transelement it somehow into its own glory and might albeit it hath retained what it was.
Our Lord Jesus Christ again likens Himself to a Pearl, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man seeking goodly pearls, who when he had found one Pearl of great price hath gone and sold all that he had and bought it. I hear Him in another way manifesting Himself to us and saying, I am the flower of the plain, the lily of the valleys. For He has in His Proper Nature the God-befitting Brightness of God the Father, and gives forth again His Savour, in respect I mean of spiritual fragrance. As therefore in the pearl and also the lily, the thing itself is conceived of as body, the brilliancy or fragrance therein considered in its proper definition as other than they in whom they are, yet are the things inseparably innate again the own properties and not alien from those which possess them:---- in this way (I deem) shall we both reason and think of Emmanuel too. For of diverse kind by nature are Godhead and flesh 3, yet was the Body of the Word His own, and not severed from His Body is the Word which is united thereto; for thus and not otherwise will Emmanuel, |43 i.e., God with us, be conceived of. Hence one while as Man, and making Himself manifest to us from the measures of the emptiness too, He said, No man takes My life from Me, another while again conceived of as God the Word and out of Heaven and One with His proper flesh, He says, No man hath ascended up to Heaven but He That came down from Heaven, the Son of Man.
The Holy Scripture therefore from every side knitting together unto inseverable and true union the Son and bearing us back in faith unto One Person, this extraordinary man manifoldly severs, and hath babbled idly, calling the Word out of God the Father God of Christ Himself too, as our discourse as it advances will clearly demonstrate in its own time and place. For he feigns that he is afraid lest any overcome by reverence for the holy Virgin, and calling her Mother of God, should, supposing that there is a mixture and immingling of the Persons one with another pour forth uncomeliness upon the doctrines of the Church, albeit no one thus thinks: and rectifying (as he deems) a thing so dire, he utterly confuses all things, regardless of ideas which pertain to rightness and truth: for he said thus;
"If in simple faith you had been putting forward the word Mother of God, I would not have grudged it you, on examining the sense of the word. But since I see that you, on plea of honouring the blessed Mary, are maintaining the blasphemy of the heretics, I therefore ward off the putting forth of the word, suspecting the danger that is concealed therein. But to speak clearly and more intelligibly to all, it is the aim of the party of Arius and Eunomius and Apolinarius and of all who are of like brotherhood, 4 to bring in Theotokus, as though, a |44 mingling having taken place and the two natures not divided, nought of the meaner things were taken of the human nature, and they had place at length against the Divinity, 5 as though all things were spoken of One, not in |45 regard to the rank from connection, but to Nature. For One is Christ, and One Lord: but in respect of Christ, I mean of the Only-Begotten Son, both Christ and Son are said, one while, of the Godhead, another while of the Manhood and Godhead."
§1. Seest thou how with manifold inventions of ideas he impiously embellishes the generation after the flesh also of the Only-Begotten, how he essays to shew that it will take place no otherwise than by some infusion or commingling of the substances having place: albeit the Teachers of the Church do not initiate us this fashion; for we say that a true concurrence had place, the Word uniting to Himself the Body, yet abiding what He was. But this man taking nought of these things to mind, hath blasphemed in no mean degree, parting Him into two persons and hypostases wholly severed one from the other, and attributing to either separately the words to it belonging: and again he says One Lord Jesus Christ, as though man were connected with God by rank only, not by true Union i. e., by Nature. How then is He One 6 Christ and Son and Lord, if to both severally will belong, as thou sayest, the being thus called and so being in truth, by reason of the hypostases coming together in no wise by union one with another, but being united in respect of rank only or sway or authority? And yet if we examine into the nature of |46 things, we shall observe that things which are in equality of dignity, have not for this reason parted with their individual existence: nor yet will the having equal degree in point of glory, suffice to union, as for example, Peter and John were both of them Apostles and holy and adorned with equal honours and might through the Spirit by Christ the Saviour of us all. For they along with the rest heard, Ye are the light of the world, and again, Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils. Shall we therefore say that from their equality of rank or sway accrues to them that they too should be counted as one man, and this is sufficient for unity, I mean unity of their persons? And how will not such an opinion be with reason conceived of as foolish exceedingly? Why then dost thou feign that thou art right in the Faith, saying that One is Christ Jesus the Lord, and then, severing into two persona and hypostases the One, dishonourest the mode of the True Union through which the Christ is One and Alone, and unlearnedly callest equality of honour connection? What is this mode of connection? knowest thou not that dear it always is to those in this life who are rich in honours from the rulers to be in worldly renown? yet they being in. equal dignity sometimes, are yet separate one from another in individual being and moreover in their desire of thinking and doing the same things. But if the kind of rank were any necessary bond gathering them into unity just like a physical coming together;----they would not, being in equality of honours or rank, have been parted one from another in persons and mind so as to be one and another. Where then shall we put thy connection, what shall we count that it wrought? did it persuade them to be of one league, did it cause that they should come together unto a mystic union? But you cannot say this, for reason has shewn that the connection is utterly weak to both these.
Tell me this too (for I will ask it as well, as matter of necessity), what good did the rank do for the man born from |47 out a woman who was (as you said) connected with God the Word? for did it make him equal in glory and excellency, and render him as great as He too is believed to be? And how then will He not speak falsely saying, My Glory will I not give to another, and vainly hath the Divine-uttering Psalmist too prated, saying on this wise, Who among the clouds shall be made equal to the Lord? who shall be made like to the Lord among the sons of God? Is not he other than the Word, One and by Nature and forth of God the Father, who in his proper person has been verily parted from union with Him? and how is this not clear to all? Now rank has not made equal to God the Word that which was connected, but it is seen to be and is in lower place: how then dost thou say One Christ and Son and Lord, although one excels, at least according to the force of reasoning, the other settles down below equality with Him and glory? Besides (for I will add this too to what I said) the Word That is forth of God the Father has given (according to him) His proper rank to him that is born of a woman: but how he says that this very thing has been wrought, it is meet to examine. Has he too been made Very Light? is he by Nature God and Life and Creator and Wisdom and Might, Image and Brightness of the Person of the Father? and the Endowments of the Supreme Glory, have they passed Naturally into some one of things made? what then is the Excellence in God by Nature? what great and above us, if it is possible for the creature to be rich and that essentially 7, in the good things wherein Itself is? But perchance it has been clad in rank, as participant of the Divine Preeminence? there are again two undoubted sons, if it is true that something other and inferior by nature to Him Who wrought in him the participation is that which is honoured with relationship to Him: you are therefore caught now as not even knowing what you are saying. For why do you blame those who attribute the words in the Gospels to One Person? is it not because you are inventing two sons? for how is there any longer One Lord and Christ |48 and Son, if each have his proper person and mode of being and moreover hypostasis withdrawing unto diverse-ness, repudiating the reality of true union and having utter irreconcilability with the other? And what is strange and shews the loathsomeness of his blasphemies, he says that the names are common. I mean Son and Christ and Lord. And if he say that they are common, i. e., to One Christ and to others besides Him, his statement would have probability: but if he ignorantly sever and supposes that these terms befit the Word by Himself and moreover him that is forth of a woman, there are again surely and unmistakably two christs and sons and lords. For he said, "The name Christ must one while be put for the Godhead Itself, other while for the Manhood too, or also for both." But the community of name will help him not a whit to conceive of one Christ and Son and Lord while he severs (even though the hypostases themselves part not one from another), and the Persons are disjoined in their own proper diverseness.
For making manifest to us the force of his innate unlearning he subjoins and says,
"When therefore the Divine Scripture is about to speak of either the birth of Christ which was forth of the blessed Virgin, or His Death, it is never seen to put God, but either Christ or Son or Lord, seeing that these three are significant of the two natures, one while of this, other while of that, other while of this and that. As for example when the Scripture declares to us the Generation out of man, what says it? God sent forth His Son; it did not say, God sent forth God the Word 8, but it takes |49 the name which indicates the two natures. For since the Son is Man and God, it says, Sent forth His Son made from out a woman, that when you hear the word made out of a woman, then you may see the name put forth which indicates the two natures, that you may call the Birth from forth the blessed Virgin, the Son's Birth, for the Virgin mother of Christ too bare the Son of God. But since the Son of God is two-fold in His Natures, she bare indeed the Son of God, but bare the manhood which is son by reason of the connected Son."
§2. But WE my friend, who know how to think better than thine empty whistlings and who track out the order of the God-inspired Scripture which says that One is God the Father out of whom are all things and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom all things were brought into being: when we hear that Christ has been born of the holy Virgin, then, then in all wisdom and zealous to go the straight way of the Truth, do wo say that the Word Which sprang forth of God the Father was both Incarnate and united Personally to flesh and born after the flesh: and we will not endure thy trickery, but to One and Only, the Son That is by Nature, will we allot the name Christ, with reason, when the Birth through the holy Virgin is spoken of. For common (as I said) to Him with others also will |50 such names confessedly "be, for many are sons by grace and gods and lords both in heaven and in earth, as the Divine-uttering Paul too writes to us: yet [they are so] as participating with Him Who is so by Nature and in imitation [of Him]. Still the name Christ and its reality will pertain in no wise to the bare Word from forth the Father, conceived of by us as bare [Word] by Himself and apart from flesh: but if now He be said to have emptied Himself and to have come down [to be] in servant's form and been made as we by reason of the flesh, He too will be called by reason of the anointing, Christ; for not in His own Nature has the Word being God been Anointed, but the anointing hath happened to Him in regard to His Humanity. Thus therefore when that has first entered in, in regard to which the anointing takes place (for His is the Incarnation whereto belongs the anointing), when Christ is named by us we will not (according to thy unbridled speech) suppose that just a man, severed from the Word and put apart, has been born of the holy Virgin but the very Word (as I said) out of God the Father united to flesh and anointed humanly with the oil of gladness by God the Father.
But that the anointing hath happened to God the Word in respect of the manhood, when He became as we, holy Scripture will prove to us; for the Divine-uttering Jacob departing from his father's hearth was hastening on his way unto Mesopotamia and going to Laban the son of Bethuel, and having lighted on a certain place on the way thither he was lodging there and, laying his head on a stone, he sleeps: and having seen a ladder, stretching on high from earth to heaven and angels both ascending and descending by means of it and the Lord resting thereupon, he marvelled much at the vision and taking the stone he set it up as a pillar and poured oil upon the top of it. Regard now herein our Lord Jesus Christ, the One and only and truly Son, as a pillared stone. For indeed He is a choice stone, a head corner-stone, precious, set for the head of the corner and for the foundation of Zion by God the Father. |51 Regard (I pray) moreover how it was anointed, for not the whole stone throughout did the Divine-uttering Jacob bedew with oil, but rather poured it upon the top of it. Therefore not wholly (so to speak) nor in that the Only-Begotten is Word, has He been anointed in respect of His proper Nature (for how could He be conceived of as participate of His own Spirit?) but rather is anointed (as I said) on the surface, i. e., externally and as in part and on the surface on the Body that was His own by true union: and as He is said to suffer in the flesh humanly, albeit by Nature Impassible as God; so is He conceived of as anointed in regard to the human nature, albeit Himself anointing with His own Spirit those whom it befits to partake of His holiness.
Thus are WE minded to think and are accustomed to walk aright, going on the royal and unperverted road: but he saying that such names are indicative of the two natures, allots to either with authority what seems good to him and is ashamed of the lowliness of speech belonging to the economy with flesh, and though you hear the blessed Paul say, God sent forth His Son made from out a woman, made under the law, Away, says this man, think not that the Word Which sprang forth of God has been sent, for He has not been made from out a woman, He has not been made under the law.
And that our words are no empty guile, but we have used rather his own speech, I will again bring forward the very things he said,
"For God (he says) sent forth His Son made of a woman, if made under the law. Here he points out the two natures, he says what took place as to the human nature, for demand of the wrangler 9, Who was made under the law? was it God the Word?"
§3. And how will not he be verily distraught, who essays to overturn, as far as in him lies, things so clear and known of |52 all and undoubted? Whom hath the Father sent to us out of heaven, Saviour and Redeemer? was it not the Word Which sprang forth of His Essence? Who is He That descended and ascended far above the Heavens that He might fill all things? Dost thou say that the being able to fill all things is the work of our nature and will you affix it to the measures of humanity? of whom hath the blessed John written, He that cometh from above is above all? Or will haply Himself too lie in rebuking the people of the Jews and saying, Ye are from beneath, I am from above, and again, I am not of this world? For if He were man out of woman like one of the rest, and not rather the Word That is from above and out of God the Father, Incarnate and appearing in human form, how will He be conceived of as both above and out of heaven? how above all and not of this world? albeit a part of the world by reason of the flesh and (so to speak), according to the measure that befits the human nature, made along with all under God. Therefore He called the Father His God, though He too is God by Nature and beamed forth out of His Essence Only-Begotten Son. Of whom says the blessed David, He sent forth His Word and healed them? for no elder, no angel but the Lord Himself hath saved us, according to the Scriptures.
"But yea, he saith, God the Word able to fill all things has been sent. How? for where do we say that He is not? or whither will He be sent?"
Will you accuse therefore the all-wise Moses too, as having wronged in no slight degree the Ineffable glory of God? for he said that God descended in the form of fire upon the Mount Sinai. And if you hear the blessed David say unto God mighty over all, Thou shalt send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth, wilt thou then perchance put aside the Spirit-clad and suppose that he speaks falsely? for no motion involving change of place does the Godhead make, nor will It pass from place to place, as though the being in all and filling all things were not inherent in It. These things (I |53 suppose)........thyself too 10; but you will be reasoning again, and rising up against the true doctrines, choosing to follow yourself alone. But you would surely have better thoughts if you reasoned thus, that our whole speech as to God has been framed in human wise, but is understood as befits Him Alone.
But it has troubled him not a little that the Word out of God the Father is said to have been made under the Law. But the fear herein is nought, for He hath remained what He was, Lawgiver (that is) and God. And if He have not been made man, He hath not been made under the Law; but since it is true that He hath humbled Himself Who in His own Nature is above and high, hath been made as we Who is above the whole creation, and being Rich became poor through being made as we, how will He not be said with us to have been made under the Law too? Shall we not, if we think aright, conclude that the measure of man's nature is defined to lie in his having to be subject to the Law? for the exempt and above the Law and by Nature and in truth free will be none other than the Godhead. Hence when He was made flesh then was He made under the Law too, for He paid to the collectors the didrachm 11, albeit in His own Nature Free as God and Son oven when He was made flesh. But if to thee it seems good to sever into two the One and to declare to us that he which was forth of a woman is man apart by himself, how will he be said to have been made under the Law too, who is of the nature which is under the Law? for not that which hath to be subject to the Law, will be made under the Law, |54 but that which, hath a Nature above Law and external to Law. For the Divine and Most High Nature alone (as I said) is both beyond law and also free, and hath no master whatever, but Itself rather ruleth all and subjecteth all to His own yoke.
But this man having missed right reasoning, slid down to this extent of impiety in his ideas and arrived at such height of awkwardness, from dividing into two the One Lord Jesus Christ, as unshrinkingly to say that Emmanuel is neither truly God nor yet by Nature Son, but is so called Christ and holy, as certain other too of men like us or of those who have worshipped impure devils: for thus again hath he said:
"But as we say that the Creator of all is God and Moses god; for it says, I have made thee a god unto Pharaoh: and Israel God's son, for it says, Israel is My firstborn son; and as we say that Saul was christ, for it says, I will not stretch forth my hand upon him, because he is the Lord's christ, and Cyrus likewise, Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus My christ, and the Babylonian holy, for I (it says) marshal them 12: so do we say that the Lord is christ and god and son and holy. But the community of names is similar, the rank not the same."
§4. What are you saying? what word are you belching forth out of your own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, |55 as it is written? No one calleth Jesus Anathema save in Beelzebub. As Moses for instance may be conceived of or called by us God, so will Christ too? after the likeness of Israel, will He too be Son, tell me? O impiety! O words that reck not of lifting up themselves against the glory of our Saviour! O sheer stupidity! and that overcomes all hesitancy in respect I mean of unholy daring against the doctrines of the Church. Let the blessed David now too sing, The enemies of the Lord lied unto Him: for the Divine-uttering Moses was by nature a man as we and nought else: but when on God saying, Come I am sending thee to Pharaoh king of Egypt and thou shalt bring the children of Israel forth of the land of Egypt, he was putting forward as reason for begging off, his slowness of speech and want of utterance, since yesterday and the third day, he heard God say, See I have made thee a god to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy interpreter. For feeble was the law to rid any from bondage unto the devil, but on Christ becoming our Mediator, this too has been achieved, just as here when Aaron was along with the Divine-uttering Moses, Israel was delivered from the bondage in Egypt. But since Christ was about in due course of time to be made under the Law too, in that He was as we and was man, Aaron was put in second place to Moses 13. And the plan of the mystery is thus,----but if one should choose to say this too, that by the calling of God has that mighty Moses too been honoured, according to this which has been said to us in common and as by God's favour and munificence, I said, Ye are gods and all of you sons of the Most High:----is Christ in this way God? yet how is not this madness and the empty froth of an unlearned mind? for the one (as I said) being man by nature has been honoured with the mere title only, the Other is truly God (for the Word was God) in human form, having the preeminence over all of His own Nature unmutilated (for not in change for the worse will be the Divine Nature by reason of Its |56 descending to communicate in blood and flesh), and verily He is recognized as God when appearing as Man also. And a clear demonstration of this are the things that have been written in the Gospels concerning Him. For the Divine-uttering John said, Now when He was in Jerusalem in the feast, many believed in His Name when they saw the miracles which He was doing, but Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all things and needed not that any one should testify of man, for He knew what was in man: albeit the being able to see the heart of man and to know its secrets, will not belong to any one (whence should it?) of men like us, nor yet to ought other of things made, but rather to Him Alone Who is said to fashion our hearts by Himself. Then how has Emmanuel, being called God, been honoured like Moses with the mere title alone, and is not rather in truth that which He is also said to be? Thus again does John write of Him, for He whom God sent speaketh the words of God and giveth not the Spirit by measure. Understandest thou then how, albeit beheld a man as we, He speaketh the words of God? For to God Alone Who is by Nature and truly will pertain as something choice and above the creature, the being able by a word to achieve what He will and to render partakers of the Holy Ghost them who have been justified in faith:----and one may see that Christ is in this case. For He said to the leper, I will, be clean. to the widow's son, Young man, to thee say I, Arise: and His own Disciples He manifested partakers of the Holy Ghost, for He breathed on them, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Then how will He Who has advanced to this point and been crowned with God-befitting renown be god after such sort as was Moses? whose heart knew he? who hath believed on his name? whom hath he justified through faith in himself? where hath he as son spoken the words of God? albeit he hath openly cried unto them of Israel, Thus saith |57 the Lord, 14 and hath a servant's measure, for he was made faithful as a servant in the house of God.
And if Emmanuel was son in the same way too as was Israel who was made so after the flesh, thou hast brought down among bondservants Him Who is in His own Nature Free, even though He became in the form of a bondman by reason of the flesh and the things thereto pertaining: thou hast set in equal measure with the sons by grace Him on account of whom they have been enriched with the grace of sonship: for He has been called first-born of us by reason of the manhood, yet even so hath remained Only-begotten as God. 15 Therefore (as saith the most wise Paul) the powers above are bidden to worship the First-begotten when introduced by the Father into the world, and on learning the mystery regarding Him, with ceaseless praises do they extol the One and by Nature and truly Son. For if He gives authority to them that received Him to become children of God, as John saith, and if it is true that His Spirit effects that we too should become sons (for God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying Abba, Father), none who are accustomed to think aright will endure this man saying that He too is son in such manner as was Israel.
And how was He in such wise too christ and holy, as may be called christ both Cyrus the King of the Persians and yet again the Persians and Medes themselves? for it were time to say that neither has Christ been sanctified humanly albeit the Holy Ghost soared down upon Him in form of a dove. For Cyrus son of Cambyses led an expedition against the land of the Babylonians in his time, but he was in error, and used to offer worship to foul devils: but when, on God stirring him up and rousing him into wrath, he |58 took the land of the Babylonians, by a name common, albeit not anointed with the Holy Ghost, he was called christ. And in this way were the Persians and Medes holy who were his fellows (for they too served the creature more than God the Creator and worshipped the works of their own hands); but since the offering that was once, according to the words of the Mosaic Law, separated unto God, whether calf or sheep, was called holy; therefore have they too been called holy through the Prophet's voice, by reason they were set apart by the Divine assent to take captive the land of the Babylonians. If then Emmanuel is in such sort christ as was Cyrus too, and in such wise holy as were the Medes and Persians, one might with reason say as of their absurdity of notion that neither hath He been anointed with the Holy Ghost nor is He holy at all. The Divine David will therefore lie saying unto Him, Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst wrong, therefore God, Thy God, anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.
And he chattering after this sort against the Preeminence and glory of our Saviour, thinks that he thrusts away the charge of impiety, by saying something childish and without understanding, "for the community (he says) of names is like, not the rank the same." How, tell me, for I do not understand? For if He is in such wise God as was Moses too, and in such wise son as was Israel, and in such wise christ as was Cyrus and moreover in such wise holy as were the Medes, how will He escape having to be in equality of rank with them?
Now therefore you will be caught in having blasphemed against the very Nature of the Word too, for thou saidst again,
"Say of Him Who assumed that He is God, add of that which is assumed that it is the servant's form, bring in next the dignity of connection, that of the two the sway is common, that of the two the dignity is the same; while the natures remain, acknowledge the union of rank."
§5. He divides therefore again into two, in exceeding lack of understanding he lavishes on rank the force of union, |59 haply not understanding what union is, and what the rank really is. But this we say; he said that of the two natures one is the sway, one the Dignity. Since then he who is in equality of glory with God the Word will not surpass Moses in respect of being god, it is I suppose clear that the very Word which is forth of God, will have equal status in nature and glory with Moses, for if the mean be like and in every respect have exact resemblance with the first and third, the plan of their nature will not be diverse.
But haply he will say that the mode of rank is not nature: how therefore do you deem it fit to gather into one (as yourself say) sway and to crown with equal rank things essentially so far severed from participation one with another and also from equality? for where a nature is wholly in inferior place, the other overtopping it, how will there accrue to it both equality of honours and even dignity and the mode of glory be not diverse?
But that on mentioning connection, haply conceived of as that of mere proximity and juxtaposition, or as an accidental one, himself rises up against his own words, building what he undid and setting up what has been overthrown, will be clear by this again also: for he said thus;
"Therefore 16 I would have you hold fast with all assurance: there is no severance of the connection of the dignity of the sonship, there is no severance of his being Christ, of the Godhead and Manhood there is a severance; Christ is indivisible, in that He is Christ, for we have not two christs nor two sons, for there is not with us a first and a second, nor yet other and other, nor again another son and another again; but the One is Himself twofold, not in rank but in nature." |60
§6. Tell me again what it is you term inseverable connection: is it the union, I mean in respect of Person, which WE set forth, striving together for the doctrines of the Truth? or is it this which is conceived of as one of juxtaposition and proximity of any to anything? for thus does the God-inspired Scripture take the word. And verily He spake to the most holy Moses, when He was discoursing with him respecting that olden tabernacle, And thou shalt make fifty taches of gold and connect the curtains one to other with the taches. For being five and each having individually the being other than the rest, they were connected by the taches. But not thus do WE say that the union has been wrought as to Christ, for neither as one may be connected with another, either in respect to like mindedness or bodily nearness, was He too like this, but (as I have repeatedly said) He made His own the Body which was taken from forth the holy Virgin; and we say that the Word out of God has been truly united to flesh not without a soul.
Hence if the force of the connection which has been spoken of by him, signify the union which we mean, i. e. of Person, reasonably will he have said that there is no severance of Christ, in that He is Christ; for He is "not one and another, nor yet son and son, other and other, first and second," but One both before flesh and with flesh: for thus will He be in respect of rank (as THOU sayest) and also of sway, inseverable, yea rather the Same. Then how dost thou say that the One and Inseverable is twofold, and that not in regard of rank but of nature? for not because the Word out of God the Father having taken flesh, proceeded forth man as we, will He for this reason be called also twofold, for One and that not without flesh is He Who is in His proper Nature external to flesh and body.17 For as, were one to kill a man such as we are, he would not with reason be accused of having wronged two men but one |61 alone, even though the man be conceived of as being of soul and body, and the nature of the things that have been brought together be not the same, but diverse: so again must we conceive of Christ, for He is not twofold, but One and Only Lord and Son is the Word from forth God the Father, not without flesh. For that of Manhood and Godhead most vast is the difference or interval I myself too would allow, for other in respect of the mode of their being and nothing like one to another are plainly the things which have been named. But when the mystery Christ-ward is brought before us, the plan of the union ignores not indeed the difference, but puts aside the severance, not confounding the natures or immingling them but, because the Word of God when He partook of flesh and blood, even thus is conceived of and called One Son. But you in saying that they ought not to be called two christs, nor should one confess two sons, and hereby filching the semblance of rightness in dogma, are caught in the act of saying two christs, and dividing into his own diverseness man and God, and you endeavour to shew that the one is operated, the other operates: for your words are thus,
"The 18 good glory of the Only-Begotten one while is ascribed to the Father, for it is, He says, My Father which glorifieth Me, other while to the Spirit, for the Spirit of Truth, He says, shall glorify Me, other while to the power of Christ, for they, it says, went forth and preached the word everywhere, the Lord co-working and confirming the word through the signs that followed."
§7. If he says that the Only-Begotten Word of God, as |62 though lacking glory in that He is and is conceived of as Word and not yet Incarnate, is glorified by the Father and the Holy Ghost:----that he both blunders and has missed the truth, I will leave saying for the present (for occasion leads us to something else); but he seems to me to have forgotten what he had just now thought out and said, for he said, "Not one and another is Christ, not other and other son, for we have not two Christs and two sons." But, O most understanding, would I say, if thou affirm that the good glory of the Only-Begotten is ascribed to the power of Christ, how will He be not one and another, or how not wholly and surely two? for if not the same be giver and receiver, or he ascribe to another than himself the things which accrue to him by nature, Christ hath wrought being possessed, as being other than the Only-Begotten: for if the good glory of the Only-Begotten have been (as you say) ascribed to him; and the Divine-uttering disciples using the power that came from him, preached and wrought miracles, how is that not true that I said? for he hath wrought using other's power, that he which wrought and not himself rather may be glorified by those in the world. What then (tell me) appears there more in Him than in the holy Apostles? for they have wrought wonders not by their own power, and this themselves clearly confessed, for they were worthy of admiration in knowing this too and glorifying Him Who worketh in them. Then how ought not Christ Who according to thee was possessed by another and had from without the good glory of the Only-Begotten, to have proclaimed to those who approach Him as God, and supplicate succour from Him, In the name of the Only-Begotten, or in His Might, be to thee this good thing: for so used to do the all-wise disciples, every where naming Jesus of Nazareth. But to no one whatever hath He declared this, but rather to His own power used He to attribute what was accomplished, one time saying to the blind man, Believe ye that I am able to do this? and requiring their assent, at another ordering with authority saying, |63 I will, be clean. Why dost thou not, letting go the fables fit for old women which have been invented by thyself alone, occupy thyself with wise mind about the depth of the mystery? 19
But one may see that he little recks of things needful unto profit, but is afraid lest he let drop ought true and be caught thinking anything praiseworthy: and thinks every thing that is most discordant and makes a condemnation utterly inconsiderate of the doctrines of the church, albeit he should have remembered God saying by the mouth of Ezekiel to those who are over the spiritual flocks, Ye ate the good pasture and drank the pure water and troubled the residue with your feet, and My flock fed on the treadings down of your feet and drank the water troubled by your feet. For when WE apply our minds to the God-inspired Scriptures, we eat the good pasture, as it is written, and we drink the untroubled water, i. e. the unmixed with falsehood, translucent and most pure word of the Spirit: but if we thicken it and immingle therewith like mud the cheerlessness of our own devices, we plot against the flocks of the Saviour.
And that this too is true, the things which he has thought out and heedlessly said of Christ, will shew; for it is thus:
"For God the Word even before the Incarnation was Son and God and of one mind with the Father, but in the last times He took the form of a servant. Yet being before this Son, and being [so] called, after the assumption He cannot be called Son separately, lest we teach the doctrine of two sons. But since he has been connected with Him which is in the beginning Son, Him who was connected with him, he may not admit of severance in respect of the dignity of sonship, in respect I say of the |64 dignity of sonship, not in respect of the natures. Wherefore God the Word is called Christ also, since He has His connection with Christ perpetual. And it is not possible that God the Word should do ought without the manhood, for it has been with all exactitude brought unto exact connection, not unto deification, as the wise ones of the neo-dogmatists say."
§8. He that durst say that the good glory of the Only-Begotten has been ascribed to the power of Christ, and that plucked asunder the bond of Oneness, gathers again into union and again dissolves it and parts the natures one from other. And most plentifully does he vainly talk and rhodomontade to us respecting these things, so that even though he should say ought that tendeth unto orthodoxy, he may be clearly convicted of not knowing what he saith. For he says here that the Word of God "is both Son and God even before the Incarnation, moreover that in the last times He took the form of a servant." Tell me therefore, if I do not seem to thee to say what is meet, Who is it now that is said to be made man? and what dost thou say that being made man is? who is he that took the servant's form? and how was it taken by him? That in saying therefore that a man was made man, you will display as worthy of ridicule your own understanding, how can one doubt? for he that is man by nature,20 how will he be made what he was, and pass as though to somewhat else, in respect I mean of nature? that which in its own nature is not free, how will it be said to have become bond, as though it were not so at the beginning? Hence to have been made man, will not pertain unto a man, far from it, and to take the form of a servant, belongs not to him who even at the beginning has the measure of bondservice, but to Him rather Who being not man by Nature, is believed to have been made so, and Who being Lord of all as God, abased Himself in our condition, uniting to Himself Personally the human nature, and taking the form of the servant. For thus will that too be true which thou |65 saidst, that "after the assumption, He cannot be called Son separately lest we teach the doctrine of two sons."
And the right and unperverted and straight-going path of doctrines, is this and no other. But he again who mentioned to us the being-made-man of the Word Which is forth of the Father, borne almost straightway unto forgetfulness of what he said, severs again into two the One, both in vile sort floating in feeblest ideas and using ever words untested, for he said, "But since he has been connected with Him, Who is in the beginning Son, Who was connected with him, he may not admit of severance, as regards the dignity of sonship, as regards dignity I say of sonship, not as regards the natures." Rightly, my friend, dost thou reject as unprofitable that which seems to be insecure, studiously has it been set before thee to use ever vigilant mode of speech. For lo, lo, severing the natures, thou gatherest them into union as regards the dignity of sonship. Sufficeth therefore unto true union in things by nature severed one from another, the sameness or identity of names and the dignity in respect of this? for thus too does it seem good to thee to say. Therefore since the name Christ, and moreover son and lord, have been given to others too as names common [to several] (for very many have been made christs and have been called sonsand lords); they too will be as regards the dignity of sonship, both disseverable one from another and all of them one in respect of the union which you think was wrought in respect of Christ too. But a man such as we will be wholly distinct from the Word out of God: how therefore they have not been severed, how too there is one son, I cannot conceive, unless we say that the human nature and the Word have come together by a true union.
But since one must, on account of these words of his, carry round the argument even unto absurdity, that on all |66 sides he may be convicted of having thought not aright, come now, come, let us say this too. For if the dignity of sonship suffices unto union, since the Word Which is from forth Him is called and is Son of God the Father, and the name is common to many more, where is the harm (tell me) of saying that the rest too all of them have themselves been united with Him, in order that Emmanuel may have nought more than they? for the claim7 of the same names will (it seems) be contending with Him and be striving for equality, and the mode of connection will lie in bare and mere appellation or community of name. What then is being made man understood to be? what too the descent in the servant's form? for if the mode of the being made man is (according to him) a mere connection, and consist in the dignity only of sonship what is to hinder our saying that it has been effected in regard to all the rest too? But the friend of learning sees assuredly the uncomeliness of what is said. Whither therefore is he now borne off, distraught, unto things not lawful? by us shall be said to him what is uttered by Jeremiah's voice, Thou waxedst weary in much journeying, for he is tossed to and fro borne about with every wind, as saith the most wise Paul. Therefore receive the anchor of the soul sure and stedfast, set thy feet upon a rock. If thou sayest that the Word of God was made man, this will suffice to shew that He Who is above all the creation was made as we. He took the servant's form although He possessed freedom as God; for He was in equality with the Father, Who possesseth dominion over all. Cease to sever the natures after the union: for that one thing and another is the Divine Nature and the nature of man it will be fit to know, and needful I deem to those who are sound in mind (for they are parted one from another by incomparable differences), but in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, do thou having brought them togetherinto union true andof Person, reject severance, for thus wilt thou confess one Christ and Son and Lord.
But I know not how the inventor of feeble doctrines has made exceeding petty account of the fact of union, and thrusting away both it (as seems) and the might of |67 the truth, hath gone again unto what liketh himself and saith, "Therefore is God the Word called Christ also, seeing that He hath His connection with Christ perpetual. And it is not possible for God the Word to work ought without the manhood; for it hath been accurately adjusted unto exact connection, not deification, as the wise ones of the neo-dogmatists say." When therefore he says that the Word from forth God the Father has been separately called Christ, as having connection with Christ, i. e., with another, how has he not idly prated in saying that after the assumption He cannot be so styled separately? since not as One is that conceived of by us which is said to have been accidentally connected with ought else, for two of a surety will be rightly conceived to be the things which come together, and not one, itself connected with itself. False speech therefore are his words, and in another sense are they idle talk: but WE after the union, though one name God the Word, conceive not of Him apart from His own flesh; though one say Christ, we recognize the Word Incarnate.21 What then is the mode of the connection which you speak of conceived to be? for if you say that the human nature has been united Personally with the Word That sprang forth from God, why (tell me) do you insult the Divine Flesh? albeit you refuse not to worship it, while the duty of being worshipped belongs only to the Divine and Ineffable Nature: but if you do not think that a true union took place, but call rather by the name of connection, the rank which consists in identity of name and in mere and only equality of style, why do you prate in solemn language, saying that he that is born of the woman has "been accurately adjusted unto exact connection," i. e., with the Word? for they are synonymous one with another, son with son, and lord with lord, nor are |68 the names a whit inferior one to another, and to inquire into any superiority in them is (I suppose) idle, for son than son qua son, hath neither greater nor less. You are therefore talking superfluously (clearly so) in saying that he has been "accurately adjusted unto exact connection." But to say that they have been accurately adjusted one to another will belong (as appears to me) not to things possessing an identity of name, but to those rather, which obtain the equality and likeness in every thing of things that are believed to be one. As for example we say that there hath been accurately adjusted unto exact correspondence to the form of such an one, either the son that is begotten from out him, or one might say his image: but as regards connection, how can things be conceived of and said to have been accurately adjusted?
But himself interpreted to us the force of connection: for "it is not possible (he says) that God the Word should do ought without the human nature." Likeminded therefore with one another and harmonious according to thee, and from common counsel advancing unto each action shall we believe the pair of sons spoken of by thee. How then are there not two christs and sons and lords? But you affirm (it is like) that the Word used His Body as an instrument. Yet if you say One Son and One Person, the Incarnate Person of the Word, He will not be an instrument of Deity, but rather will use as an instrument His own Body, just as a man's soul too does. Therefore confess One, not dividing the natures, at the same time knowing and holding, that of the flesh the count is one; of the Godhead again, that which beseems It alone: for we say that the flesh of the Word by no means became Godhead, but rather Divine, as being His own. For if the flesh of a man is called human, what hinders that that of God the Word should be called Divine? why then dost them mock at the beauty of the Truth, telling us of the deification of the holy flesh, and all but casting in the teeth of those who have chosen to think aright, a god-making, albeit thyself sayest,
"In order therefore that it might be pointed out to the |69 Magi too, Who this is That is worshipped by them, and to Whom the grace of the Holy Ghost led them----that it was not to a mere babe viewed by itself, but to a body connected ineffably with God."
§9. Since therefore he says that the body has been ineffably united to God, and that which is truly ineffable is beyond understanding and speech, true of a surety is the union or the (according to him) connection. For such things are ineffable, and of things that thus come together with one another one would not (I deem) know the mode. But if thou art able to say it, and deemest that thou canst declare the force of the connection, how is it any longer ineffable?
But I marvel that albeit he says that the Body has been connected with God and that ineffably, he does not say that it is His very own, in order that it might be conceived of as one with Him, but parts again into man and God, separately and apart, the One Christ and Lord Jesus, and feigns that he thinks aright, when he says,
"Yet 22 not mere man is Christ (o accuser) but Man alike and God: had He been God alone, it had been right, of Apolinarius, to say, Why seek ye to kill Me, God, Who have told you the truth? This is He Who was encircled with the Thorny Crown, this He Who said, My God, My God, why forsookest Thou Me? this He Who endured the three days death, this do I worship with the Godhead as co-partner in the Divine sway."
§10. View now I pray again how he snatches at and puts around his own words the form of the truth (for "not mere man, says he, is Christ, but Man alike and God,") yet severs again and says that He is not One, and stupidly takes hold of something without foundation and constructs what pleases himself. For as though some one were saying that the Word had appeared to us upon earth bare and |70 without flesh, and had conversed with us, and wrought His Divine signs, or that He was common man and that not the Word Himself has been made Man:----he says, "Not mere man is Christ, but God also." But WE, most excellent sir (will I say), even though we say that He is Man alike and God, do not speak thus as putting them apart, but rather knowing that the Same even before the Incarnation was Son and God and Word of the Father, and after it hath become man as we and been made flesh. But he asserting that He ought not to be conceived of as mere man but God and Man, allots the Thorny Crown and the rest of the Sufferings to man severally and apart, while he confesses that he worships this man with the Godhead, and yet greater impiety, as not being (it is like) truly God and Son, but co-partner in the sway of the Word. For that he clearly severs, his confession that he ought to be worshipped along with the Godhead will clearly shew. For that which is co-worshipped with other is altogether other than that with which it is co-worshipped. But WE are accustomed to worship Emmanuel with one worship, not severing from the Word the Body That was Personally united to Him.
But it is meet to investigate what the being "advocate of the Divine Sway" means. For did our Lord Jesus Christ Himself too like one of the holy Apostles and Evangelists preach to the world another christ or son and lord, as having the Divine Sway or Authority over all, and Himself too speak for the glory of another? albeit the choir of God's heralds proclaim to the world Jesus Christ who is forth of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the plan of our faith advances through our confession to |71 Himward, and we are justified, believing not on a mere man like us, but on Him Who is by Nature and truly God. And the Gentiles indeed were living in the world without God, when they knew not Christ, as blessed Paul saith, but since they knew Him they have not remained in ignorance of Him Who is by Nature God. Let him therefore teach us Whose glory and sway it was that Christ spoke for, albeit of them that came to Him He demanded faith in Himself, and this faith in Him He attributed to the Father: and verily He said, Believe in Me and in God believe, and again, He that believeth on Me believeth not on Me but on Him That sent Me, and he that seeth Me seeth Him That sent Me.
But haply to speak for according to him may mean the same as to speak as: I concede, albeit the word has other meaning. Then how may man speak as God (according to thee) when enduring the contumelies of the Jews? For come let us view the speech befitting each. It will be meet for Him Who is in truth God by Nature to say, I am invisible, impalpable and superior to suffering, moreover Incorporeal, Life and Life-giving and above all as God: the other expounding to us his own nature how it is, will reasonably say, I am visible and palpable, passible, subject to decay and subject to God. Will then he who says such things speak as He That excels and is superior, as regards the count of His own Nature? how were this not an unlearned thing to say? for one surely will speak falsely, either that one or this. But in saying advocacy or speaking for, that it is nought else than to speak for another, you confess even against your will who tell us of connection and of One Christ and Lord: and severing them into two you worship them, yea rather you co-worship, and think that you are freeing the Church from the charge of god-making, yourself engoddening a man, and not saying One Son even though He be not conceived of apart from His own flesh: for then would you worship Him |72 unblamed, and will know where you were, as it is written, going astray from the doctrines of the truth.
"But yea (saith he) he hath said to the leper, I will, be thou cleansed, and to the ruler of the synagogue's daughter, Maid, arise, and to the sea, Peace, be still, and herein was he a co-partner, for he uttered the Divine words whereby it was possible to achieve all things easily." Two then are they that command, and let us grant that the words on all matters belong to both. When then it says, Why seek ye to kill me, a man which have told you the truth, whose words (tell me) do you say that these be? or dost thou allot those to the Word, these to a man born of a woman as other than He? Where then wilt thou put the most holy Paul who says clearly, But to us One God the Father out of Whom all things and we unto Him, and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom all things and we through Him. But he, over and over saying, "One Son and not one and other, nor yet Christ and a second christ," contends against his own words, and to two persons and distinct hypostases allots the expressions of the Divines and His own.
Yet not regardless of his own notions, he puts forth again,
"I 23 venerate him as image of Almighty Godhead; for He highly exalted Him and gave Him a Name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow, of heavenly and earthly and beneath the earth and every tongue should confess Lord Jesus Christ."
§11. And who again will be conceived of as he whom (as he supposes) he confesses he venerates and pretends to honour with likeness to God, save surely him whom he but now mentioned to us, calling him an advocate or co-worker of the Divine sway? whom he foolishly said ought to be co-worshipped with the Godhead, as son other and severally than |73 the Word of God: he says that he has also been exalted by God the Father, that he moreover received the Name which is above every name, that to him should both every knee how, of heavenly and earthly and neath the earth and every tongue confess Lord Jesus Christ.
If therefore the Father hath placed Him, being God by Nature, on high even before the here-mentioned exaltation: on investigating the mode of the intervening abasement, we shall find some wise Economy in regard to which dishonoured meanwhile, He had become again in the exaltation wherein He ever was, exaltation essentially inexisting and verily Proper to Him. If this be not so (as he deems and says) but He made some other than the Word of God, the man connected with Him, an object of worship by heaven and earth and those lower yet:----He hath engodded a man like us: no longer will He meetly blame us as though we desired to engod him that is not God, whereas one must fasten on God the Father Himself the charge of the transgression hereto pertaining. He that is studious for learning sees therefore in what direction his words burst forth, and the inventions of his untempered miscounsel at what a word they terminate. For WE say that the Son being by Nature God, i. e., the Word out of God the Father, descended unto voluntary emptying, ascended again with the flesh too unto the God-befitting Dignity of His inherent Excellence: for He is worshipped with flesh too, as being an object of worship even before it, for He was even yet by Nature God, both before the emptying and when He is said to endure the emptiness, made as we. But this man disdaining so august and spotless doctrines connecteth a man with God by mere outward accident, and is not ashamed to co-worship him as in equality of dignity and as one with another, and maintains (he says) that he received as somewhat unwonted and strange and as a matter of favour that to him every knee should bow, and besides that |74 every tongue should confess Lord Jesus Christ. And shouldst thou say that he was made God by Nature, he hath blasphemed openly saying that the Nature of the Godhead is generate; and if not by Nature but he receive the dignity of gift and from outside and by mere title, how is he not openly saying that we worship him who is not by Nature God? And together with us (it is like) the gravity of the spirits above too is in error. And the Father Himself is the beginning and plea to us of these things. How then will He yet find fault with them who have chosen to worship the creature rather than Himself? and why does He indict and punish those that have erred, if the error have been by the will of Himself, in exhibiting to us as an object of worship him who is not by Nature God?
But since citing here this word, I mean the one before us, that to Him shall bow every knee and every tongue shall confess Lord Jesus Christ, he (I know not how minded) pretermitted what remains and was of necessity added in order by the blessed Paul, come let us adding it say this, for every tongue confesses Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. Hence if He be not by Nature God, but he says that on account of accidental connection, I mean with the Word out of God, he is worshipped both by ourselves and by the holy angels:----some mode of honour has been invented by the Father, so that the creature should be engodded along with Himself, and to no purpose has He displeasure against any for having done this: and if this thing were to His honour, how should He not deem worthy of recompense, praise and glory them who have chosen to do this?
But haply they will say this, How is it any honour to the Father that every knee should bow to Emmanuel?
Because the Word being by Nature God and out of Him, that is, out of His Essence, has been made flesh, and is worshipped (as I said) as One and Alone and Truly Son with His proper Flesh. And the Father is glorified as God, |75 having Very Son Him who was begotten from forth His Essence, whom made flesh also He hath given for us, in order that He having suffered in the flesh might save all under Heaven, that every one who believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life, that every one that seeth Him might see the Father. Now that this too is to us verily a life-giving thing, the Son Himself hath shewn: for He said, This is Life Eternal that they might know Thee, the Only Very God and Jesus Christ whom Thou sentest.
And this and none other is the way to the right and most unerring line of thought, but he utterly confounding every thing says,
"Because of the wearer I reverence the worn, because of the hidden I worship him that is seen. 24"
§12. View again (I pray) how he every where shuns the union and fears the truth and refuses the rightness of the Divine doctrines. Not other than the worn was He who weareth, but rather the same conceived of in concurrence of Godhead and manhood, and One and Alone in truth Son of God the Father. Worship therefore the Word out of God as One with His own Flesh. For tell me, if I do not seem to thee to think aright, thrusting aside as feeble thy slow speech herein. For suppose one should choose to say of any man such as we are or of any one of the kings of the earth, Because of the king's soul I reverence his body, because of the hidden I worship him that is seen, would not one straightway chide him and say, O sir what are you doing? one man surely is the Ruler, even though he be evidently compounded of two, soul I mean and body. Why then are you idly blabbing to us, speaking of a wearer and a worn, a hidden and an apparent, and confessing that you co-worship as one with another and dishonouring the |76 mode of union, whereas the God-inspired Scripturs reveals to us One Christ and Lord, the Word out of God the Father with His own Body? Knowest thou not that He healed in Jerusalem the blind from his birth, afterward finding him in the temple, He engrafted into him a firm and stablished faith in Himself? for He came to him and asked, Dost THOU believe on the Son of God? and when to this he cried out, Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him? He again said, Thou hast both seen Him and it is He that talketh with thee. 25 Thou seest how He hath shewn him not the wearer, not the hidden within, but rather Himself as One with the flesh? And verily the wise John says, That Which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we viewed and our hands handled, of the Word of Life. Albeit the Godhead is impalpable, yet the Word has been made palpable through His own flesh; invisible by Nature, He was yet manifest through the Body; but Thou again completely severest and dealest subtilly with the truth, parting the natures, uniting (as you say) the worship. But if you part the natures, along with them will diverge the natural properties too of either, the count of their difference will speed apart: hence two are they confessedly.
But tell me who ask, what is it that severs the natures one from another and what will be the mode of their difference. You will (I suppose) surely answer that one thing by nature is man or the manhood, another God or the Godhead: and the one exalted incomparably above the other, and it as much inferior as is man less than God. How then (tell me) dost thou deem right to honour with one worship things of so unlike nature and parted, as regards their mode of being, by incomparable differences? For would you, if you put about a horse a man's glory, be doing anything praiseworthy? would you not rather be insulting the superior, dragging down the better nature into dishonour? |77
But he has invented something clever in his defence, for he subjoins:
"Not 26 by itself God is that which was formed in the womb, not by itself God that which was formed forth of the Spirit, not by itself God that which was buried in the tomb; for so should we have been man-worshippers and very worshippers of the dead. But since God is in that which is assumed, from that which assumeth is the assumed co-named God, as connected with the assumer."
§13. Lo again is he who every where telleth us of connection, and feareth the charge of man-worship, caught in the act of being a man-worshipper, and is holden in the meshes of his own mis-counsel and is detected falling into a reprobate mind. 'For (says he) that which is born from the womb is not by itself God.' How I marvel at thy shrewdness and thy so subtle mind: for who ever is there who hath dared to say this? or who that knows not that that which is born of the flesh is flesh? yet was it the own flesh of the Word and He is conceived of as one with it, just as we said but now that the soul of man too is one with his own body. If therefore one should choose say of us too, The body by itself is not man, would not such an one reasonably be called superfluous in his words and a random talker? for none will deny that the body by itself is not man, but it will be rather called the body of a man: natheless one will not severing them asunder and putting soul and body apart say that the body is co-named with the soul in order to signify a single man, for such a speech would not have been made orderly but would rather be replete with unlearning; but on bringing both together by physical union 27 unto the condition of one man, he will |78 then style him a man, and will not in this way seem to say what is paltry and uncomely. One must therefore if one would be in all wise and sensible say, A body which is from forth a woman, and confess that conjoined by personal union to the Word, it has rendered the Same, God and Man, One Christ and Son and Lord. But now pretermitting this, falling quite away from the straight road he thinks......b the perverted way, and proclaims unto us two gods: one, as if by Nature and in truth, the Word forth of God the Father, and other than He, him who is co-named with Him. For just as no one of us would be said to live (for example) with himself alone, but rather he would live with another, and if any one were to say that any of the kings of the earth co-reigned with himself, such an one would reasonably incur ridicule, and would be blabbing 8, putting and saying what belonged to one only, as though [he were speaking] of two: just so is it exceeding lack of understanding to suppose that to be co-named can have place in respect of one only. For they will surely be two; and the one is God by Nature, the other having (it seems) the mere being co-named [as something] from without and accruing to him, is exhibited to us as a new god. Does therefore He That is by Nature and truly God of all lie in saying to us, If thou wilt hearken unto Me, there shall be no new god be in thee, neither shalt thou worship an alien god? Then how have we worshipped Christ and how to Him shall every |79 knee bow? how dost thou confess that thou veneratest Him? albeit thou fearest (as thou saidst) to be called a man-worshipper.
But he has as he thinks some clever answer to this, "he is co-named god as connected with the assumer:" how was he assumed (tell) or what the mode of the connection? If therefore by true union, I mean of Person, cease dividing what has been united; for seasonably (I deem) by us too shall be said to thee who art severing the inseverable, What, therefore God joined together let not man put asunder. But if thou say that the assumption or the connection is extraneous and of accident, how knowest thou not that in us too is God and WE are connected to Him relatively and have been made partakers of His Divine Nature? yea the Divine-uttering David singeth, My soul is fast joined after Thee. Shall WE too therefore be co-named with God by Nature gods according to him, to us too shall every knee bow? What God the Father hath enjoined to the spirits above let the Divine-uttering Paul come forward and teach; For when (saith he) He bringeth the First-begotten into the world He saith, And let all the Angels of God worship Him. Since therefore herein thy wise word has not been added, but He has enjoined rather that He should be worshipped as of a surety One and not one along with another: who is He who is worshipped by the Angels, albeit the Divine Scripture calls Him First-born? We say that the Word out of God the Father has been called First-born albeit He is God by Nature and Only-Begotten Son and not reckoned with the creature, as far as regards Godhead, because He was made Man and First-born among many brethren.
One therefore is He Who is worshipped by the spirits above, the Word forth of God the Father with His own flesh: for then did He bear Him and, as having the preeminence in all things, is He conceived of as First-born. And |80 the God-inspired Scriptures wholly proclaim One Christ and Son and Lord: but this too-curious man says Two and he is not ashamed to add a worshipped man to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity: for he says again,
"But this kinsman after the flesh of Israel, man according to what is manifest, begotten according to Paul's voice of the seed of David, is by connection Almighty God" and then adds, 28 "Hear Paul proclaiming both, he confesses the man first and then deifies what is manifest by connection with God, that none may suspect the Christian of being a man-worshipper. Keep we therefore unconfused the connection of the natures, confess we One God, reverence we the man who is co-worshipped by a Divine connection along with the Almighty God."
§14. If therefore on naming Man thou knowest that He is with this God by Nature, it is well and I will stop: but if severing the natures, not merely in respect of knowing which is the human, which again the Divine, but rather parting them from their concurrence unto unity, confessedly thou art a man-worshipper, and it shall be said to thee by us, Thou shalt eat the fruit of thy labours: and being hard and spurning admonition, go alone on the perverted way. But WE, tracking the pious and blameless path of the holy fathers, instructed full well in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, will honour together with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, with one worship, the One Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom to God the Father be glory with the Holy Ghost unto ages of ages.
[A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical references, follows]
1. b See S. Cyril's fourth chapter, " If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema." Neither Andrew nor Theodoret understood this chapter; Andrew allows that the words must not be allotted to two persons, and uses the term ἄκρα of the Union of God and Man both here and on chapter 11 end, just as S. Cyril Hom. Pasch. 7, p. 102 d had said τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἑνοῦν and in the Hom. 16 (A.D. 429) so often quoted by Andrew, p. 230 b (as well as at p. 17 above and elsewhere) had used the expression τὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν [Nestorius § 8, below p. 64 had called it ἄκρα συνάφεια]; but appears to think that S. Cyril had denied any distinction of the words at all. Theodoret after an allotment to the Human nature of our Lord of words said by Him of His Human nature, shews his misunderstanding of S. Cyril's chapter by adding what is quite true, but is equally admitted by S. Cyril, "Hence, the things spoken and wrought in God-befitting sort, we will allot to God the Word, those spoken and wrought in lowly wise to the servant's form, lest we fall into the sickness of Arius' and Eunomius' blasphemy."
What S. Cyril is objecting to is the notion that He who is One with the Father is God the Son absolutely distinct from His own Manhood, that He who said. My God My God why forsookest Thou Me is, not God the Son, speaking of and through the Manhood which He had for ever united to Himself but, a man distinct and apart. But even in his quite early writings S. Cyril had never overlooked what the Eastern Bishops were (a year or two after this treatise was written) so anxious to have brought prominently forward, viz. that "as to the Gospel and Apostolic words concerning the Lord, we know that Divines make some common, as to One Person, apportion others, as to two Natures, and give to Christ the God-befitting according to His Godhead, the lowly ones according to His Manhood " (Confession of Eastern Bishops, approved by S. Cyril and incorporated by him in his Ecumenical letter to John of Antioch, Three Epistles p. 72). In his Thesaurus cap. x init., S. Cyril says, "But we must know and believe that the Word being God and Consubstantial in all things with the Father, put on man's nature and hath been made Man, in order that He may both sometimes speak as man by reason of the Economy with flesh, and may also as God utter the things above man as so being by Nature and when opportunity introduces the need of this. But if any one should wish to refer the things which are more humanly and economically spoken (as 1 said) to His Godhead and again to refer the things which are Divinely spoken to the time wherein He has been made man, such an one will wrong the nature of things and will destroy the Economy: for one while He saith as God, Verily I say to you, before Abraham was, I am, and again, I have come down from out of heaven. If one wishes to preserve to Him only the God-befitting Dignity, he will utterly take away His being made man in the last times (for He was not in human nature before Abraham was nor yet has He as man come down from Heaven): and again if one should choose to attribute to bare God the Word before the Incarnation the words and acts of the human nature, such an one will do impiously: for what will he do when Christ says Now has My Soul been troubled and is very sorrowful? will he admit that sorrow and dismay befel the Nature of God and that fear of death gat hold thereof? what when he sees Him crucified, will he admit that the Godhead of the Son suffered this just as man? or will he repudiate the blasphemy? Therefore let what is suitable thereto be kept to each time and fact and let Theology practise herself not surely in those things whence it is clear that He is speaking as man, but those whence He is from forth the Father as Son and God; and let it allow to the Economy with flesh that He should sometimes say what does not belong to the Godhead bare and by Itself." pp. 72,73. See also de Trinitate ad Herm. dial. 1. p. 398, dial. 6. p. 600 a b, 602 fin. Hom. Pasch. 7 (A.D. 420) "For as to create in God-befitting manner is not conceived of as pertaining to a man, so is to die alien from God." p. 104 b and through the Homily. These belong to the earlier years of S. Cyril's Episcopate: they do not differ from what S. Cyril wrote about this time, in explanation of his fourth chapter, and in reply to Andrew's criticisms, p. 171 a b, nor from what, in A.D. 432 when the Egyptian and Eastern Churches had explained to one another what each meant, S. Cyril wrote to Acacius Bishop of Melitene as being what the Eastern Bishops said and as being one of the essential points in which they differed from Nestorius (Epp. pp. 117, 118 a).
2. c.... S. Cyril in his second Letter to Successus bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, written probably about 3 years after this, explains the Term One Nature Incarnate thus, " For even if the Only-Begotten Son of God Incarnate and Made man be said by us to be One, He has not therefore been mixed up (as some please to think) nor has the Nature of the Word passed into the nature of the flesh nor yet that of the flesh into His Nature, but, while each abides and is conceived of in its natural property, H e united unspeakably and unutterably shewed us One Nature of the Son, yet (as I said) Incarnate. For not merely of things which are simple by nature is the One rightly used, but also of those which are brought together as compounded; such as is man, of soul and body: for such things are diverse in form and not consubstantial one to another; yet united, they made up one nature of man, albeit in the plan of the compounding, the difference of nature in the things brought together into Union exists." Epp. p. 143 a b c. The great estimation in which this letter was held is indicated by its frequent citations in controversies on the Incarnation. See also the Letter to Acacius Bishop Melitene, Epp. pp. 115, 116.
3. d See S. Cyril's first Letter to Successus, Epp. p. 137 d.
4. e The following extract from Tillemont (Hist. Eccles. Les Apollinaristes, Art 2. t. vii pp. 001, 605 ed. 2. Paris 1700), will illustrate that dread of Apollinarianism, which not only Nestorius but John of Antioch (see a letter of his to S.Cyril, Synodicon cap. 80. Baluz. Nova Collectio Conciliorum t. i. 783; iv. 346 Col.) Theodoret and the Bishops of that Archiepiscopate felt. Apollinarianism had been their last great heretical onslaught, only about 60 years previous, and Antioch its head-quarters. Tillemont says, "Car ne voulant pas reconnoistre qu'il y eust deux substances et deux natures en J. C, l'une divine et l'autre humaine, ou bien l'une de Dieu et l'autre de la chair, non seulement ils [les Apollinaristes] soutenoient, après les Ariens, qu'il avoit une seule nature mixte et composée de la divine et de l'humaine: mais ils se reduisoient à dire que sa chair estoit consubstantielle à sa divinité, qu'une partie du Verbe avoit esté changée en chair, en os, en cheveux, en un mot en un corps et en une nature toute différente de la sienne, que ce n'avoit pas esté un corps comme le nostre, qu'il en avoit seulement la forme et l'apparence extérieure, mais qu'il estoit coeternel à la nature divine, formé de la substance mesme de la sagesse éternelle et de celle du Verbe changée en un corps passible: Qu'ainsi c'estoit la substance mesme de la sagesse qui avoit creé le monde, et la divinité du Fils consubstantielle au Père, qui avoit esté circoncise et attachée a la croix; et non un corps terrestre comme le nostre.
Ils ajoutaient, par une consequence bien naturelle de ce faux principe, que la substance de son corps n'estait pas prise de Marie, mais avoit seulement passé par elle comme par un canal [this was the ancient blasphemy of a portion of the Gnostics, see S. Iren. 3. 11. 3. p. 231 O.T.]: d'où vient qu'ils luy refusoient le titre de Mere de Dieu, et qu'ils pretendoient qu'on ne pouvoit dire que le corps de J. C. fust tiré d'elle, sans mettre une quaternité en Dieu au lieu de la Trinité; de sorte qu'il est visible que selon eux, le corps de J. C. estoit compris dans la Trinité. Ils disaient aussi que ce corps avait esté avant Marie et que J. C. l'avoit toujours eu, ayant toujours esté fils de l'homme, qu'il l'avoit pris du ciel [S. Cyril in his Ecumenic Letter to John Archbishop of Antioch (see 3 Epistles p. 72) says that some had reported that he himself had held this very thing], qu'il n'avoit eu qu'à descendre en terre avec son corps qui luy estoit uni substantiellement, qu'ainsi ce corps estoit non seulement consubstantiel à la divinité, mais aussi céleste et increé."
When therefore S. Cyril insists on the Word having been made flesh, the Eastern Bishops thought that while using S.John the Evangelist's words, he was pressing the γέγονε to mean hath become, been actually turned into: and the "One Incarnate Hypostasis of the Word" seemed to them to mean not Union but the mixture and confusion of the Apollinarians. Theodoret, in his objections to the 12 chapters which S. Cyril and his Council had drawn up for Nestorius to sign, does not in general use language that differs very much from S. Cyril's own mind; but sets out with the conviction that S. Cyril was an Apollinarian and so reads and interprets the chapters as really intended to bring in Apollinarian error secretly by use of veiled language. Thus in reply to S. Cyril's "for she [the blessed Virgin] hath borne after the flesh the Word from out of God made flesh " (chapter 1), Theodoret remarks, "we say that He has not been made flesh by nature nor was God the Word changed into flesh," "it is plain therefore that the Form of God was not turned into form of servant:" in objection to Chapter 2, "Superfluous therefore is Personal union, which as I think he is putting forward instead of mixture:" the objection to chapter 3 ends with the words, "he who is teaching us mixture by means of other names:" in objection to chapter 5, "but that the Word has been made flesh by any turning, we not only do not say, but we accuse of impiety them that say so:" the objection to chapter 6 closes, "for not by being turned did God the Word become flesh, but assumed flesh possessed of an intellectual soul;" in the objection to chapter 8 occur similarly the words, "For neither did God the Word receive transformation [τροπὴν see S. James i. 17] nor again did man lose what he was, and become changed into the nature of God:" the objection to chapter 10 begins, "Not into nature of flesh was the Unchangeable Nature turned:" in the objection to chapter 11 occur the words, "for first of all, he nowhere mentioned flesh endowed with mind nor confessed that he which was assumed is perfect man, but everywhere he says flesh, following the doctrine of Apollinarius; next he intersperses in his words the notion of mixture, infusing it by means of other words." Hence it is clear that Theodoret's objection was not to the chapters themselves but to the chapters in that he approached them possessed with the notion that S. Cyril was an Apollinarian and was endeavouring to disseminate their error by dishonest use of apparently orthodox language.
5. f Nestorius means that whereas it was the object of the Arians and Eunomians to assert that God the Son was inferior to God the Father, supposing all the lowly actions that are recorded of God our Saviour and His purely Human actions, His hunger and thirst and weariness and sorrow and pain, could be referred to His Godhead, it would go to make out their case. Whereas the actions are not referred to the Godhead considered by Itself, but all the actions recorded of our Lord after His Birth in the flesh, whether Divine or Human, are referred to One Person, God and Man in One, of God the Son. Just as (to use our little comparisons to help our frail understanding) no distinction is made in human actions; we say, he ate, he slept, he read, he wrote, he thought: we do not distinguish and say, his body ate, his body slept, his soul read, or wrote, or thought. Part of this passage is quoted by S. Cyril in his defence of his fourth chapter against Andrew. For the last portion of the extract compare serm 2, p. 68, Bal.
6. h One is added on the authority of a Syriac citation in a MS. in the British Museum, Cod add. 14533 fol. 9and again fol. 30. The Roman editors had given it in their margin as a conjectural emendation.
7. l i.e. as one of the things not imparted to it, but so part of its own being, that it may not lose it without ceasing to be what it is.
8. n Nestorius in the fourth of the sermons which Mercator has published (preached after he had received from S. Cyril the Great Letter of the Alexandrine Synod with the 12 Chapters appended, accompanied by Pope S. Celestine's Letter), preached against opponents of his and re-affirms what he had said before, repeating a few words here and there from the older sermon from which these extracts were taken: a sermon not perhaps belonging to the volume which was first published (see above p. 4) but preached (as was certainly the next piece, p. 51) to oppose S. Cyril's letter to monks, p. 13 b. In this sermon 4, p. 82 Nestorius says, "God sent His Son, a name common to the natures, i. e., of man and God. He did not say, God sending God the Word." See too further on where other similarities or re-capitulations are referred to in margin. The passage which stands at the head of § 13 (see below p. 77) is from serm. 2. p. 65 Bal. and some of it also in serm. 1. p. 55.
The whole passage as cited here and in the Council of Ephesus (see next note) is given by Mercator with the title, From the book of Nestorius himself, out of the 16th quire, on dogma. In the volume from which the extracts were taken for the Council of Ephesus, the sermon on dogma seems to have nearly followed that which Mercator gives us complete pp. 56-70, and which is there called sermon 2: for the extracts from this sermon 2 are extracted from the 15th and 10th quires, see Mercatoris opera pp. 205, 207, 210 Bal.: while the two extracts given from the sermon on Dogma are from the 16th and 17th quires, viz. this one from the 16th (Merc. p. 201, or 17th as Greek edd.) and the extract at the head of § 8 below from the 17th quire (Merc. p. 205). The Greek editions of the council however agree with Mercator in styling this extract εἰς δόγμα, but omit the words in the title to the other extract, appending it instead to two citations from the 15th quire; one of which is, in part, at the head of § 14, the other is given by S. Cyril both there and in his letter to Acacius of Melitene written after the reconcilation with the Eastern Bishops, Epp. p. 115. 1.5-9.
9. q i. e. S. Cyril himself: for Nestorius looked not kindly on S. Cyril's Letter to the monks, to which (p. 13 b) he is here referring, see note on book 4 § 6 below.
10. s The present text as it now stands is ταῦτα που καὶ σαυτὸν, the Roman Editors conjecture κατὰ for καὶ, but it is just as likely that the difficulty is occasioned by omission from homoeoteleuton, from which even a good MS. (as is the one in which the Greek text of these books is preserved) is rarely exempt.
11. t i. e., the tribute money of half a shekel which was the acknowledgement of God's sovereignty appointed in the first instance by God, Exod. xxx. 12-16. (It does not appear to have been a regular tax, though there seems an allusion to it in 2 Kings xii. 4, the money of every one that passeth the account. This tax our Lord paid, S. Matt, xvii. 24-27, yet told S. Peter that He was free, as a Son.) Every male who had attained the age of 20 was to pay: it amounted to a hundred talents, 1775 shekels of silver: with the hundred talents were cast a hundred silver sockets for the sanctuary and the vail, the 1775 silver shekels were used in making hooks for the pillars and in overlaying the chapiters (Exod. xxxviii, 25-28).
Dr. Edersheim, learned in Jewish customs and deeply versed in their books, tells us, " It had only been about a century before [our Lord's payment for Himself and S. Peter], during the reign of Salome-Alexandra (about 78 B. C), that the Pharisaical party, being then in power, had carried an enactment by which the Temple-tribute was to be enforced at law.....It is a matter of doubt whether the half-shekel had ever been intended as an annual payment. Its first enactment was under exceptional circumstances, and the mode in which, as we are informed a similar collection was made during the reign of Joash(2 Chron.xxiv.6-11) suggests the question whether the original institution by Moses was not treated rather as affording a precedent than as laying down a binding rule. At the time of Nehemiah we read only of a self-imposed ordinance and at the rate of a third, not a half shekel (Neh. x. 32-34). But long before the coming of Christ very different views prevailed." The Temple, its ministry and Services pp. 49, 50 (Religious Tract Society). Dr. Edersheim tells us that the money was paid in the month previous to the Passover, pp. 47, 48.
12. u In this passage as cited before the Council of Ephesus are given the words which S. Cyril also (see de Trin.dial. 6. p. 589 e and elsewhere,) with the Alexandrine MS. of the LXX. reads, ἡγιασμένοι εἰσιν, they have been sanctified (corresponding to My sanctified ones in our version) and I lead them. These words are required to explain Nestorius' assertion that the Babylonian was called holy.
13. v See this at greater length in S. Cyril's Glaphyra on Exodus, lib. i. cap. 4. pp. 305 sq. and especially 306 c; also lib. iii. 3. pp. 327 sq.
14. x This contrast between our Master and our fellow-servants to whom He had delegated His authority before His own Advent, is argued on by S. Cyril below, Schol. § 26, also Thes. cap. 12 p. 108 c d and often.
15. y S. Cyril in his Thesaurus, cap. 25 p. 238 d says, " He is therefore Only-Begotten by Nature, as Only out of the Father, God out of God, and Light beaming forth of Light: First-Begotten for our sakes, in order that all the creation engrafted as it were in a certain immortal root and springing up out of Him Who ever is (for all things have been made through Him and consist) might itself too be preserved for aye." (... is Aubert's text slightly emended from the beautiful Munich Codex 331, written in the tenth century). See also De Trin. ad Herm. dial. l.p. 405 c: and th Paschal homily (A.D. 420) p. 103; 10th Paschal homily (A.D. 423) p. 159 e.
16. z This is given differently in Marius Mercator's collection of extracts made by S.Cyril from Nestorius'writings. The 17th extract is as follows, "Also from another tractate quire 25. Wherefore I would have you secure in your assent or acclamation [..., no doubt rightly]. There is no severance of the connection and of Godhead [deitatis, perhaps, dignitatis, dignity] nor of the sway. In that the Son is Christ, there is no severance in these, but in regard to Godhead and manhood there is severance. In that He is Christ, the Son is undivided, in that He is Son, He is undivided. For we have not two christs and two sons, nor is there with us a first christ and a second, nor one and another, nor again one son and again another son, but Himself the Same, Himself a twofold Son, not in respect of dignity but of nature." p. 117 ed. Baluz.
17. a flesh and body. Thus I heave translated, following the translation given of this piece of S. Cyril hy the Syriac MS. in the British Museum (Add. 17154 fol. 21 v) written in the seventh century. The MS. contains a correspondence betweeh Severus Archbishop of Antioch and Sergius the Grammarian on the controversy about the two Natures in the Incarnation. Severus quotes S. Cyril throughout his writings, and this passage is cited in Severus' reply to Sergius' second letter. The Greek has the more usual phrase, flesh and blood.
18. c S. Cyril had looked on these words of Nestorius as replete with gravest untruth, for S. Cyril's seventh chapter is, "If any says that Jesus has been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word and that the good glory of the Only-Begotten has been put around Him as though He were other than He, be he anathema." They may belong to one of Nestorius' earlier sermons. Mercator (p. 110 ed. Bal.) cites them as being out of the second volume, first quire (i. e. of one of the volumes of published sermons, see above p. 48 note n). Mercator tells us that this volume began, "I have yet much to say to you." (Mercator has apparently only three extracts out of the first volume, i.e. two on the Creed, and the one given above p. 51.) In the extracts made for the Council of Ephesus, part of the passage is also cited and there too as taken out of the first quire: see Merc. p. 207, top of page, and the corresponding place in the different editions of the Council of Ephesus.
19. f S. Cyril in his sixth Dialogue to Hermias explains that "Hence He is glorified by the Father not as though He needed glory while conceived of as apart from flesh, and believed God forth of God: but since He was man, which does not possess as fruit of his proper nature, the power of working God-befitting acts, He receives the power by the Union and Concurrence (...) Unspeakable such as is conceived to be that of the Word with His human nature." De Trin. ad Herm. dial. 6. p. 601 a b.
20. h See this also in the Quod Unus Christus, below.
21. l i.e. S. Cyril says here and elsewhere (de recta fide ad Imperatorem 32 e, ad Arcadiam Marinamque 47 b 70 e 85 e 115 d 120 d, ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam 131 b 148 b, in his Explanation of XIth chapter, and three or four times in the treatise Quod Unus Christus) that the name Jesus Christ does not belong to God the Son before the Incarnation, except as looking on to the Incarnation (de recta fide ad Arcadiam Marinamque 120 d) but is the name of God the Son Incarnate God and Man: not as though there were a connection with Christ but because "God and Man are One Christ."
22. m This passage again is from sermon 2 in Mercator's selection: it occurs at p. 64 Bal. In the sermon itself, after who have told you the truth, is added, but now He says, why seek ye to kill Me that Man who was crowned &c. Words here and there are quoted by the same Mercator, as translations of S. Cyril's citations of Nestorius (p. 114 Bal.) and some other words among the passages cited before Council of Ephesus where they are said to be taken from the sixteenth quire, (ib. p. 207 & Conc. t. iii. 1068 Col.)
23. r These words are also a portion of serm. 2 (see p. 65 Baluz.). The closing words, and that every tongue should confess Lord Jesus Christ, are there omitted but seem to have formed part of the sermon, since S. Cyril a little below says that Nestorius for some reason or other had omitted to add, to the glory of God the Father. We do not know where Nestorius used the words cited a little before, But yea He said to the leper, I will, &c.
24. v These words are extant in Nestorius' first sermon p. 55 Baluz, but some phrases are repeated in serm. 2 p. 65 just following S. Cyril's last citation. The words, Because of the wearer I reverence the worn, are not in this part of the second sermon, yet are quoted (pp. 114, 115) in a long piece extracted (all but these words) from serm. 2, and again in page 207 in an extract from the 16th quire in which this sermon was. The words here cited are likewise cited by S. Cyril in his Great Letter to Nestorius. Three Epistles, p. 64.
25. x S. Cyril loves to quote this loyal adoration of our Master on the part of the born-blind and our Master's acceptance of it; see it mentioned again below Schol. § 36 and de recta fide to the Emperor Theodosius, 31 a.
26. y This belongs to serm. 2. and follows the last quotation, a few words only intervening. A few words are also quoted in the Great Letter to Nest. see note v.
27. z See this expression physical union or unity of Nature of the Union of the Nature of God and the Nature of man in Christ in S. Cyril's third chapter. S, Cyril says in his Explanation of his third chapter that he used physical in the sense of true. The word physical or natural, perplexed Andrew of Samosata, who in his objection to that chapter supposes natural to have been used in contrast with supernatural.
Theodoret, in his objection, replies that even man himself, though really one, is allowed to be spoken of as twofold. S. Cyril does not object to this: he speaks in regard to our Lord, of dividing the Natures in one's conception of them. " Hence in regard of thought and of only seeing with the eyes of the soul how the Only-Begotten became man, we say that the natures united are two, but that the Word of God Incarnate and made man, is One Christ and Son and Lord." Ep. 1 to Successus, p. 137 e. Again, " But they [i. e. they who thought one ought to speak of two natures as actually existent] did not know that things which are severed otherwise than in mere conception of them, these will full surely part off one from the other wholly and separately into diverseness. Take for example a man: we conceive of two natures in him, one, of the soul, the other, of the body. But severing them in mere idea, and in subtil conception or fantasy of the mind, admitting the difference, we do not put the natures apart nor give them their force throughout by severing, but we conceive of One; so that the two are no longer two, but through both is One living creature made up. Hence though one speak of the nature of manhood and Godhead in Emmanuel, yet has the manhood become the Word's own, and He is conceived of as One Son with it." Ep. 2. to Successus, p. 145 b c.
28. b something seems to have dropped out here. The Roman Editors conjectured ἴεται hastens along for οἴεται thinks: "he hastens along the perverted way, falling from the straight path."
29. f These two pieces are both quoted before the Council of Ephesus, see pp. 204, 206 Bal. where they are called from the fifteenth quire; the Greek editions add on dogma. S. Cyril cites also the last portion in his letter to Acacius of Melitene Epp. p. 115 a, see above p. 49 note n.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: cyril_against_nestorius_03_book .htm
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius (1881) Book 3. pp.81-....
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius. LFC 47 (1881) Book 3. pp.81-124.
TOME III.
[Translated by P.E. PUSEY]
Ps. xviii. 11 hints at the depth of Christ's mystery. Gifts through Incarnation. Is, xlv. 14, 15 the Incarnate Son. S. John i. 14. 2 Sam. vii. 12-14 explained by S. Paul. 1 Sam. ii. 35. The WORD Incarnate worshipped by Angels worships with us and is our High Priest. GOD the WORD sent and how: so our High Priest. Sent and High Priest when Incarnate., Possessor of Godhead, a misnomer. Heb. v. 1. He makes us His brothers. 'Yesterday to-day and for ever.' S. John i. 30: iii. 13: Micah v. 2, Is. liii. 8. Gen. xxxii. 24 sqq. High Priesthood belongs to Incarnation. 'Sent' of God is a human word and to be understood worthily of God. The Son Incarnate gives the Holy Ghost as God, receives as man. High priesthood. Growth "in wisdom and stature and favour." Union alone permits to attribute to One the properties of either manhood or Godhead. The Paschal Lamb and the sacrifice for sin of a young bullock types of the sinlessness of our Sacrifice.
Great confessedly is the mystery of godliness, and marvelled at by the holy Angels themselves also, and hereto the most wise Paul confirms us saying, To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith. For wisdom verily, and that not human (how could it?) but Divine rather and deposited in certain ineffable depths and incomprehensibilities, is the Mystery of Christ. And the blessed David singeth, And He made darkness His secret place, around Him His pavilion dark water in clouds of the skies, palling darkness (I suppose) nought else save altogether the dim conception of ideas, falling like mist upon the eyes of the understanding.
We say therefore that the mystery of Christ hath by no means needed subtil investigations and search beyond the reach of mind, but faith rather that holds the tradition simple and guileless. Thus we ourselves also have |82 been taught and believed that God the Father sent His own Son who is by Nature God, made Man and born of a woman after the flesh, that He might justify them that believe on Him and having freed from stumblings through ignorance, by His Good and most gentle authority, might present them clean and undefiled through Him to God the Father, and might make partakers of His own Divine Nature them who are under death and decay, yea and might preach recovery of sight to the blind, and might bring over the flocks which had strayed into the light of the true knowledge of God, and might teach at length who it is Who is by Nature and truly God and the Creator of all. For He became the savour of the knowledge of God the Father, and in Him we have beheld Him out of Whom He was begotten by Nature and know clearly the way that leadeth us unto everlasting life. That thus the Son should beam upon the crowd of the Gentiles too, hath the blessed Prophet Isaiah cried beforehand saying, Thus saith the Lord, Egypt toiled and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall pass over unto Thee and they shall be Thy servants, and they shall come after Thee bound in fetters: and they shall worship Thee, and in Thee shall they pray; for in Thee is God, and there is no God save Thee, for THOU art God and we knew it not, the God of Israel the Saviour. And it is said somewhere to the Son, as from the Person again of God the Father, Lo, I have set Thee for a covenant of the race, for a light of the nations, that Thou mayest be for salvation unto the end of the earth. For He hath instituted to them of the blood and race of Israel, the new covenant, the first having waxen old, and He beamed as far as the boundaries of that beneath the sky also, to the nations and people in every place and city. For they have worshipped Him yea and they follow Him spiritually, holden by the indissoluble chains of love, as in fetters and well-nigh say what is in the Prophet Jeremiah, Behold WE will be Thine for THOU art the Lord our God. See (I pray) the vigilance of the Prophet's thoughts, |83 They shall worship Thee (he says) and in Thee shall they pray, for in Thee is God, and there is no God beside Thee. He knew then confessedly as being Spirit-clad the Word Out of God the Father, Who should tabernacle in us, as saith the blessed Evangelist John: therefore he saith that God is in Thee; yet hath he not suffered Emmanuel to be Severed into two gods, but even though the Only-Begotten was made man, he acknowledged Him even so as One and straightway added, There is no God save Thee. For Consider accurately the Prophet's utterance. For having first declared (as I said) that God is in Thee, he hath not added, And there is no God save He that is in Thee, but gathering it into the Unity of the Economy, says There is no God beside Thee.
But that the Only-Begotten Word of God made man, is declared to us by the (so to speak) whole God-inspired Scripture, is easy to shew without toil by very many proofs: but I think it is enough for the present to say this. God said somewhere to blessed David, And I will set up out of thy seed after thee Him who shall proceed out of thy bowels and I will prepare His Kingdom: He shall build an house for My Name and I will stablish His Throne for ever, and\ will be to Him a Father and He shall be to Me a Son. But some one (I suppose) will say that these things were said not of Emmanuel, but of Solomon rather: yet the most wise Paul will strenuously oppose those who would thus understand it, for he takes the words of Christ and says that it is He to Whom it has been said by God the Father, I will be to Him a Father and He shall be to Me a Son. But that when made like unto us, i. e., Man, He should offer to God the Father, all beneath the sky saved through faith in Him, He made known saying elsewhere, And I will raise Me up a faithful Priest who shall do all which is in Mine heart and in My soul, and I will build Him a sure house and He |84 shall walk before Me for ever. Observe (I pray) that having elsewhere said, He shall build an house for My Name, the Father here promises to rear the house for the Son. And the Divine Paul understanding this, said that Moses was faithful in all My house having the measure pertaining to a servant, but Christ as a Son over His own house, Whose House are WE; and the mode of the ministry, things pertaining to us, not the blood of bulls and of calves, but the confession of the faith of us all. And blessed Paul will again certify it, writing thus, Wherefore holy brethren partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him That appointed Him. We say therefore that the Word out of God the Father, when receiving servant's form He is said to have been emptied for our sake, then too did abase Himself in the measure of the human nature, whereto will pertain (and very reasonably) both the seeming to be sent and the accounting the ministry the token of the very highest honour. For if when He became as we, He have worshipped with us as Man, albeit the Host above and the holy spirits worship Him, and Moses says of Him, Rejoice O ye heavens with Him and let all the sons of God worship Him; what is there strange or what inconvenient to the nature of the Economy if He have been called High Priest as offering for us for an odour of a sweet smell Himself and us through Himself and in Himself to God the Father? for we are a sweet savour of Christ, as it is written. But this noble person again affirms that these things have been wrought in no fit order, and all but smiles at those who conceive that these things were so, and impiously finding fault with the Divine purposes, says thus:
"For they hearing the name of Apostle, deem that God the Word was Apostle; reading the name High Priest, they fancy that the Godhead was High Priest, by a species of paradoxical craziness: for who learning of the ministry |85 of an Apostle, would not forthwith know that a man is indicated? who on hearing the appellation of High Priest, would suppose that the Essence of Godhead were High Priest? for if the Godhead be High Priest, who is he who is served by the ministry of the High Priesthood? if God be the Offerer, there is none to whom offering is made: for what is there worthy of Godhead that as less It should offer to the greater?" And hereto he adds, "Whence then is God supposed by them to have been now called High Priest Who needeth not sacrifices for His own advancement like the high priests? Is the possessor of Godhead, taken from among men, ordained for men in things God-ward?"
§1. Therefore dost thou say that the Word of God has not been even sent into the world? The most wise Paul hath cozened (it appears) those who were called through him, for he said, God sent forth His Son made of a woman, made under the law: the blessed David too will be found according to thee idly romancing and seeking impossible things, for he said somewhere to God the Father in Heaven, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. And what (tell me) will not the Son Himself too speak falsely in saying, For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might he saved, and again, I came forth from the Father and am come. The wise John too writes somewhere of Him, He that receiveth His testimony set to his seal that God is true, for He Whom God sent speaketh God's words. But we say that the Word of God hath been sent, having with the measures of the emptying the name and fact of being sent: but YOU why do you unlearnedly fear and blush to allot to Him the name and fact both of the apostolate and the High-priesthood? would it befit (do you suppose) as other than He, the man born of a woman having (according to you) a mere connection |86 and that in equality of dignity only? how then is the Word being God seen to profit any longer our condition, if we have been even presented to God the Father through another? for no longer have we had the access through Him, but a man like us has become our mediator having the name of Godhead put on.
Yea (says he) the priest's office is petty to the Word begotten out of God the Father. Petty confessedly, I agree with you enunciating the truth, but not in bare Godhead did He dawn on those upon the earth, but rather made man as we, to whom the priesthood is some great and choice thing. But if He refused the priest's office as belonging to man, or indeed ought that appertains to the measure of bond-service, how were it not better far, before this to refuse too the Incarnation?
Yet He rejected not for our sakes the Birth. But this man (as I said) is ashamed of the truth, shewing himself unwise and unskilled, albeit the blessed Paul saith, For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. And one may well marvel that the Word of God for the salvation and life of all endured to suffer so great abasement, which the inventor for us of idle teachings is (I know not how) ashamed merely to acknowledge, albeit he ought to wonder hereat and to cry with the blessed Prophet, O Lord, I have heard Thy report and was afraid, I considered Thy works and was amazed. But since the whole God-inspired Scripture in a manner rises up against him, and arrays against him the truth, shewing that his discourse in favour of his own inventions, cold and without any real being and destitute of support from any quarter, lacks in no small degree the conceptions and ideas that tend unto Tightness and truth; hence what no one of those well reported of for rightness of doctrine, ever either thought or said, this he makes the occasion of his discourse, and fights with shadows and strains himself to no purpose, no one |87 opposing him or wishing to contend about these matters. And this (I deem) is to beat the air. For he said "Who on learning of the ministry of an apostle would not forthwith know that a man is indicated? who on hearing the appellation of High Priest would suppose that the Essence of Godhead were High-Priest?" Since therefore there is no one who says this, with whom (tell me) are you striving, and as though yourself alone were overthrowing what is condemned by the voice of all, are haply thinking that your opposition is worthy even of honours? albeit how is it not true that since no one saith this, it is you who are bringing forward what it were better to be silent on and not to instil into the souls of the more simple? For who is so crazed as to, suppose that the Essence 'of Godhead were High Priest?' Aaron was a man, albeit he obtained preeminence of the rest in Divine Priesthood. How then will any one suppose that the Essence of Godhead is High Priest, or how will he not wholly and surely confess that mention is made of a man when the brother of Moses is named to us as High Priest? Yet he putting forth some language that commonly belongs to and befits every High Priest of those among us, essays to undo the marvel of the Economy understood in Christ, and dares to shake from the very foundations our Divine Mystery, not considering that Christ hath founded the Church upon a rock, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. For he no wise condescends to follow the common doctrine and that of all who are wont to think aright, but he alone innovates without examination what he pleases. For WE (as I said before) say that the Word out of God the Father, made Man, offered to Himself and to the Father the confession of our faith and wrought an Economy befitting and by no means out of harmony with the measures of the emptying. 1 But not so does it seem to him, but he |88 taking separately and apart him that is from forth the holy Virgin as though another Christ than the Word That is out of God the Father, says that he became the Apostle and high priest of our confession and supposes that he is thinking what conduce unto piety when he says, "If God be the offerer, there is none to whom offering is made, for what is there worthy of Godhead that as though less It should make offering to the greater?" Now if there were any who were contending and saying that He That is truly Word out of God the Father had been appointed to office of priesthood even before the Incarnation and were in the measure of ministry and were for this reason to be called High Priest and Apostle, he would have given a wise rebuke, and one would say that his argument hereon had been made in season. For not in lack of priests is the Nature That rules all, that Himself should minister therein. But since the Only-Begotten, being God by Nature and receiving from the hands of those who execute the Priest's office their ministrations, hath descended unto the measure of those appointed unto the priesthood, having become Man (as I said), nought strange will it be if He be called by us High Priest too. Hath He not come down in servant's form, having taken that is the form of a servant, albeit Impress and Brightness of the Father's Glory? None will doubt it. When therefore He Who is in His own Nature Free |89 as God, He Who is in the Form and Equality of the Father, has been called bond, economically not thrusting from Him the measure of those who are under the yoke of bondage, why dost thou fear to call Him High Priest too by reason of the Manhood? for He dedicates us for an odour of a sweet smell through faith, and Himself hath He offered for us as a most sweet-smelling offering to the Father.
But he (saying I know not what) straightway subjoins to these things; "Whence then were God supposed by them to have been now called High Priest Who needeth not sacrifices for His own advancement? is the possessor of Godhead taken from among men appointed for men in things God-ward?" Whence then Christ, i. e., the Word out of God made man, was, or why He was called, Apostle and High Priest, our discourse has already clearly shewn, but I think it right not to leave unexamined his unwonted and strange utterance. For doth he say that the Word out of God is Possessor of Godhead, even though any should wish to conceive of Him apart and without flesh? doth he define His Godhead as other than He? whereof I don't know how (as he saith) He hath become possessor, as though it accrued to Him and came to Him from without, although once not God by Nature, like what was said by that ancient woman, I mean Eve, when she bare Seth, I gat a man through God. But this I deem is wholly to be spurned by him and by all. Why then doth he speak with inexactness, and fling about words without understanding, in matters so cogent? would not one earn laughter and accusal of insanity, if one chose to say that any among us were the possessor of human nature, or a horse of horse-nature? who then is the possessor of Godhead, who taken from men is ordained in things to Godward? Haply he will say severing into two the One Christ, Him that is forth of the Holy Virgin: for to this I suppose now too is his aim directed. |90
Hath the Godhead then (tell me) become the acquisition of a man, and hath it befallen any one of us, to become God by Nature and in truth and to be rich in the excellence of the Essence that is above all and Supreme? Away with the ill-counsel, o man, for none of those accounted among things generate may acquire and have as his own the Nature of Godhead: His own was the Body of the Word and as one therewith God and Christ and Son and Lord hath the creation worshipped, and the Heavens do praise and we with them. For as the Prophet saith, His Goodness covered the Heavens and of His Praise was the earth full, not as though a man gat Godhead (for how or whence could he?) but that the Word out of God the Father had come into possession of flesh of man. But be it that he who was taken out of men was owner of Godhead (as seems good to yourself), how is he ordained in things to Godward, i. e., as High Priest? will he therefore bare of the Godhead which he gat, minister in the Priest's office to God, or already having it as his own? for this and nought else will the saying that he gat it signify. But if bare of it, he gat it not; if having it as his own, Godhead will surely minister in the Priest's office to God. Why then do you wander distractedly and jumble all together and blush not, stamping with false mark the tradition of the Faith?
The Word out of God the Father hath cogent reason even though He be said to execute the Priest's Office before the Father; for He has been styled Priest not apart from flesh, but made (as I said) as we, to whom the glory of the priesthood is accounted an honour.
In another way too it is not hard to see that it is the absurdest possible thing and replete with much folly to say that he who was taken out of men and ordained unto God-ward, is possessor of Godhead; for if he were taken by God, how possessed he the Nature Which took him? for that which is taken will rather belong to him who took it, as a possession, not that which is taken be the |91 possessor. As for example, A man has become the possessor of wealth, or again of skill unto anything: is it not plain to all that he will not himself be the possession of wealth or again of the skill that accrued to him, but rather the possessor of what he has gotten? but this is I think in no way doubtful.
Hence if on enquiring into the mode of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, we find that man became God as coming into possession of Godhead, let him be called (after your phrase) possessor of Godhead, for his hath the Godhead become. But if the Word being God came into possession of the seed of Abraham, and being in the form of the Father, hath become Man, receiving the servant's form, how would one not be distraught, if he chose to say that that which was taken possessed the Nature That acquired it and hath not rather become the very own of Him Who took it?
But that he carries round the force of his own words and inventions and moreover the very name of high Priesthood in unlearned wise unto a mere man born from forth a woman, bearing it away from the Only-Begotten and Word That is out of the Father, he will make manifest by what follows too: for he has written again on this wise:
"Not 2 Angels doth He take hold of, but Abraham's seed He taketh hold of. Is the Godhead Abraham's seed? Hear the following utterance too: Wherefore it behoved Him, he saith, in all things to be made like unto His brethren. Had God the Word any brothers like unto His Godhead? Mark what is straightway joined on to these, That He might be made a merciful and faithful High Priest in things to God-ward, for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. |92 Therefore He Who suffered is a merciful High Priest: passible is the Temple, not the quickening God of him that has suffered: the seed of Abraham is he which is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not He That saith, Before Abraham was I am. Like to his brethren in all things is he which assumed brother-hood of human soul and flesh and not He which saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father."
§2. The Word therefore being God took (as he too hath just now confessed) Abraham's seed; how then is he that is forth of the seed of Abraham any longer possessor of Godhead, if he were taken by God, did not himself take Godhead? The seed of Abraham then will by no means be the Nature of Godhead, but rather hath become the Body of God the Word, according to the Scriptures, and His Own, and He Who in His own proper Nature is uncounted among the creation as God, when He became Man who is part of the creation, then, then and with reason deigns He to call us brothers saying, I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren. But that by reason of the measure of emptiness, the Word out of God the Father hath descended even to having to call those upon the earth His brothers, the most wise Paul will clearly shew, writing of Him and us, For both He That sanctifieth and they who are being sanctified are all out of one, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren saying, I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren. For before the Incarnation, exceeding petty to the Word Which sprang of God was the name of brotherhood with us: but when He had descended unto voluntary emptiness, petty was it thus too, yet hath it come fitly in, for He hath partaken of blood and flesh and of those in flesh and blood has been styled Brother. For if He is sanctified in that He have become Man albeit God by Nature and Himself the Giver of the Spirit, how if He be called Brother too, will it not be so said in due order? for for this cause He hath become as we that He might render us brothers and free, for as many (it says) as received Him, to them gave He authority to become children of God, to them |93 that believe on His Name, which were begotten not out of blood nor out of the will of the flesh nor out of the will of man but out of God. For the Word out of God the Father has been with us born after the flesh that we too might be enriched with the birth out of God through the Spirit, no longer termed children of flesh but transelemented rather into what was above nature and termed sons of God by grace: for He has been made as one of us who is by Nature and truly Only-Begotten Son.
And unerring is the word; the Divine-uttering Paul will give us assurance thereto, saying on this wise, And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying Abba Father. Why then do you offer violence to the wisdom of the economy as though it appeared to have been wrought in no fitting order, in that you say, "Is the Godhead Abraham's seed? had He any brothers like to the Godhead?" Is not this clear madness? for the absurdly enquiring into and bearing away unto blasphemy, things so right and unblameable in respect of the Economy in Christ, what else is it than proof of the most utter distraction? for confessedly in respeot of the nature of the body or of human nature perfect as far as itself is concerned, has the Word out of God the Father been made like unto us and in every thing like save sin alone. But I will ask him who says "Had God the Word any brothers like to the Godhead?" what idea (I pray) had the most holy Paul in his mind when he wrote to certain, Little children of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, and elsewhere too to those who through faith are perfected in spirit, But WE all with unveiled face reflecting the glory of the Lord are changed into His image from glory to glory as by the Lord the Spirit; now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord, there liberty? Doth he therefore say this to the Galatians as not having the impress in regard to bodily freedom, of that which is of the seed of David after the flesh, but is he travailing again with them that Christ after the flesh may somehow be engraven on them and formed in them? albeit how will not |94 every body (I suppose) unhesitatingly say, that all who are on the earth are conformed one to another and to Christ Himself, in so far as He is conceived of as man, Who is both Man and with us? what formation then unto Christ was it that was sought for in them? or how are WE transformed from glory to glory, what form leaving, unto what are we transelemented? Let therefore the Divine initiator come forward and teach us, the Priest of the Divine Mysteries, the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity; for whom (says he) He knew, and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, them, He also called. Therefore (as I said just now) in that He was made man and was of the seed of Abraham, we all are conformed to Him: all therefore who are on earth, the Father both fore-knew and fore-ordained; and these having called He sanctified and glorified. But verily not all were fore-ordained, not all were sanctified or glorified:----the fact therefore of conformation unto the Son will not be conceived of as existing in the nature alone of the flesh or of manhood, but in another way also, and this the blessed Paul sets before ua saying, And as we bare the image of the earthy we shall bear the image too of the heavenly; calling the image of the earthy, that of our forefather Adam, of the heavenly, that of Christ. What then first is the image of our forefather? proneness to sin, becoming under death and decay. What again that of the heavenly? being in no wise overcome of passions, not knowing to transgress, not being subject to death and decay, holiness, righteousness, and whatever are akin to and like these. But these (I suppose) will befit the Divine and Untaint Nature to possess: for superior to both sin and decay is Holiness and Righteousness. Herein does the Word out of God the Father restore us too, rendering us partakers of His own Divine Nature through the Spirit.
He has therefore brothers like to Himself and bearing the image of His Divine Nature, in regard of holiness; for thus is Christ formed in us, the Holy Ghost as it were transelementing us from things human unto those that are |95 His own. Therefore to us too said the blessed Paul, But YE are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. Therefore the Son transfers not ought at all of things that have been made into the Nature of His own Godhead (for that were impossible): but there is impressed on those who have been made partakers of His Divine Nature through their partaking of the Holy Ghost the spiritual Likeness with Him, and the Beauty of the Ineffable Godhead flashes upon the souls of the saints. Why then dost thou assigning the mere and alone likeness of the flesh, not blush, disregarding the Divine and Spiritual forming, yea rather taking it utterly away? Yet the Lord of all and Only-Begotten God lowered Himself unto emptiness for our sakes, that He might bestow on us the Dignity of brother-hood with Him and the Beauty worthy of all love, of His Innate Nobility: and this man, bereaving us of all that is most lovely, says that a mere man hath become our brother and shews that sure (as he supposes) is his account hereof, adding "Mark too what is straightway joined on to these, That He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things God-ward, for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Therefore a merciful High Priest is He That suffered: passible is the Temple, not the quickening God of him which hath suffered." Therefore that by choosing thus to think and moreover daring to say it too, he severs again into distinct hypostases and into two Persons, the Word from forth God the Father and him whom himself has just introduced to us as a God-bearing man, if so be that one and apart by himself is he that suffered, and another he that quickeneth, I suppose that no one whatever will doubt.
But in another way also is he beside himself, having quaffed wine from forth the vine of Sodom, and drunk with error and haply not even knowing what he saith: for where hath the Word out of God the Father been called (I shudder at saying it) the God of Christ? for there is One Lord Jesus Christ, and one faith in Him, not as |96 though in two distinct persons, but as through one Baptism into One Son and God and Lord, the Word out of God the Father even when He became Man. For not because He became as we, will He lose the being God (how should He?) nor yet because He is God by Nature, doth He hold the likeness to us inadmissible nor will He reject the being man; but as He hath remained in human nature God, so being both in the Nature and Pre-eminence of the Godhead, none the less is He Man. Both therefore in the Same, and One God and Man is Emmanuel.
But this good man rejecting the mode of the Economy as uncomely, removeth from God the Word the human, that He may at last be clearly seen to have in no way aided our condition. For he says that not He became an High Priest both Merciful and Faithful, but allots this rather to him that suffered as being other than He. Yet how should he not, if he had desired to be a wise initiator, have made an exact muster of the expressions and ideas that are in the God-inspired Scripture and considered that this is a thing which is both truly God-befitting and not apart from what befits and beseems the emptying: and how we will say as briefly as we can.
The God of all uttered the Law to them of old, Moses being mediator. But there was not in the Law the power of achieving good without any blame, to those who wished it (for it hath perfected nothing). But neither was the first covenant found faultless, but the all-wise Paul called it the ministry of condemnation. I hear him say, We know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become under sentence before God, because by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight, (for the Law worketh unto wrath, and the Letter killeth), and as himself somewhere saith, He that despised Moses' law dieth without mercy under two or three witnesses. Seeing therefore that the Law condemneth them that sin and |97 decreeth sometimes the uttermost punishment to them that disregard it, and in no wise pitieth, how was not the manifestation to them on the earth of a Compassionate and truly Merciful High Priest necessary? of One Who should make the curse to cease, should stop the condemnation and free sinners with forgiving grace and with the bending of clemency? for I (He says) am He that blotteth out thy transgressions and will not remember. For we have been justified by faith and not out of the works of the Law, as it is written. On Whom then believing are we justified? is it not on Him who suffered death for us after the flesh? is it not on One Lord Jesus Christ? have we not on declaring His Death and confessing His Resurrection been redeemed? If therefore we have believed on a man like us and not rather on God, the thing is man-worship, and confessedly nothing else: but if we believe that He That suffered in the flesh is God, Who hath been made also our High Priest, we have no ways erred, but acknowledge the Word out of God made Man: and thus is required of us faith God-ward, Who putteth out of condemnation and freeth from sin those that are taken thereby. For the Son of man hath authority on the earth also to forgive sins, as Himself too saith. Contrasting therefore with the salvation and grace that is through Christ the harshness (so to speak) of the law's severity, we say that Christ was made a Merciful High Priest. For He was and is God Good by Nature and Compassionate and Merciful always, and hath not become this in time but was so manifested to us. And He has been named Faithful, 3 as abiding what |98 He is always, according to what is said of the Father Himself too, But God is faithful Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.
A merciful and faithful High-Priest therefore has Emmanuel been made unto us; for (as Paul saith) the one were many priests because they were by death hindered from remaining, He, because He continneth for ever, hath a priest-hood that passeth not, wherefore He is able to save also unto the uttermost them that come unto God through Him, ever living to intercede for them. That the Word out of the Father hath remained God, albeit made priest, as it is written, on account of the fashion and mode that befitteth the Economy with flesh, the word of the blessed Paul hath been sufficient unto our full assurance, for he said again, Now of the things which have been said this is the sum, We have such an High Priest, Who sat at the Right Hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the Very Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. Yiew therefore view the Word Which sprang of God illustrious as God in supremest excellencies and in the Seat of Godhead, and the Same executing the Priest's Office as man and offering to the Father no sacrifice of earth but Divine rather and spiritual and how He has Heaven as His Holy Tabernacle. For not after the law of a carnal commandment has He been made High Priest, but after the power of an indissoluble life, as it is written. Faithful therefore is He in this too, and sure to them who come to Him, that He is able full easily to save them quite, for with His own Blood and with One Offering hath He perfected for ever them that are sanctified. For this I deem doth the holy Paul shew us saying, for in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Why then unrecking of thoughts which pertain unto piety and straying from words of rightness and truth, does he say, "He That suffered is a Merciful High Priest, |99 Passible the Temple, not the Life-giving God of Him Who suffered?"
That the Word of God then hath of His own Will suffered in the flesh for our sakes, shall be shewn in its own time: but that he is severing the Inseverable and setting forth two christs by the effect of his ideas, even though he clearly say One Christ, he shall be no less convicted through what has been forthwith subjoined, for he said again,
"Abraham's seed is He Who was yesterday and to-day, according to the voice of Paul, not He Who saith, Before Abraham was, I am. Like to His brethren in all things, He Who assumed brotherhood of human soul and body, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, He was sent Who is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, for the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, wherefore He anointed Me."
§3. Thou severest therefore into two again and that patently, then how art thou not convicted of being sensual and having not the Spirit, as saith the disciple of the Saviour? but the might of the Truth will array itself (o man) against thy words. For we affirm that the Word Himself out of God the Father took hold of Abraham's seed, and made His own body having a reasonable soul the body which was assumed of the holy Virgin. And verily by true union do we say that One and the Same is He Who was yesterday and to-day and for ever, and Who before Abraham Divinely, was made man after and underwent birth of a woman. Hence He will not lie in saying, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was I am.
But he does not the least understand what yesterday and to-day and for ever is. For that he may shew that the Word of God is Eternal and that by Nature and superior to change and turn, even though He have been made Man, he parted the whole of time into three periods, and puts yesterday of past time, to-day of the present, and for ever of the future. But this boorish man against reason [says] that yesterday and to-day are spoken by him of a |100 common man, not considering that it will full surely shew Him to have been older and pre-existent to His own Birth, if He were at all of yesterday, which is indicative of time past. That not one is He that is yesterday and to-day, Jesus Christ, another He Who saith, before Abraham was I am, but One and the Same by a true Union, the Word having been made Man as we and having preserved to His own Nature, even when He was made man, the being without beginning in time, one may see and that without trouble, in the God-inspired Scripture. For as the blessed Evangelist John saith of Christ the Saviour of us all, John beareth witness of Him and hath cried saying, He That cometh after me has been made before me, for He was before me, and again, The next day he looketh at Jesus coming unto him and saith, Behold the Lamb of God Which taketh away the sin of the world, This is He of Whom I said, After me cometh a Man Which has been made before me, for He was before me. Thou seest then and that very clearly the Divine-uttering Baptist calling Jesus a Man and coming after, as being late-born and after him, yet preceding him and pre-existing, for this, I deem, the words, for He was before me and has been made before me, mean. How then if He is a Man, is |101 He conceived of as pre-existing and is said to be before: him who had the start of Him in time and had his birth in the flesh older than His? For if this were said of a man like us, every body would (I suppose) be at a loss to defend it, but in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, there is no difficulty. For He Who is out of God makes His own the birth of His own flesh, yet is He not ignorant that He is Maker of the worlds and hath pre-existence as God, and is Co-eternal with His own Father. For we do not say that He hath His Being contemporaneous with the birth of His own body, but was (as I said) ineffably begotten of the Essence of God the Father. Therefore having His Being before Abraham as God even though He was made Man, He will not speak falsely in saying, as One in truth both Son and Lord, Before Abraham was I am.
And marvel not if He hath apportioned to His own Nature the being before Abraham, but consider rather that albeit He had taken a body of the holy Virgin, He said to Nicodemus, If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things? and no man hath ascended up into heaven but He That came down from Heaven, the Son of Man, albeit He was called son of man too, born of a woman after the flesh. Will He then be false in saying that there hath come down from Heaven the son of man, i. e., Himself? Not so, for He is Himself the Truth. How then will the son of man be rightly conceived of as from above? because the Word being God and out of the Essence That is above all, is said to have come down and to have taken the servant's form. Therefore He converseth with us, not as any longer bare Word, but man as we, and as already conceived of as One with the Flesh united to Him. And as by reason of what beseemeth the emptiness, He maketh His own all that belongs to His own Flesh, albeit by Nature unembodied; so Himself being from above and out of Heaven, He allotteth again the coming from above to Himself even when He hath been made Man, even though He hath been born according to the flesh with us of a woman. The properties therefore of the human |102 nature have become the very own of the Word, those again of the Word Himself, the very own of the human nature: for thus is conceived of One Christ and Son and Lord.
But since this innovator has added that "like to His brethren in all things is He Who assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," come now let us again consider as we can what it is which he here saith. For that the Son is the Image and Impress of God the Father, he too hath confessed: who again "He is Who of human soul and body assumed brotherhood," i. e., with us, let him come forward and teach; for no one would say that a man like us, such as (for example) Barnabas or Paul or any other of those who are reckoned among men, would be said to take brotherhood of human soul and body, as though he were ought else than this, and so took it, but he is so rather in being what he is. Not one therefore who is man could be conceived as taking the being what he is, as though it were other than he: but it will beseem rather the Word which sprang forth of God, having no rank among us in regard to the count of His own Nature, to take "brotherhood of human soul and body" with us. And the word of the truth contends on our side and the tradition of the undefiled Faith. It holds then that God the Word in the Form of God the Father has been made our Brother in all things, taking "brotherhood of human soul and body," and will not speak falsely in saying, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. For if any among us had fallen into such unlearning in his ideas as to suppose that God the Father Himself Which is in Heaven must needs come down, even to the having likeness with us (I mean bodily); he might well have feared lest that when Christ says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, he might be imagining that He too out of Whom He is, was in form as we, and in fashion of body. But since when He was made man, He preserved the being God, and holdeth the Beauty of His own Nature untarnished, I would no wise shrink from saying that He possesseth likeness with |103 us, in respect of His being man as we, Who is of soul and body, albeit God by Nature and Impress of the Person of Him Who hath begotten Him. One therefore and the Same is He, like to His brethren after the flesh, yet shewing in His own Nature Him too Who begat Him, in regard I say to His being God.
But this man doth not understand this (whence should he?) but adulterating (so to speak) the plan of the mystery which is right and unalloyed, he introduces to us one and another christ, and caught in Jewish accusals, perceives not where he is nor in what reach of ills he hath come. For they of the blood of Israel heard God crying aloud through one of the holy Prophets respecting Emmanuel, And THOU Bethlehem house of Ephratha, little art thou to be among the thousands of Judah; out of thee shall He come to Me to be ruler in Israel, and His goings forth from the beginning from the days of eternity: and again, His generation who shall tell? because His life is raised from the earth. And they, no wise understanding the mystery nor yet knowing that albeit God by Nature and having the origin of His Being Invisible and Incomprehensible, He was called Bethlehemite as being there born after the flesh out of the root of Jesse and David, said one to another, Is not this He Whom they seek to hill? lo, He speaketh boldly and they say nothing unto Him; do the rulers know that This Man is the Christ? Yet we know this Man whence He is, but Christ when He cometh, no man knoweth whence He is. For they heard (as I said) the Prophet saying plainly, His generation who shall tell? and that He hath His goings forth or His Being before every age. View again (I pray) the vastness of Jewish stupor: for on saying The Christ when He cometh, no one knoweth whence He is, they said again one to another, Of a truth this is the Prophet: others (it says) said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? said not the Scripture that out of the seed of David and from Bethlehem the village where was David, the Christ cometh? Seest thou how they stagger, confessing both His being apart from beginning, Divinely, and His fleshly Generation in time? |104 But they would not have been carried away into mis-counsel thus extravagant, if they had known truly that the Word being God, proceeded Man out of the root of Jesse and David and of the holy Virgin, and that the Lord of earth and Heaven and of all was called a Bethlehemite too, for He shared poverty with us being Rich, as it is written.
Why therefore plunging thee in the sleights of the Jews dost thou both deem and say what it is neither lawful to say nor yet harmless to conceive of? confess with us One Christ, and do not severing into two again say this, "He was sent that is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind." Whither then will go the word of the divines, who have been initiators of all under Heaven? for they have cried aloud that the very Word out of God the Father, was made Saviour and Redeemer of all, not as though a man other than He were mediating, like as Moses, but rather as come down to us in bodily likeness and form, for thus has He been anointed as High Priest and Apostle. And indeed He rebuked the Jews saying, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods? if he called them gods to whom the word of God came and the scripture cannot be broken: Him Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, do YE say [to Him], thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? why (I pray) shall we put Him Who abased Himself unto emptiness that He might save all under Heaven, forth of the most God-befitting and truly admirable achievements that have been wrought unto us-ward, by saying that there has been sent some other than He consubstantial with ourselves? albeit how were it not better to say and thus to chuse to think, that He has been both sent and hath been made consubstantial with us, i. e., man: yet abiding Consubstantial with God the Father Himself too, as He is both conceived of and was and is God? for He is, He is what He was, even when He assumed the humanity, and having sameness of Essence with God the Father Which is in Heaven, He grasped in |105 wisdom the likeness with us too; as Mediator too has He been set forth, combining through Himself unto an union of relation things completely dissevered one from another as to the plan of their nature. For He being God by Nature has been made man in truth, that we too might be called offspring, no more of the first, that is, of the earthy, to whom it was said by God, Earth thou art and unto earth shalt thou return, who conducteth even unto death, but of the second, from above and out of Heaven, Christ I mean Who bringeth us again unto purest life, and rendereth incorrupt that which is holden of death and freeth from sins that which was enfolden by the toils of sin. Thus saith somewhere the Father Himself to the Son, Behold I have given Thee for a Covenant of the race for a Light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring forth of chains the bound and of the prison-house them that sat in darkness; and again by the voice of Isaiah, The beasts of the field shall honour Me, the Sirens and the daughters of the ostriches, because I gave water in the wilderness and rivers in the thirsty land to give drink to Mine offspring, chosen, My people whom I won for Myself, to declare My Virtues. The which understanding very well of those of the Gentiles called through faith unto true knowledge of God, the Divine-uttering Peter writeth and saith, But YE are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should tell out the Virtues of Him Who calleth you out of darkness into His wondrous light, of old not a people, but now a people.
But if as seems good to thee to think and say, "he was sent who is consubstantial with us," no longer with the Father, in no wise have WE been made partakers of the |106 Divine Nature, but have abode as I said, and are yet offspring of the first, of him who conducteth unto curse and death and under penalty of sin. We have therefore been deceived 4 and are no less now too in that case wherein we were of old and before the Advent. How then did old things pass away and lo they have become new? and where is, If any be in Christ, he is a new creature?
But are you ashamed to confess the Word of God God made man as we? do you therefore chide Him and say that He hath planned no wise matter when He emptied Himself for our sakes? Therefore thou shalt hear Him say, Get thee behind Me Satan, thou art an offence unto Me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God but those of men. Search with us the God-inspired Scripture; He appeared of old to the Patriarch Jacob too when he was departing from Laban's hearth, and was at the very fords of Jabok, as it is written: for Jacob was left alone and there was wrestling a man with him until morning, and he knows that he prevaileth not against him and he touched the flat of his thigh and the flat of Jacob's thigh stiffened in his wrestling with him; and he said to him, Dismiss me for the dawn hath gone up, and he said, I will not dismiss Thee except Thou bless me. And after other again, And Jacob called the name of that place, The Form of God, for I saw God Face to face and my life was preserved; and the sun rose upon him when he passed by the Form of God. Understand therefore how not as incorporeal and impalpable Word did He deign to shew Himself then to the Patriarch, foreshewing to him the type of the mystery, but He Who wrestled and consumed the whole night thereupon was a man. But when the day was dawning and it was morning, He says, Dismiss Me, which was clearly the word of one who was bringing to an end the wrestling.
And what is the plan of the mystery, it is necessary to say. With them who abide as it were in night and |107 darkness, and have a spiritual mist o'er mind and heart and I cannot yet understand the mystery Him-ward, He useth to wrestle and fight and overcome; but with them who are now in light and so to speak in spiritual morning and have good understanding of the Mystery, He thinketh not good any longer to wrestle, but dispenseth to them instead spiritual blessings. Hence if even at length and hardly you should enter in yourself too into the light and so to speak into the morning, He Who conquereth all would cease fighting with you. And see how whereas it was a man who wrestled, the Divine-uttering Jacob says that he had seen God Face to face: and the sacred Scripture added that the sun arose upon him when he passed by the Form of God. Why therefore (I pray) are you ashamed at the measures of the emptiness, albeit every one (I suppose) who both holds the right faith and examines accurately the aim of the God-inspired Scripture says that the Word out of God the Father was both Incarnate and made Man? He therefore Who is consubstantial with us, in that He has been made Man, and to the Father Himself, in that He hath remained God even in human nature, was sent preaching remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and to heal the broken in heart, and to call the acceptable year of the Lord: for His Alone and of none other are the deeds which have been wrought us, and one of the holy Prophets shall be our pledge, thus saying, No ambassador, no angel, but the Lord Himself saved us, who also most clearly saith to us, Therefore My people shall know My Name in that day, I Who speak am present. Albeit if he who has been sent were some mere man, how would Himself be conceived of as having spoken the Law which was long ago given to them of old? for not at all proceeding as man, would He be said to have been made man, lest He should be seen to have an existence elder to His coming into being: but preexisting as God, He hath spoken indeed the Law, but says that He is present in some strange and unwonted way when He has been made Man.
"But yes (says he) the Word being God fulfils all things: |108 how then was He also sent, for where was He not Who fulfils all things?" what (tell me) shall we admit that the Divine and Consubstantial Trinity has been contracted rather than that it is spread over all and fulfils all things? Then how hath the great Moses, when some of them of old were building the Heaven-reaching tower, introduced God saying, Come let us go down and there confound their tongues? what descent needed the Nature That fills both Heaven and earth? it is written of the Holy Ghost too, The Spirit of the Lord hath filled the earth; the blessed David sings and says of them that lie in the earth to God Who is mighty to quicken, Thou shalt send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth. How is That sent forth which filleth all things? Do not therefore (putting forward as something clever and hard to be overturned, that He Who is mighty to fulfil all things, the Word out of God the Father, has His mission an impossibility) hasten to undo the truth and to overturn the power of the Mystery; but consider rather that He speaketh in human wise of the things that belong to God and they are conceived of by us in such sort as both Himself Alone may know, and as He is wont to act.
But since as little and human and in boundless degree below the dignity of the Only Begotten He receives the unction, come let us say what is reasonable upon this point too, undoing occasions of offence. If therefore He have not been made Man, let Him shake off things human, let Him repudiate the Economy as putting Him in inferior position and setting Him behind the Supreme Glory and God-befitting Excellence; for petty to the Word is what is ours. But since the Mystery is of a truth wise and the fact of the emptying not to be rejected by Him, why dost thou foolhardily find fault with things that are right? and turn away as uncomely what is crowned with His Approval? didst thou see Him anointed humanly? behold |109 the same also anointing Divinely 5: for it is written that John too bare record saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove and abiding upon Him and I knew Him not, but He That sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, This is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, and I have seen and borne record that This is the Son of God, For dost thou say that it is the work of the human nature to have power to baptize with the Holy Ghost them that believe? albeit how were it not folly to think that this were so? for how would the less bestow the participation of that which is immeasurably superior? And observe that this very person upon Whom the Spirit is said to soar down and to remain upon Him, baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, anointing (it is plain) as God with His own Spirit them that believe. And verily He rose from the dead, and breathed on His disciples, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And they receiving, say, WE received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit Which is out of God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. The most wise Paul too writes, They that are in the flesh cannot please God, but YE are not in the flesh but in the spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you: if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, this man is not His. And elsewhere too, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. Therefore when thou seest Him anointed with His own Spirit, remember the economy with flesh and take count of the human nature: when thou seest Him give the Spirit, with this marvel at God in human nature too.
But taking no account of these things this contentious man says again thus:
"This 6 is he who was made a faithful High Priest to God, |110 for he was made so, he was not so from eternity, this, heretic, is he who by little and little advanced unto the dignity of the high priesthood. Hear a clearer voice calling out to thee, Who in the days (it says) of His Flesh, when He offered up prayers and supplications with mighty cry and tears unto Him That was able to save Him from death and was heard for His Piety, though He were Son, He learned obedience by the things He suffered and, made perfect, became unto them that obey Him the Author of indissoluble salvation. That is perfected which advances by little and little, heretic. Respecting which John too cries out in the Gospels, Jesus was advancing in stature and wisdom and grace, conformably to which things Paul too speaking says, Made perfect He became unto all them that obey Him the Author of eternal salvation, called of God an High Priest after the order of Melchisedelc, this is he who is compared with Moses in regard to generalship, that is called seed of Abraham, that is like in all things to his brethren, that was made High Priest in time, that was perfected through sufferings, that in that he suffered beting tempted is able to succour them that are tempted, that is called an High Priest after the order of Melchisedek. Why then interpret contrary to Paul, commingling the Impassible God the Word with earthly body and making Him a passible High Priest?"
§4. Most vigorous onslaught, my friend, and truly spirited hast thou made upon the doctrines of piety. And the Divine-uttering Baruch, pointing out the Word of God already Incarnate and seen in likeness to us, says, This is our God, there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him, He found out all the way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved: afterward did He shew Himself upon earth and conversed with men. But THOU calling out and that full often, This, yea all but putting forth thine hand;----who is it that you manifest to believers and cause to be seen of them, yea, and say that he |111 advanced by little and little unto High Priesthood? I suppose it is surely he of whom but now specifying thou saidst, "Therefore a Merciful High Priest is he that suffered, not the quickening God of him that suffered: the seed of Abraham he who is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not he who saith, Before Abraham was I am; like to his brethren in all things he that assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." And that in affirming that the Life-giving Word of God is God of him who suffered, involving yourself in the charge of inevitable blasphemy, you have done no slight wrong, sufficient reasoning made clear to us. But I marvel that thyself oblivious of thine own words, thou deemest right to say alike and think that He by little and little advanced unto the dignity of the High Priest, Whom thou sayest is even God Almighty. For the Epistle written to the Hebrews being before thee, thou art caught saying, "Yet is This man Who after the flesh is akin to Israel, Who in that which is visible is Man, Who according to Paul's speech was made out of the seed of David, by connection God Almighty." How did He yet advance, according to that idle talk, to the dignity of High Priest albeit testified by thy voice too as Almighty God?
And though you utter the ill-famed connection and invented I know not whence by yourself alone, I will pass it over for the present: but I will ask, bidding the argument advance straight on its own befitting and proper course, Does not that which advances unto Priesthood and glory make its advance or progress unto the better and more excellent? and how will not every one whatever give his vote for the truth of this? Greater therefore than the being Almighty God, is the High Priesthood. Then how does he whose lot is the Priesthood minister too and stand as a worshipper by God, and as a servant by his master, offering what is customable and bringing sacrifices, and He Who is crowned with the Supreme glory receives the sacrifices and is honoured by the service?
But thou sayest (I suppose) this, Being God Almighty the |112 Same hath become High-Priest. He hath been emptied 7 therefore and hath abased Himself by descent into the inferior. How therefore did He yet advance unto dignity when made an High Priest? Remember again thine own words, for thus thou saidst a little above, "If the Godhead be High Priest, who is He who is served by the ministry of the High Priesthood? if He Who offereth be God, there is none to whom the offering is made, for what is there worthy of Godhead that as inferior It should make offering to a greater?" Stand now at least to your own words; but this you cannot do, for you will be borne about (so to say) by every wind, and perceive not that you are being driven about, one while springing off from those into these, other while again from these into those, and in no wise are you afraid of what Paul saith, For if what I destroyed this I build again, I make myself a transgressor.
But you will perhaps say, Affirming that the Word out of God the Father is everywhere One Christ and Son and Lord, with His own Flesh, how sayest thou now that He has been set forth as an High Priest and Apostle? dost thou not in so saying insult the Supreme Dignity of His Divine Glory?
Because, good Sir, (shall I say) the Only Begotten Word of God has been made man and in the measures of the human nature, the fact of Priesthood will not unbefit Him, and moreover the saying that He has been sent, for He despised the shame, as the Divine-uttering Paul writes, and |113 endured yet lower and worser things for our sakes: for He gave His bach to the scourges, His Face He turned not away from the shame of spittings, and endurant He bore the contumelies of the Jews. But thou deemest not meet to call Him Priest, as being God? admit the words pertaining to the Economy, consider the emptying, the descent unto the servant's form. For we say not that the Word of God advanced and hastened unto dignity, if He have been styled our High Priest, but rather that He descended herein too unto emptiness. Since how has He been emptied and is He said to have been abased, albeit He possesseth unchangeableness and is in Form and Equality in everything with His Father? how too advanced He by little and little and this (as thyself sayest) unto the dignity of the High Priesthood? what sort of growth received He hereunto? If then it were a bodily one, I will ask again, Doth bodily growth lead up to the glory of the Priesthood: be then this common [to all] and let this method of reasoning of yours belong to every one who advanceth bodily, But of a truth the Priesthood beseemeth not all those who customably advance unto bodily growth; how therefore blushest thou not in putting forth unto us for demonstration of those things which thou saidst, what was spoken by the Divine-uttering Luke, But Jesus was advancing in stature and wisdom and grace?
But thou sayest that the growth was unto wisdom, albeit how is not this without learning? for we believe that out of the very belly and womb of the Virgin, Emmanuel being God proceeded forth Man, full surely of the wisdom and grace that are inherent of Nature. What sort of growth then will He admit of, in Whom are all the treasures of wisdom, Who is with God the Father Co-giver of the grace from above? how then is He said to advance? it is, I deem, by God the Word co-measuring with the increase and stature of His own Body, the manifestation of the most God-befitting goods that are in Him. For let us consider that although He has been made Man as we, He was zealous to lie hid at the first, and administered by little |114 and little as it were noiselessly and in silence the might of the Mystery; and of this God the Father Himself will be our assurance saying, Jacob My Servant, I will defend Him, Israel My chosen, My Soul received Him, I gave My Spirit upon Him, He shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles: He shall not cry nor lift up, nor shall His voice be heard without: a bruised reed. He shall not break and smoking flax He shall not quench. And He was somewhere rebuking the holy Apostles themselves that they should not make Him, known. Hence a thing unwonted and strange and worthy of looking into, would have been shewn, if being yet a babe, He had made a God-befitting demonstration of wisdom: but He little and little and proportionably to bodily stature, extending it and making it manifest to all, will be said to advance and that with reason.8 How therefore |115 did He advance by little and little unto the Priesthood, tell me, by being perfected in virtue? Then how or whence may one doubt that that which faileth of perfection in virtue, will be under blame, and not wholly an object of admiration, yea rather haply under charge of sin? But it is indeed true that He hath done no sin neither was guile found in His Mouth, as it is written. Full-perfect therefore is He being such unto every thing, and in no wise will He have the lack of being complete unto the achievement of virtue. And when was He That was God in the womb too not Perfect unto good, of Whom the Prophet Isaiah too saith, Butter and honey shall He eat, before He have knowledge to prefer evil, He shall choose the good, because before the Child shall know good or ill, He shall disobey vice to choose the good? where then will you be able to demonstrate Christ's yet imperfectness unto good? or what advance will He need who is so Perfect as to disobey vice and to prefer to it, yea only choose, good?
Yet I know not how he who affirmeth and saith "This is he who by little and little advanced to the dignity of the high priesthood," and who brought forward in proof of his words, Jesus advanced in stature and wisdom and grace, all but marking out the uncomeliness of his own words and gliding into forgetfulness of the things of which he assumed were right, affirms to us that the mode of perfection was wrought in another way, saying, "This is he who in time has been made High Priest, who was perfected through sufferings." Is not this manifest distraction? yea rather a proof of utter recklessness? for our Lord Jesus Christ has been made perfect through sufferings, but this man albeit he was not ignorant of the mode of being made perfect, carries away the minds of the simpler unto certain strange perversions of ideas and says that He advanced unto being High Priest and has been perfected unto this, "Who is said to have been emptied because this took place. And as though he had full clearly shewn that neither was the Word of God made flesh, nor yet proceeded Man out of woman, he chides those who have |116 chosen thus to hold and says, "Why therefore doth thou mis-interpret Paul, commingling with earthly body the Impassive God the Word and making Him a passible High Priest?" Hear therefore from us too, to whom rather the truth is dear, Why dost thou mis-interpret Paul, yea rather slanderest the whole God-inspired Scripture, withdrawing the Word of God from the economy with flesh, and settest over us as priest a man honoured with mere connection? albeit thou hearest that the Same is at once High Priest and Co-Throned with God the Father, as we have already said. For Paul said, We have such an High Priest, Who sat on the Right Hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the heavens. For that the Word out of God the Father is Impassible, is I suppose clear to every one: that He hath suffered for us in the flesh, the voice of inspired men will seal up for a truth. But if thyself bear away the Word out of God from earthly body, the whole will come to nothing. For if He have not been made Man, neither did He die for us, and if He have not given unto death His own Body, how is He said to be the first begotten from the dead? Hence Christ neither died nor revived. Let the Divine-uttering Paul therefore come forward, let him cry aloud saying, If the dead are not raised, neither has been Christ raised, if Christ have not been raised, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins: they also which fell asleep in Christ perished. But Christ has been raised from the dead, for the Only-Begotten Word of God has been made Man and, taking an earthly body and uniting it Personally to Him, by the grace of God, as it is written, tasted death for every man. He has been named first-fruits of them that slept, having been raised from the dead. Sure therefore and not vain is now our faith, which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast, as it is written.
And he, as though he had in no wise wronged the plan of the economy with flesh, through saying such things and pouring forth untempered and foulest vomit upon the doctrines of the truth, proceeds to another mis-counsel, yea rather manifest blasphemy and says, |117
"This man alone 9 therefore being our High Priest, feeling and kin and sure, turn ye not away from the faith Him-ward; for He was sent, the blessing which was proraised us out of the seed of Abraham, as offering the sacrifice of His Body for Himself alike and His race."
§5. Thou sayest that a High Priest both kin to us and feeling and sure and moreover only, is he whom thy discourse but now clearly taught us of. For thou saidst, "The seed of Abraham is he who is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not He Who saith, Before Abraham was I am; Like to His brethren in all things, he who assumed brother-hood of human soul and flesh, not He Who said, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; sent was he who is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission unto the captives and recovery of sight to the blind." This man therefore will be conceived of as of kin too to those on the earth, and not as THOU sayest, He That saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. For if gathering both into one according to true union thou with us confessest One Son, thou hast laboured in vain, in bearing away each separately and apart from other, severing into hypostases and persons, completely, not in the mere knowledge that the nature of flesh is other than the Divine Nature yet by concurrence unto true union hath become Its own: if on the other hand desiring to shew thyself irreconcileable in opinion with us and utterly repudiating the union, thou sayest that He is one and another, and that the One has been begotten out of God the Father, the other of kin and consubstantial with us; how (tell me) dost thou say that we ought not now to turn aside from faith to Him-ward? and we shall believe him to be our kin, letting go Him Who saith, Before Abraham was I am: we shall take as our god him who assumed brotherhood with us of human soul and flesh, letting go Him Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, albeit Himself saith, For so God loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have |118 everlasting life, and again, He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only-Begotten Son of God. Is he therefore who is forth of the seed of Abraham conceived of as Only-Begotten apart and by himself, albeit John hath clearly written, The Only-Begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father, He declared Him, and moreover another Holy Scripture, But when He bringeth in the First-begotten into the world, He saith, And let all Angels of God worship Him? But First-born wholly and surely will He be Who is among many brethren, not He Who is begotten Alone of the Alone God the Father: for thus far will we follow, sir, thy distinctions, keenly awaiting for the economy's sake, whither the words burst through upon us. Hence (for I will call back the argument to its commencement) "he that assumed brotherhood with us of human soul and flesh," yet was made out of the seed of Abraham, will be the Firstborn among many brethren, but He that is in the Bosom of God the Father, the Only-Begotten God the Word. Then when the God-inspired Scripture says that our faith must be had in the Only-Begotten Son of God, why dost thou, putting forward one kin and consubstantial with us, say that we ought not to turn away from faith in him-ward? It is therefore necessary to link together3 in One Lord and Christ, by personal coalescence that is, in order that the Same may be conceived of as Only-Begotten and First-Begotten in the Same, in that the Word out of God the Father being God by Nature has been made Man as we and out of the seed of Abraham.
But now something clever has been found out as he thinks by him and thus again says he:
"Remember by all means what I have full often said to you, refusing two-fold natures in our Lord Christ, two-fold in nature, single in dignity: for the sway of the natures is for the connection's sake, one, the natures abiding ever in their own order, but the dignity connected as I said before unto a single sway." |119
§6. Yea apt at learning wert thou, who hast chosen to follow the God-inspired Scripture, which says One Lord Jesus Christ and does not put apart Him Who is out of the seed of Abraham and the Word out of God the Father. And besides one must consider this too: for one thing indeed is Godhead, another, manhood like ours, according to the inherent nature of things; but by coalescence unto true union, One Christ out of both, as we have full often said. But when the hypostases, as YOU say, have been severed into two and are conceived of as existing separately and apart, how will there be a coalescence in one Person, except one be conceived of as the property of the other: just as of a man's soul his body will be conceived of as the property, albeit of other nature than it, for not the same things are soul and body?
But (one may perchance say) how is the Holy and Adorable Trinity distinguished into Three Hypostases, yet issues in One Nature of Godhead? Because (I would say) the identity of Essence following of necessity upon the difference of.... 10, carries up the mind of believers unto One Nature of Godhead: but in respect to Emmanuel, since Godhead is something other than manhood, unless we say that the Body of the Word became His own by true Union, how will One Person be effected, when either hypostasis, apart by itself, brings before us the property of both? And except the assumed have been made the own of the assumer, connection by concurrence simply in dignity alone and sway will not suffice to effect One Only Christ, the Same God Alike and Man. For then, then, in very sooth, [it will behove not 11] to turn aside from the faith unto Himward, even though He be conceived of as out of the seed of Abraham after the flesh. But if you say that He is one and other and then affirm that our faith must be put in him that is out of the seed of Abraham, be well assured that you are |120 pouring down upon your own head the charge of man-worship, albeit you repudiate and rightly the repute of being a man-worshipper.
Yea and thinking it too little to deem aright, he slanders in another way too the great Mystery of godliness. For he subjoins forthwith,
"For he was sent to us, the blessing being promised out of the seed of Abraham, offering the sacrifice of his body for himself alike and his race."
Was Christ then Himself too made under sin? He through whom sin's mouth against us is stopped, according to the Psalmist's voice? did the darkness of accursed crime touch the Very Light Himself? needed then with us He through Whom is all redemption and hope of salvation a redeemer and Saviour? it will befit him (it seems) with us to offer thanksgiving, when God in His Clemency says, I am He That blotteth out thy sins and I will not remember them; him too even as we will the father of sin accuse. And then how will he not speak falsely saying, The prince of this world cometh, and in Me he shall find nothing? The presidents of the synagogue of the Jews once blasphemed against Him, for when they were worn out by the darts of envy, at seeing the blind from his birth in unwonted manner healed, they impiously said. Give glory to God, WE know that this man is a sinner, but our Lord Jesus Christ, convicting them of unbridled utterance said plainly, Which of you convicteth Me of sin? and if I say the truth, why do YE not believe Me? Hence, if He have offered sacrifice, both for us and moreover for Himself too, He surely hath needed it, even as we too who are under the yoke of sin: convict Him therefore of sin; if He hath offered sacrifice with us, shew Him co-sinner with us. Being the Good Shepherd, for whom hath He laid down His Life, for Himself rather or for the sheep? I hear Him saying of us, For their sakes do I sanctify Myself, and as the Divine-speaking Paul saith, By the grace of God for every man tasted He death, and again, He was delivered up because of our transgressions and was raised because of our |121 justification, and as the Prophet Esaias saith, The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, with His stripes were WE healed, not Himself has been healed by the suffering of His own Flesh. He was delivered up because of our transgressions (not because of His own, far from it, for confessedly has the nature of man been borne down by the transgression in Adam unto curse and death, it is moreover sick of proneness to sin in the flesh), in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in its who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. For therefore was He also named the last Adam, not enduring to be sick of the things of the first one, but rather ridding in Himself first the nature of man from the blame of that ancient transgression. For it was condemned in Adam, but in Christ was seen most approved and worthy of wonder. Earthy therefore is he, but Christ heavenly. And it was put to shame in the first, borne down to disobedience which is sin, but in Christ hath it preserved untransgression, and as in a second firstfruits of the race, was seen both unwounded by sins, and superior to curse and doom and death and decay. And the most wise Paul confirms us herein, thus writing, For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so too by its obedience of one shall the many be made righteous. Every one who has become guilty of sin needs therefore sacrifice for his own transgressions: and Christ hath offered Himself for His kin according to the flesh, i. e., for us; but for Himself not a whit, being superior to sin, as God. For if He have been sacrificed for Himself, not WE alone have been bought by His Blood according to the Scriptures but Himself too will have been co-bought with us, no longer according to Isaiah's voice did the Lord give Him up for our sins, but He has been given rather for His own. For where is at all sacrifice and offering, there surely is also remission of sins. The Divine-uttering Paul therefore hath beguiled those throughout all under heaven by writing regarding Him, For such an High Priest became us, holy harmless undefiled, separated from sinners and made higher than the heavens, Who needeth not daily as the high priests to |122 offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins then for the people's, for this He did once when He offered up Himself: for the Law maketh men high priests which have infirmity, but the word of the oath which was since the Law, the Son Who hath been perfected for evermore. How therefore is Christ an holy High Priest? or in what way harmless and undefiled? And if He need with us sacrifice, having made His offering for remission of transgressions and for justification of them that have sinned, how has He been separated from sinners, if He be justified along with them, the sacrifice having been offered for none else than these very persons? But I marvel that whereas Paul hath cried aloud and that full clearly that He is not like those who have been bidden to offer for their own transgressions, and then for the people's, thou wert not afraid to put forth the contrary to what he said, and durst say that after the likeness of them who were made priests according to the Law, He too offered up sacrifice for Himself. And if it be true that the Law maketh men High Priests which have infirmity, but the word of the oath which was since the Law, the Son Who hath been perfected for evermore, why makest thou connumerate with those who are used to infirmity Him Who has been removed from their multitude; and possesses the perfection which is above the Law, of His own and by Nature, if so be He be Son of a truth and therefore God?
But let us see from the legal and more ancient scripture too in what manner and for whom, Emmanuel hath offered Himself for an odour of a sweet smell unto God the Father. For a shadow confessedly was the Law, yet hath it the outline of the mystery Christ-ward and travails with the form of the Truth. And indeed Christ said somewhere when conversing with the Jews, Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed Me, for of Me he wrote. How therefore did they of the blood of Israel when about to depart out of the Land of the Egyptians sacrifice the Lamb? for their own selves alone or for the Lamb's sake too? whom did it redeem by its blood? was it them who were under the |123 yoke of bondage, and were enduring the oppression hard to bear of the Egyptians, or itself too? whose destroyer did it scare away? to whom said the God of all, And I will see the blood and will shelter you? was it to those who needed His shelter or to the Lamb itself too?
For God the Father was representing the sacrifices that were to be made for sins, in the Law as on a tablet, outlining yet the mystery of Christ, and thus He said to the hierophant Moses, If the whole congregation of the children of Israel sin unwillingly and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done one of all the commandments of the Lord which should not be done, and have transgressed and the sin be known to them which they have sinned therein, the congregation shall offer a young bullock without blemish from among the herd for the sin. And having fully gone through how the details of the sacrifice should be done, He adds and says, And the priest shall make an atonement for them and the sin shall be forgiven them. Observe then that the bullock was offered as a type of Christ the All-Pure and That hath no spot, and they who offer and not surely the bullock were set free from their guilt. For He has been sacrificed not rather for Himself, as THOU sayest, but for the infirm, for whom the high priest according to the Law used to make supplication, that you may again understand Him That was made an Advocate for us, a High Priest undefiled and holy, separated from sinners.
Since therefore our opponent is on all sides sick of uncomeliness of speech, we say that the Word out of God the Father was made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession when He was made Man, abasing Himself unto emptiness and in our condition: in order that having offered Himself to the Father for an odour of sweet smell in behalf of all, He might win all under Heaven, might remove the ancient guilt, might justify by grace through faith, might render superior to death and decay, holy and hallowed |124 and full well versed in every kind of virtue, confessing Him their Saviour and Redeemer, through Whom and with Whom to God the Father be glory with the Holy Ghost for evermore. Amen.
[A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical references, follows]
1. i S. Cyril in his Thesaurus, written chiefly against, the error of those who tried to make it seem that the SON was less than the FATHER, had said (cap. 21. pp. 213 d e 214 a b), "Not setting forth the Nature of the Word, but the Economy with flesh, does the Apostle say this. For when has He been made the High Priest of our confession? when Apostle? when faithful to Him who made Him? was it not when for our sakes and in our behalf He was made man and, as John says, the Word was made flesh? then became He faithful to Him who made Him, as man fulfilling His work, as Himself said: then was He made Apostle, sent in our behalf and for our sakes: then was He made High Priest of our confession, offering the Confession of our faith to the Father and presenting His own Body as a spotless sacrifice in order that He might cleanse all us through Him. If therefore it be said of the Son that He hath been made faithful, hath been made an Apostle, hath been made an High Priest, let not the expression be referred to His Being but to the quality of affairs. For Paul too being a man and existing already has been made an Apostle (not then beginning to be when he was called to the apostolate for existing previously, he was made an Apostle [these few words are supplied from the Munich MS. cited above p. 57 note y]): and Moses likewise has been made faithful in all his house, Aaron too has been made High Priest, outlining in himself too the Saviour. For as Aaron was not born High Priest but became so many years after, when he put on the long garment and the ephod and the rest of the priestly raiment, which was women's work: just so as to Christ also. For He was the Word in the beginning, but long time after He became High Priest for us, taking on Him as some long robe the man out of woman, or the Temple, in order that by His own Blood He might cleanse the people, offering Himself to God as a spotless Lamb: for He did not sin nor was guile found in His mouth."
2. o This passage is given in full by Mercator p. 111 Bal. immediately after the foregoing, which had been from the eighth quire: a few words are also given before the council of Ephesus, from the sixth quire, p. 206 Bal.
3. r "The sacred writers... acknowledged two senses of the word faithful in Scripture, first believing, then trustworthy, of which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful because he believed God's word; and God faithful, for, as David says in the psalm, The Lord is faithful in all His words, or is trustworthy and cannot lie. Again, If any faithful woman have widows, she is so called from her right faith; but, It is a faithful saying, because what He hath spoken has a claim on our faith, for it is true and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, who is faithful to Him That made Him, implies no parallel with others, nor means that by having faith He became well-pleasing: but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining unalterable and not changed by His human economy and fleshly presence." S. Athanasius against the Arians ii. C. p. 289 O.T. " Faithful because Onely (...) and lasting and trusty unto the faith of His Promises." S. Cyril de recta fide to the Empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia, § 5, p. 135 d. "He is called faithful because He is able to save always them who approach through Him to God, and the Father too has been called faithful." Ib. §18, p. 148 fin.
4. z or, reduced to emptiness,... cf. Jer. ii. 5...., have become vain, have walked after empty gods and become themselves emptied out: so we too if our Mediator were but man, should have been reduced to utter emptiness.
5. d See S.Ath. agst. Ar.i. §47.p.248 O.T. and note b.
6. e Most of this is cited before the Council of Ephesus, from the sixth quire, p. 208 Bal. and in the concilia. A few words are added at the beginning, " Since he was saying of Christ that He had been sent to proclaim remission to the captives, as an Apostle he adds this too and says, This is he &c," as Mercator, or, from the sixth quire, speaking of Christ. "That He was sent to preach remission to the captives. As the Apostle adds and says, This is he &c," as the Greek Edd.
7. g So too against the Arians who affirmed that the Son was exalted because man, S. Cyril, following S. Athanasius, says, "And what accession of honour has there been to Him Who is in the form of God, yet has put on the servant's form? how will H e not rather with reason seem to have been minished Who left the greater and took up the less? Being God He hath been made man in order to find----what reward? or how was He glorified Who hath descended from glory to dishonour? how hath He been made high Who disregarding the Dignity of Godhead came down even unto manhood? how hath He Who came down, been made above? what advance hath abasement? what betterment He Who from what is better hath come into the inferior? If, God Most High, and dwelling in high places, He is said to he exalted, whither (I pray) after the Nature of God will that yet mount up which is exalted? how was He low which is in the Bosom of the Most High Father? what accession did God need? if He have therefore come down in order to be exalted, what was the need of the coming down? if He therefore abased Himself in order to be exalted, what was the need of the abasement? how is not he unwise who seeks with toil what he could have without toil? how received He the Name which is above every name, Who was ever worshipped in it?" Thes. cap. 20 init. pp. 194,195, see S. Ath. against Ar. i. § 40. p. 237 O.T.
8. h In S. Cyril's very famous 16th Paschal homily written at the beginning of previous year, A.D. 430, and cited by Andrew of Samosata in his objection to S. Cyril's fourth chapter and more fully by S. Cyril in his reply to that objection p. 172 e, he says, " And though thou hear that Jesus was progressing in stature and wisdom and grace, deem not that the Word of God became wise by accession but rather remember the Divine Paul writing on this wise, Christ God's Power and God's Wisdom: nor dare idly to say that we shall allot to the man the progress in stature and wisdom and grace (for this I ween is nought else than to sever into two the One Christ), but (as I said before) the Son being Eternal, is in the last times of the world said to have been declared Son of God (Rom. i. 4), Economically making His own the birth of His proper flesh: so too being the Wisdom of Him Who begat Him, He is said to progress in wisdom albeit All-Perfect as God, reasonably receiving into Himself the properties of the human nature on account of the completeness of the union (διὰ τὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν)." Pasch. Hom. p. 230 a b. Before this date S. Cyril had said, " And as for our sakes He abased Himself, so too for our sakes He admits progress, in order that WE again in Him might advance in wisdom who of old were made beasts by reason of sin, might advance in favour too, who of old have been hated because of the transgression in Adam. For all of ours for our sakes did Christ take into Himself that He might transform all things unto the better and might become the beginning of every good to the race of man." Thes. cap. 28 p. 251 a. In a treatise written at about the same date as the Books against Nestorius, S. Cyril says, "For the mode and plan of the economy with flesh knows that He is both as we and above us; surpassing the measure of the creation as God, and (so to speak) inferior to Himself in that He is man. For where is the abasement which He voluntarily underwent, if He refuse what is human? Yet not in these is the nature of the Word conceived to lie, but He rather makes them His own together with His own flesh, just as He does hunger and thirst and the being said to be wearied with the journey. When then thou hearest, The little one waxed and was strengthened, filled with wisdom, admit in reply the mystery of the economy with flesh. For that He was God in flesh, the blessed Evangelist will himself assure, saying, the grace of God was on it. For not as though He had grace from another God is He said to have the grace of God, but because the little one had grace which beseems God. For the Word was and is God even when He is seen in flesh, i.e. man like us. And if He be said to have grace or to advance in favour (grace) with both. God and men, it is not a whit incongruous, if even the Father Himself accepted the economy and the Son making His own what pertains to flesh because of what alike befits the mystery and is serviceable." de recta fide to the Empresses § 10 p. 139 b c d.
9. i cited before council of Ephesus, from seventh quire, p. 209, Bal. &c.
10. k The text here gives φύσεων natures, in the MS. another hand has written over, ὑποστάσεων. The Roman Editors conjecture, προσώπων ἢ ὑποστάσεων, Persons or Hypostases: but see Dr. Newman's S. Athanasius against Arians p. 155 O.T. note f.
11. l I have supplied these words from the expression used by S. Cyril at the beginning of this section. There seems to be an ellipse in the MS.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: cyril_against_nestorius_04_book .htm
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius (1881) Book 4. pp.125-154.
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius. LFC 47 (1881) Book 4. pp.125-154.
TOME IV.
[Translated by P.E. PUSEY]
Brazen serpent a type: how to be cured of the stings. In HOLY TRINITY Each Person exists yet each work is the work of the Whole TRINITY. Meaning of "Made flesh." Christ gives the SPIRIT as His own, and works as God through His own SPIRIT. Nicene Fathers spake through the HOLY GHOST. "Commended." The HOLY GHOST Spirit of the Truth, i. e., of CHRIST. All Divine Work work of Whole TRINITY. HOLY GHOST out of the FATHER and the Own of the SON. S. John xvii. 1. Flesh of CHRIST quickens in the Eucharist, because it is the flesh of the WORD. Its type the Lamb, its mode a mystery. Nestorius confessed that Godhead and manhood belong to the Same, and contradicts himself: yet the Eucharist does quicken us: and He is Man having remained GOD. No one taught confusion of Person in Christ.
The Divine-uttering Paul, shewing that not ineffective for the profit of those who have elected to live piously, is the shadow in the Law and besides full well setting before the minds of all, as a picture and representation of the truer, the things which long ago befell them of old, says, But these things happened unto them typically, but were written for our admonition unto whom the ends of the world are come. Come now therefore selecting out of the writings of the Law let us say, that they of Israel were camping in the desert of old time when they departed out of the land of the Egyptians and were speeding unto the Land of Promise: but when (wretched ones!) unmindful of the wonders in Egypt and of their love to Godward, they began unholily to murmur, they were destroyed of serpents, as it is written. Yet they escaped the bites of the venomous creatures, Moses having reared up for them the brazen Serpent, God the Saviour of all having commanded, Make thee a serpent and set it for a sign and it shall be, if a serpent have bitten a man, that every one that is bitten, seeing it shall live. The figure then was the mystery Christ-ward, for the Only-Begotten Word of God being God, and Good |126 by Nature out of a Good Father, partook of flesh and blood, i. e., was made man, and like unto us wicked ones, in regard I mean that He is man as we. And He has been set up on high too, that is, He endured the cross on the wood and death after the flesh, even though He rose again the third day having trampled on the might of death.
When therefore of exceeding great lack of understanding murmuring against the economy with flesh and charging it with uncomeliness, we are ashamed to think or say that the Word of God became Man as we and was united to flesh in verity, then will the dragon, the prince of evil, slay us, infusing into our minds error, as it were the venom of his own perverseness: yet shall we escape and repel the damage of his crookedness, if with the eyes of our heart we look on the serpent, that is, if we consider with accurate mind the mystery of Christ. For then, then, deeming right shall we confess unhesitatingly that the Word of God has been made flesh, and proceeded forth of a woman along with remaining God, and is the Same God alike and Man, neither shaming of the measures of the human nature by reason of the Dignity of the Excellence, nor yet reft of His God-befitting Authority and Supreme Glory on account of the human nature. And they who are used full well to discern such things, clearly and by accurate scrutiny understanding through both the one, and the Mystery regarding Him, say, O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable His judgements and His ways not to be tracked; for who knew the mind of the Lord?
Yet doth somehow this man thrusting away these things as impossible and uncomely, dare to make no small accusal against the glory and excellence of our Saviour, and allotting to Him our measure and nought else, says that He has been glorified by the Holy Ghost, not using as His own Power, that through Him to work signs, but gaining from without and introduced, the power of achieving ought |127 miraculous, that He may appear as we the recipient of a gift haply of healing, and be bound to say with blessed Paul, By the Grace of God I am what I am. For to whom being and being able to achieve ought is imported and from without, these will with reason utter such word as this.
For he desiring (as he thinks) to prove the Holy Trinity equal in operation unto all things, says again thus;
"God the Word was made Flesh and tabernacled in us. The Father co-seated with Himself the manhood which was assumed: for (it saith) The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My Right Hand; the Spirit descending consummated the glory of that which was assumed, for when (He saith) the Spirit of Truth is come, He shall glorify Me. Desirest thou also another operation of the Trinity in respect of these very things? The Son indwelt in the body, the Father commended Him when baptized, the Spirit fashioned him in the Virgin." Then again he says of the holy Apostles, "The Son chose them out, for I (He says) chose you forth; the Father sanctified, for (He says) Father, sanctify them in Thy Truth, the Spirit rendered them orators."
§1. That his whole discourse has been framed both unwisely and unhappily, is full easy to shew. And in this too he wanders, and how, I will say. For One indeed is the Nature of the Godhead, but the Father exists in His Proper mode 1 |128 and the Son too and likewise the Spirit: yet are all things wrought by the Father and through the Son in the Spirit, and when the Father is (so to say) moved to ought, yet does the Son surely work in the Spirit; and though the Son or the Spirit be said to fulfil ought, this is full surely of the Father: and through the whole Holy and Consubstantial Trinity runs the Operation alike and Will unto everything.
On this subject we say thus. But view again how clearly and evidently, although he says that the Word out of God has been made Flesh, he mis-coins the force of the ideas, and bears it far away from rightness, representing the Incarnation as an operation of His: for he adds forthwith, "wilt thou another operation of the Trinity besides these?" as though he had already shewn the first operation of God the Word, His being made Flesh according to the Scriptures. And what is the other after the first operation, he shews as he supposes. He says, "The Son indwelt in the body:" a God-clad man therefore is Christ. Next the Word of God the Father is shewn operating this alone for man: so that even though the blessed Evangelist say, The Word was made Flesh and tabernacled in us, 2 it indicates nothing else to us but just this alone, that the Word being God dwelt in a man just as in ourselves too. For we are temples of the living God, and herein know we that He is in us because He gave us of His Spirit. But thou wilt not (I suppose) say this, shuddering at the blasphemy, but wilt confess with us, that the Word of God has been made Man (and this is the Incarnation): and wilt agree that He hath remained God, and kept the Beauty of His |129 proper Nature, even though He have the name, Sow of Man, and have been made so of a truth. What then didst thou learn, and say that the Father co-seated with Himself the manhood that was assumed, and not rather that there sitteth on the Throne of His proper Godhead, in the Good-Pleasure of God the Father, the Word That sprang from Him, when made Man too: in order that His Human Nature be not conceived and spoken of by us as something other than He, albeit the union that is of truth shews us that He is One and that His Flesh is not alien from Him?
In this too thou wilt therefore be caught speaking falsely and in no slight degree erring from fit reasoning. And if to say that the Word has been made Flesh is nought else than that He being in the Excellence of Godhead and abiding what He was, hath become Man, what glory from without will He be in need of, Himself the Lord of Glory? For confessedly was He being glorified, the Spirit working Divine signs; yet not as a God-clad man, gaining this thing from an alien and superior Nature, even as do WE, but rather as using of His own Spirit: for He was God by Nature and not alien to Him is His Spirit. Hence we say that not from without nor by adoption has the operation of the Spirit been given to Him, even as unto us, or to the holy Apostles: for to them hath Christ given authority over unclean spirits to cast them out, and commanded them to heal both every sickness and every ailment in the people.
From within therefore and from Himself is His Spirit, And an evident demonstration of this will be His being able to supply It to others too and not of measure, as the blessed Evangelist saith. For the God of all measured to the saints the grace through the Spirit, and to one He gave the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another, gifts of healing: and this I think is that those who have the operation have power of measure: but our Lord Jesus Christ, putting forth the Spirit out of His own fulness, even as doth the Father Himself, gives It not as of measure to those who are worthy to receive It. Why |130 then, most excellent sir, dost thou make Him Who giveth the Spirit not of measure, connumerate with those who have It in measure, saying that His glory has been cemented by the Spirit and that He has been operated on, like one of us, receiving as a grace support from Him, rather than working Divine signs through His own Spirit.
For the all-daring Jews, whetting against Him a bitter tongue, unholily said, This man casteth not out devils save in Beelzebub the prince of the devils; but our Lord Jesus Christ convicting them of no small folly yea rather of impiety, says, If I in Beelzebub, prince of devils, cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? for the glorious and mighty choir of the holy Apostles, performing miracles in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is marvelled at: and of a truth they returned rejoicing and saying, Lord even the devils are subject to. us in Thy Name. But if it be possible that in the name of any one of those operated on, others too should avail to accomplish the like, let him come, let him tell us why no ono is marvelled at for rebuking unclean spirits or having accomplished ought else that passes reason, in the name of any saint.
But they are operated upon by the Spirit and have a measured grace, He, as God in-worketh, and through His own Spirit achieveth without toil the things whereby He is marvelled at. And verily the woman who was sick of the issue of blood came one time secretly behind Him (thus is it written) and touched the border of His garment and immediately her issue of blood stanched, which Christ now understanding, says Who touched Me? and when at this the Divine-speaking disciples said, Master, the multitude are thronging Thee and pressing Thee, He said again, Somebody touched Me, for I know that might went forth of Me. Understandest thou then that not as introduced from without, but from within and out of Himself hath He the power to inwork and to free from weaknesses?
And the blessed Evangelist Matthew too somewhere writeth, And the whole multitude were seeking to touch Him, for there went might out of Him and healed all. His might |131 then is His Spirit, and the Divine-uttering David will give us proof, saying, By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens stablished and by the Spirit of His Mouth all their might. The Mouth of God the Father he says is the Word That is out of Him, by Whose Spirit the things made through Him, are stablished in being. I have now therefore said that he brings down to nothing the Mystery of Godliness, which has been marvelled at by the holy Angels themselves too, and recking nought of the dogmas that pertain unto truth, he makes light of them saying, "Wilt thou another operation of the Trinity besides these? the Son dwelt in the body, the Father commended him when baptized, the Spirit fashioned him in the Virgin." And that the truth will follow surely upon the things which we have said, and that we have made no mere condemnation of his words, but rather a clear and true conviction of them, himself will shew saying elsewhere on this wise,
"And the proof of co-work is evident, The Son became man, the Father enthroned Him, the Spirit honoured Him by signs."
§2. Will any one doubt even after this that the aim of his ideas looks to unlearning alike and unholiness, and is bold against the doctrines of piety? for like as he unwisely casts forth the Word of God from being made Flesh and says that He wrought an indwelling in man, so too again does he take the being made man, albeit the holy Churches in every region under Heaven, and the venerable Fathers themselves who put forth unto us the definition of the right and undefiled Faith, viz. (the Holy Ghost speaking in them) that the Word of God was made flesh and became Man, conceiving that this is nought else save only the being made man as we, and being born after the flesh of a woman, because He hath also been made with us under the Law, Who as God is above the Law.
But since (as I have already full often said) his aim is to undo the Truth, therefore he alone (and that strenuously) lifts himself up, and opposes the opinions of all, |132 and brandishes arms against the Ineffable glory, and what he alone thinks, endeavours to bring in secretly as a kind of rubbish upon the churches of God: for he maintains that the Incarnation is indwelling, and not rather that the Word out of God partook like us of blood and flesh, albeit the Word hath indwelt and indwells yet in all the saints, but has once been made as we, and has partaken Personally in a single flesh, wherein He is believed both to have died and to have risen for us: for of His own will He suffered in the flesh.
But that to no purpose is he flinging about words, and recking little of the absurdity of his language, says that Christ was ennobled by signs through the Spirit, the words which have been just cited, sufficiently (as I think) shewed: but let us examine, if you please, his other words. 'The Father (he says) commended;' what then commended here is, I cannot understand: for the word is confessedly a word of the market and the mob, and replete with commonplace trickery; but I suppose that he wanted to indicate, set forth, for example, or, hath witnessed to. How then (tell me) did the Father commend? did He exhibit one counted worthy of Divine Indwelling? or was it not this at all, but rather His own Son made man, yet abiding even in Flesh, what He was and is and shall be, i. e. God? For Jesus Christ Who was yesterday and to-day is the Same even for ever.
Come then, let us examine what is spoken of Him. What says the Evangelist? And John bare record, saying, I have seen the Spirit descending from, Heaven like a dove,.... 3 and abiding upon Him, This is He That baptizeth with the Holy Ghost: and I have seen and testified that This is the Son of God. For our Lord Jesus Christ was about to sanctify economically the Jordan, and deigned with us |133 to be baptized, ordering the Mystery of the Economy with flesh through the ways that beseem it: for it was necessary that the Word out of God the Father should be known to have been made Man. Yet was He baptized as Man, He baptized Divinely in the Holy Ghost. And we do not say that He ministered the participation of the Holy Ghost to the baptized either as a servant or by means of any other, but hallowed them, Himself infusing into them out of His own Fulness as God by Nature. How then dost thou, disregarding words alike and thoughts that belong to rightness, say that indwelling in man was wrought by God the Word; albeit whereas very many saints have had the God of all indwelling in them, none of them baptized with his own spirit or has been said to indwell Divinely in any and has so indwelt? and Christ Himself dwells in us through the Holy Ghost, Which is His own too, even as God the Father's. And this Himself ratifies to us saying, But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of the Truth, Which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me.
See then how He says that the Spirit Which proceedeth from God the Father is the own Spirit of the Truth also: and He Himself is of a surety the Truth. How then, if He be of a truth not rather God made man, but man having the Divine Indwelling as His Energy, doth He promise to send down, as His own, the Spirit of God the Father upon them who believe on Him? Yea, as I said, he shakes to nothing the glory of the Mystery, distributing the operation of the Holy Trinity in respect of the things done, and allotting to each of the Persons by Himself what the other hath not wrought.
Again he says on this wise, "The Son chose forth, for I, He says, chose you: the Father sanctified, the Spirit made orators." O distraction without measure! if all things have been done by the Father through the Son in the Spirit and nothing be done by God the Father, save in this very way;----how is he not surely distraught, who distributes to the Persons severally the Operations unto |134 ought of the Untaint and One Godhead, and doth not rather maintain that each thing that is done has been wrought by the Father through the Son in the Spirit? For if the Son is both the Counsel and Wisdom and Might of the Father, full surely will the Father work all things through the Son, as through His Counsel and Wisdom and Might. Thus chose He for their excellence His disciples, thus do we say that those who were chosen out were sanctified, thus that they were made orators, from out One Godhead; that is, by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. For He says, Holy Father, sanctify them in Thy Truth. The Truth therefore sanctifies, i. e. the Son; He infuses.....4 too and renders them wise and through the operation of the Holy Ghost; devoutly eloquent. And verily He said in the book of Matthew to His own Disciples, When they deliver you up take no thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given yon in that hour what ye shall speak, for not YE are the speakers, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you; and through that of Luke, Settle it therefore in your hearts not to meditate before what ye shall answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist. Hearest thou how when the Holy Ghost speaketh in them, Himself gives the mouth? For He is as Word Giver of word and Bestower of the Spirit, as having It as His own Naturally; even as the Father Himself too. The Holy Trinity has therefore the same Operation, and whatsoever things the Father doth and willeth to accomplish, these things doth the Son too in equal manner, likewise the Spirit also. But the giving of the Operations severally to Each of the Persons individually is nought else than to set forth three gods severally and wholly distinct from one another. For the count of Natural Unity in regard to the Holy Trinity, shews I suppose one motion unto every thing that is done. But if now we say that while One Person is moved, e. g., to work, the Two remain ineffective, how is not a gross severance privily introduced, |135 allotting as a certain position to each Person, the being conceived of external to and isolated from the rest, not in respect of His Individual Being (for that were true), but in respect of utter diversity which does not endure language that gathers them into Natural Union? For One Nature of Godhead is conceived of in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity 5.
But this good man dares to abridge God the Word Consubstantial with God the Father as though he knows not that He has been made Man, not casting away what He was, but assuming rather what He was not: for he is an advocate for (as has been said) the Holy Ghost and insults the Son, thus saying to some who have elected to think with Arius,
"They 6 (he says) contriving greater insult against Him, and severing from the Divine Nature the Spirit Which having formed His Human Nature (for that, it says, which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost), reformed unto righteousness that which was formed (for He was manifested, it says, in flesh, was made righteous in Spirit), Which made Him terrible to devils (for I, He says, in the Spirit of God, cast out devils); Which made His Flesh a Temple (for I saw, it says, the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove and it abode upon Him); Which granted Him to be taken up (for, it says, having given commandment to the holy Apostles whom He chose forth, He was taken up through the Holy Ghost): This I say which bestowed on Christ so great glory they make Christ's bondman."
§3. The daring then to sever the Spirit from the Divine |136 and Untaint Nature, is (I assent) the part of a bad and sinful mind and one far removed from what is fit (for He is Consubstantial with God the Father, and moreover with the Son Himself and is believed to be God and out of God): but I think that we should, letting this be for the present, examine the words before us and with all attention see whither they look. For says he "Doing a greater insult against Him (i. e., the Word out of God the Father) and severing from the Divine Nature the Spirit Which formed His Human Nature." Whose Human Nature, most excellent sir, sayest thou has been formed through the Spirit? albeit thou hadst but now made discourse to us about the Only-Begotten Himself Who was begotten Ineffably out of God the Father; for thou wert calling Him "Divine Nature," and His I suppose and none else's you say the Human Nature is. Therefore call to mind thine own words, for thou saidst it was the own Flesh of the Word, i. e., with a reasonable soul therein, for thus will the manhood be His. Then how, if the Word out of God the Father be One with His own Flesh, dost thou suppose that he lacks God-befitting Might and that the Holy Ghost made him terrible to devils, as though he could not do this of his own nature? and again the being able to crush Satan, as by the gift of another and hardly borrowed?
If then thou knowest that to sever the Spirit from His Divine Nature is (and justly) the most disgraceful of charges, His (it is manifest) is the Spirit, as proceeding through His Ineffable Nature Itself and Consubstantial with Him, and He will not need the might that is from It as something external and adventitious, but will use Him rather as His own Spirit, and will render Himself terrible to the devils through Him. But if it seem good to thee to shew that they who sever are unimplicated in charges of impiety, how didst thou just now call them to us insolent? and how dost thou not perceive that thou art numbering thyself with them, if thou sayest that the Word out of God the Father united to flesh, needed just like any of ours and a mere man, the aid of the Spirit that He might |137 be terrible to the unclean spirits? For even though He say that He casts out devils in the Spirit of God, how must one not see that the economy of the expression is worthy of marvel? For the chiefs of the Jews, envious of the renown of our Saviour and opening against Him an unbarred mouth, used to babble (miserable ones!) saying that He cast out devils in Beelzebub prince of the devils: but He with His innate clemency toward all, drawing unto what was better and true those who have erred or who were choosing to let loose their tongues upon Him, was attributing rather to God Who is by Nature, the glory of being able to crush Satan, saying that in the Spirit of God He chased away the wicked spirits: and not as putting Himself outside of being God by Nature and of having the Holy Ghost as His own: but since it was meet and worthy of God-befitting skill to intercept the wrath of those who were desiring His death and to cut off occasions from those who were offended at Him, for they were attacking Him saying, For a good work we stone Thee not but for blasphemy, because THOU, being a man, makest Thyself God: therefore skilfully does He condescending to them who were yet weak say, the Spirit of God,: for He knows, as I said, that He is God by Nature together with Him Who begot Him, and has all things of His, save only the being Father. Wherefore did He also say to Him, All Mine are Thine and Thine Mine and I have been glorified in them, and to ourselves making discourse concerning the Holy Ghost, He says, All things that the Father hath are Mine, therefore I said unto you that of Mine shall He take and, declare it unto you. For as the Holy Ghost proceedeth out of the Father being His by Nature, in equal wise is He through the Son Himself too, His Naturally and Consubstantial with Him. Hence even though He be glorified through the Spirit, yet is He conceived of as glorifying Himself through His own Spirit, and not as though it came to Him from without even though He be seen as made Man like us.
It is besides unsafe to say this also concerning the Spirit, "Which hath made His Flesh a Temple." For it was the |138 own Flesh of the Word, and this thyself has just now acknowledged to us, for thou saidst that His is the human nature, and the Holy Body taken out of the holy Virgin is called His Temple: His own again is His Spirit, and never will the Word out of God the Father be conceived of without His own Spirit. Better therefore were it and wiser, to say that the Body is the Temple of the Word and the flesh His own, and to believe that with the Word is ever His Spirit, just as also with the Father Himself too.
Not without blame moreover would I say that is his saying that Assumption into Heaven has been given Him by the Spirit as to a mere man. For He chose His Disciples through the Holy Ghost, He was taken up as God, not receiving this as a gift from Another; but Himself rather as a first-fruit of the human nature renewed unto immortality presenting Himself to God the Father and consecrating for us a new and living way and that entereth into the inner part of the veil, whither the forerunner is said to have entered in our behalf, after the order of Melchiscdech made an High Priest for ever. But that when Christ ascended above, the Holy Ghost was in Him as His own, none will doubt. How then didst thou not fear (tell me) to say that "This Which gave this so great glory to Christ, they make Christ's bondman?" For they who make Him Christ's bondman are confessedly impious and dishonour the Very Word Who is Consubstantial with God Himself, arraying in slave-befitting measures the Spirit Which is of Him and in Him by Nature and His own: but the saying that the glory was given Him by the Spirit, is a manifest proof of the uttermost infatuation.
But you will be caught idly babbling herein, and not understanding the Mystery to Him-ward, yea rather both thinking and saying clean contrary to yourself. For if thou hast believed that the Word being God has been made Flesh (for thou saidst that His was the human nature) why dost thou say that the Lord of glory, as though He had not |139 glory of His own, needed it from the Spirit, and reckonest Him in the measures of the creature to which all things are from without and given? for what hast thou that thou receivedst not, will it befit the creature to hear.
Yea but (he says) I find Emmanuel saying. Father, glorify Thy Son: add therefore what remains; this is, That Thy Son too may glorify Thee. If thou assert that the Son, as lacking glory, desires that of the Father, what dost thou say, when the Father too is glorified of the Son? is it as not having glory or needing it of another? away with the mis-counsel! for verily is it trickery and unholy thought and nought else. For the Divine Nature and that passeth all natures dwelleth in the light unapproachable and hath authority over all things and to Him is ascribed the glory which most befits it alone: but when the Only-Begotten Word of God was made man and was about by the grace of God through His own flesh to taste death for every man, and undo its might hard-to-withstand, quickening as God His own Temple, He devises the prayer as Man, and wills the Father to consent with Him Who was transforming the nature of man to what it was at the beginning and renewing it unto incorruption, and displaying it superior to the meshes of death: that ancient curse and the sentence upon the First-formed being undone.
Hence since visible in flesh, He is preached Son of God by Nature and in truth, He says, Father glorify Thy Son, rendering Him as Man, superior to both death and decay, that He may be believed to be Thine, being as God Life by Nature, according to the count of His own Nature: for then will the Son too glorify Thee. Glory truly is it to God the Father that it be believed by us, that He, Very God and Life and Life-giving, begat equal and like to Himself in everything, ineffably and beyond understanding, the Son, Who was in no lesser state, even though He have been made in flesh, but preserved wholly unimpaired the Supernatural and Choice Beauty of His inherent Natural Nobility, being Himself too Life as out of Life, and |140 all-availing and achieving without toil and bestowing in-corruption on those subject to death and decay.
Hence even though the Son be said to be glorified by the Father, consider the measure of the human nature, sever not into two [after the Union] the One Christ and Son and Lord, but confess One and the Same, God made Man 7, and the Same in like manner Lord of glory as God, and recipient of glory in His Human Nature. For consider that, albeit by Nature and in verity God and King of all and Lord, He is said to have been set King, when, made man as we, He hath humbled Himself and been made obedient to God the Father and with us under the Law. In no wise therefore will the things that pertain to the measures of the emptiness trouble the wise and understanding and settled in the faith; but from them alike and from the things that befit the Divine Nature, do they acknowledge the Son, the Same God and Man.
But he comes not forward with sound words, but having swerved exceedingly to what is unruly, he busies himself without understanding, and deems fit to hold what please himself alone and what he thinks well to deem are understood aright. And he destroys others too, in addition to to what he has said severing into two the One Lord Jesus Christ, calumniating also our Divine Mystery itself from not enduring to confess with us, that not like one of the holy Prophets, or again Apostles and Evangelists, was Christ a God-clad man, but God rather made Man, and hath partaken in verity of blood and flesh. He said in this wise again, putting forth his words as of the Person of Christ,
"He 8 that eateth My flesh and drinketh My Blood |141 abideth in Me and I in him. Remember that what is said is about the flesh. As the Living Father sent Me, Me, the visible: but sometimes I misinterpret. Let us hear from what follows: As the living Father sent Me, he says the Godhead, I the Manhood: let us see who it is who is mis-interpreting. The heretic says [he says 9] here the Godhead, Sent Me God the Word. As the living Father sent Me, according to him, and I live, God the Word, because of the Father. After this, And he that eateth Me he too shall live. Whether do we eat, the Godhead or the flesh?"
§4. Thou sayest therefore that the flesh alone has been sent, and affirmest that it it is which is seen: it therefore suffices also alone by itself to quicken that which is tyrannized by death. Why then do the God-inspired Scriptures tell a tale to no purpose and over and over assert that the Word out of God the Father was made Flesh? for what need at all would there be of the Word, if the human nature sufficeth for us, even though conceived of alone and by itself, so as to be able to bring to nought death and to undo the might of decay? and if it is as you suppose and choose to think, not God the Word Who has been sent through being made as we, but the flesh alone which is seen has been sent by the Father, how is it not clear to all, that we have been made participant of a human body and one in no wise whatever differing from our own? 10 how therefore do you elsewhere laugh at those who so think? for thou saidst again,
"I will speak the words too of offence. Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them; Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you: the hearers endured |142 not the loftiness of what was said, they imagined of their unlearning that He was bringing in cannibalism."
§5. And how is the thing not plain cannibalism, and in what way is the Mystery yet lofty, unless we say that the Word out of God the Father has been sent, and confess that the mode of that sending was the Incarnation? For then, then we shall see clearly, that the Flesh which was united to Him and not another's flesh, avails to give Life, yet 'because it has been made the very own of Him who is mighty to quicken all things,' For if this visible fire infuses the force of its natural inherent power into those substances with which it comes in contact, and changes water itself though cold by nature into that which is contrary to its nature and makes it hot; what wonder or how can one disbelieve that the Word out of God the Father being the Life by Nature rendered the Flesh which is united to Him, Life-giving? for it is His very own and not that of another conceived of as apart from Him and of one of us. But if thou remove the Life-giving Word of God from the Mystical and true Union with His Body and sever them utterly, how canst thou shew that it is still Life-giving? And Who was it who said, He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me and I in him? If then it be a man by himself and the Word of God have not rather been made as we, the deed were cannibalism and wholly unprofitable the participation (for I hear Christ Himself say, The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, for as far as pertains to its own nature, the flesh is corruptible 11, and will in no wise quicken others, sick itself of the decay that is its own): but if thou say that it is the Own Body of the Word Himself, why dost thou speak portentously and utter vain things, contending that not the very Word out of God the Father has been sent, but some other than of Him, "the visible," or His Flesh, albeit the God-inspired Scripture every where proclaimeth One Christ, full well affirming that the Word |143 was made Man as we and defining herein the tradition of the right Faith.
But out of overmuch reverence, he blushes (it appears) at the measures of emptiness and endures not to see the Son Co-Eternal with God the Father, Him who is in the Form and Equality in everything with Him Who begat Him, come down unto lowliness: he finds fault with the economy and haply leaves not unblamed the Divine Counsel and Plan. For he pretends to investigate the force of the things said by Christ, and as it were taking in the depth of the ideas; then bringing round (as he thinks) my 12 words |144 to a seeming absurdity and ignorance; "Let us see, he says, who it is that mis-interprets. As the Living Father |145 sent Me, for I live (according to him) God the "Word, because of the Father, and he that eateth Me he too shall live: which do we eat, the Godhead or the flesh?" Perceivest thou not therefore at length how thy mind is gone? for the Word of God saying that He is sent, says, he also that eateth Me, he too shall live. But WE eat, not consuming the Godhead (away with the folly) but the Very Flesh of the Word Which has been made Lifergiving, because it has been made His Who liveth because of the Father. And we do not say that by a participation from without and adventitious is the Word quickened by the Father, but rather we maintain that He is Life by Nature, for He has been begotten out of the Father who is Life. For as the sun's brightness which is sent forth, though it be said (for example) to be bright because of the sender, or of that out of which it comes, yet not of participation hath it the being bright, but as of natural nobility it weareth the Excellence of him who sent it or flashed it forth: in the same way and manner, I deem, even though the Son say that He lives because of the Father, will He bear witness to Himself His own Noble Birth from forth the Father, and not with the rest of the creation promiscuously, confess that He has Life imparted and from without.
And as the Body of the Word Himself is Life-giving, He having made it His own by a true union passing understanding and language; so WE too who partake of His holy Flesh and Blood, are quickened in all respects and wholly, the Word dwelling in us Divinely through the Holy Ghost, humanly again through His Holy Flesh and Precious Blood. The most holy Paul will confirm the truth of what I said, writing thus to those in Corinth who believed in our Lord Jesus Christ, I speak as to wise men, judge YE what I say, the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? the Bread which we break is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? for one bread one body are we who are many, for we all are partakers of One Bread. For having partaken of the Holy Ghost, we are made one both with Christ Himself |146 the Saviour of all and with one another: we are of the same body in this way, that we being many are one bread one body, for we all are partakers of the One Bread. For the Body of Christ which is in us binds us together into unity and is in no way divided. But that through the Body of Christ wo have been brought together into unity with Him and with one another, the blessed Paul will confirm, writing, For this cause I Paul the Prisoner of Jesus Christ in behalf of you Gentiles, if ye heard of the economy of the grace of God which was given me to you-ward, how that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men as now it is revealed unto His holy Apostles and prophets in the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body and co-participant in the promise in Christ.
But since some of those who at first believed, ignorant of the tradition and force of the Mystery were pleased to be borne aside from what was right, celebrating in the churches banquetings and public feastings, the blessed Paul found fault with those who used so to do, writing, For have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not; for I received of the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was delivered up, took bread and gave thanks and brake and said, This is My Body given for you, this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise the Cup too after supper saying, This Cup is the New Testament in My Blood, do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of Me: for as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye are declaring the Lord's death, till He come.
And that the Mystery is Divine and the participation Life-giving and the might of this unbloody Sacrifice far better than the worship under the Law, is easy to see even from his saying that the things ordained through Moses to them of old time were a shadow, but Christ and what |147 is His the truth. The most wise Paul too will help us herein, thus writing, One that despised Moses' Law died without mercy under two or three witnesses, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who trod under foot the Son of God and accounted common the Blood of the covenant wherein he was sanctified, and did despite unto the Spirit of grace? For they that of old did sacrifice the lamb ate thereof, but the force of the eating amounted not simply to the satisfying of the belly, nor was it for this that the sacrifices were performed under the Law: but that when death fell on the rest, they might be superior to its suffering and might escape the destroyer. And verily in one night were the first-born of the Egyptians destroyed, but these fenced by the bare type, alone were saved by it, and having the shadow for their shield, prevailed gloriously over death itself too. The types then saved those before us; in what condition are our matters, on whom at length beamed the Truth itself, that is, Christ, Who setteth before us His own Life-giving Flesh to partake of? is it not clear to all? For very exceedingly better and in vast superiority are they. And the might of the Mystery our Lord Jesus Christ making manifest saith, Verily I say to you, he that helieveth on Me hath everlasting life, I am the Bread of Life: your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died, this is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a man may eat thereof and not die, I am the Living Bread Which came down from Heaven, if any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread Which I will give is My Flesh Which is for the Life of the world. For since they of the blood of Israel had marvelled at Moses for the largess of manna sent down to those of that time in the desert, which fills up a type of the Mystic Eucharist (for the Law is a shadow), therefore with exceeding skill doth our Lord Jesus Christ minish the type, driving them [from it] unto the truth. For not that (He says) was the Bread of Life, but rather, I Who am out of Heaven and Who quicken all things and infuse Myself into them that eat Me, through My Flesh too that is united to |148 Me. Which indeed He made clearer saying, Verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not Life in you: he that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day, for My Flesh is true meat and My Blood is true drink; he that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the Living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, he also that eateth Me, he too shall live. Consider then how He abideth in us and maketh us superior to corruption, infusing Himself into our bodies, as I said, through His own Flesh too, which is true meat, whereas the shadow in the Law and the worship under it possess not the truth.
And the plan of the Mystery is simple and true, not overwrought with varied devices of imaginations unto unholiness but simple as I said. For we believe that to the body born through the holy Virgin, having a reasonable soul, the Word out of God the Father having united Himself (unspeakable is the union, and wholly a Mystery!) rendered it Life-giving, being as God Life by Nature, that making us partakers of Himself spiritually alike and bodily, He might both make us superior to decay and might through Himself bring to nought the law of sin which is in the members of the flesh, might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written. But this no wise (I deem) pleases this dogmatist of new inventions, who like some straying calf runs after only what pleases himself: and minishes the force of the mystery saying,
"Hear the word Lord too, sometimes put of the human nature of Christ, sometimes of His Godhead, sometimes of both. As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye declare the Lord's Death. Hear from the foregoing the unlearning of the gainsayers, how they read the mighty profit of the mystery, and whose memorial it imparts to men, and hear not me saying these things, but the blessed |149 Paul, As oft as ye cat this bread, he said not, As oft as ye eat this Godhead. As oft as ye eat this bread. See what is before us concerning the Lord's Body. As oft as ye eat this Bread, whereof the Body is the antitype. Let us see therefore whose is the Death. As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this Cup, ye declare the Lord's Death. Hear yet plainer in what follows, Till He come, who is it Who is coming? They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with great glory. And greater still, the Prophet before the Apostles did more clearly shew Him Who is coming and hath cried aloud proclaiming of the Jews, They shall look on Him Whom they pierced. Who then is he that was pierced? the Side: belongs the Side to the body, or the Godhead?"
§6. Again must we speak for the doctrines of the Truth, and oppose, sir, thy words, and before all else must say this to those who will hear: Thy aim is and with all diligence to represent two christs, to whom severally may belong the title of lordship, but it shall be shewn by us, without any great toil, that you go to this in most unlearned wise. For come tell me who ask thee, what Christ you are defining, whose you say is both the manhood and likewise the Godhead: if the Word out of God the Father, you have clearly confessed that the Same is man also, for you said that His is the human nature: but if him that is born of the Virgin according to thee, you will be caught no less pronouncing that He is God too: for you said that His is the Godhead also. On all sides therefore driven even against thy will to the Truth, confess with us One Christ and Lord: for thus will you cease from saying, "Hear the word Lord too, one while put of the human nature of Christ, one while of His Godhead, other while, of both:" for where there is One Son, what room is there to speak of both? and why dost thou smile at those who honour our Divine Mystery, saying most unholily, "As oft as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye declare the Lord's death? Hear from the foregoing the unlearning of the gainsayers, how they read |150 the mighty profit of the mystery and Whoso memorial is set before men."
There is therefore nothing excellent in the unbloody sacrifice, but it profits exceeding little, and he will put the force of the gain thereof in just merely declaring a man's death and making a memorial of one like us. Therefore He lies in saying that He is Life-giving Who knows not how to lie, Christ: "WE too have been cozened having a vain opinion of Him: and now late and with difficulty are we being guided unto the finding of the truth, by reading these thy words. But to you who choose to think thus, shall be said what is spoken through the Prophet's voice, Lo thine eyes are not, nor thine heart comely. For he by no means understandeth, that we setting forth the Death of Christ, confessing too His Resurrection, and gaining thereby perfection in the faith, then becoming partakers of His Divine Nature and that through participating of unity with Him, are sanctified spiritually alike and bodily and are quickened. For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality: and the robe that is out of Heaven and undecaying and productive of immortality hath Christ become to us. And our proof is the most holy Paul writing, one while, Put ye on our Lord Jesus Christ, at another again, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ, Who saith in God-befitting way and truly, I am the Resurrection and the Life.
To those things does he fearing nought put forth yet fouler impiety, adding, "Hear not me saying these things but the blessed Paul, As oft as ye do eat this bread, whereof the Body is the antitype. Let us see therefore herefrom whose is the death. As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this Cup, ye declare the Lord's death. Hear yet plainer in what follows, Till He come: who then is he that is to come? They shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with great glory. And greater yet, the Prophet before the Apostles did more clearly shew Him Who is coming and hath cried proclaiming concerning the Jews, They shall look on Him whom they pierced. Who |151 then is He which was pierced? The Side, belongs the Side to the Body, or to the Godhead?" Petty therefore as I said, is the profit of the Unbloody Sacrifice, because perchance it hath not been, feasible that the Nature of the Godhead too should be consumed along with the Flesh, because we are not in possession of impossibilities, having the Incorporeal by Itself to eat. But you seem to me to forget that it is by no means the Nature of Godhead that lieth upon the holy Tables of the Churches, yet is it the own Body of the Word Begotten of God the Father: and God by Nature and in truth is the Word. Why therefore dost thou confound all things and jumble them without understanding, all but mocking at our Bread Which is out of Heaven and giveth Life to the world, because it is not called Godhead by the voice of the Divines, but rather the Body of Him Who hath become Man for us, that is, of the Word out of God the Father? And why (tell me) dost thou call it the Lord's Body at all, save because thou knowest it to be Divine and God's? for all things serve their Maker.
Yea the things in thy mind are not right, but thou believest Emmanuel to be merely a God-clad man. And then utterly heedless of thoughts and words that belong to piety, thou supposest that the Priest of the Truth, the wise master-builder and teacher of the Gentiles, the truly holy and all-wise Paul will support thee in thy calumniating, bearing away from the straight and most approved path the force of what are rightly and without adulteration said by him.
For "let us see (he says) herefrom whose is the death. Till He come. Who is He Who is coming? they shall look 13 on Him Whom they pierced." He will come therefore Who suffered death humanly, has been raised Divinely, Who ascended too into the Heavens, Who with all state is on the Throne of the Ineffable Godhead and co-sitteth with the Father, the Seraphim standing around, |152 and the Highest Powers, not unknowing of the measure of their subjection to Him; every Authority and Power and Lordship worshipping Him: for to Him shall bend every knee and every tongue shall confess, Lord Jesus, to the glory of God the Father. He shall come (as I said) seen not in our littleness, but rather in most God-befitting glory. Heaven and the Spirits above encompassing Him as their God and King and standing by the Lord of all. If therefore the Word of God the Father be not rather in flesh, or made Man, but a God-clad man with bodily side and who endured the piercing, how is He seen on the Throne of the Supreme Godhead, revealed to us as a new god fourth after the Holy Trinity? hast thou not shuddered at a mere man, devising worship for the creature? are we then holden in the ancient snares? have we then done insult to God and has the holy multitude of the spirits above gone astray with us? if we have been set free from the ancient deceit, refusing as blasphemous to worship the creature, why dost thou casting us again into the old charges, exhibit us man-worshippers? for WE know and believe that the Word out of God the Father assumed flesh and blood: but since He hath remained the Same, i.e., God, He retained the Dignity of His inherent Excellence over all, albeit in flesh as we, yet being no less God, now too than of old, even though He have been made Man, He hath the Heaven His adorer and the earth worshipping Him: for it is written, that the earth is full of Thy praise, Thy Virtue covered the Heavens, O Lord.
But THOU again, of thy over much infatuation, seest not that thus He is in Nature and Glory: for thou saidst, "Who is he who cometh? they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven," as though thou fearedst lest any should disbelieve thee saying that He Which cometh is son of man. Thou confirmest the proof thereof with prophetic testimony also: for thou sayest that it is written, They shall look on Him Whom they pierced. And yet mightier for proof as thou supposedst, most foolishly adding, "Who then is it (he says) that is pierced? the |153 Side: belongs the Side to body or to the Godhead?" If there were any who say that the Word of God have not been made as we, but came among those on earth in bare Godhead, i.e., in semblance and as it were in shadow, as some of the unholy heretics thought good to think, you would have had some plea for such like framing of words; not passing the bound of what was meet: but since the preaching of the truth says clearly and manifestly that the Word of God was made Flesh and was called as we son of man too and suffered for us in the flesh and will also so come as He went up into Heaven, according to the Angel's voice too: whom (tell me) dost thou opposing, and whose opinion cutting off as unlearned and of no account, dost thou strive to shew us that HE Who cometh is a man with bodily side which has been pierced through with the spear?
But thine aim (as I said) is to bring in privily to us Emmanuel as a God-clad man and not rather God made Man, for the Word of God has been made Man. And this faith goes along with the holy and Divine Scriptures and the aim of the Apostolic and Evangelic Tradition tends to this same thing. But THOU again art talking big in another way too: for thou pretendest to be finding fault with those who mingle into one essence, the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead (albeit there is no one as I deem who mingles them up or mixes them one with other), and sayest,
"Why 14, as we were just now hearing, when both are according to thee mingled, does our Lord, delivering to the disciples the force of the Mystery, thus say, He took bread and gave thanks and gave to His disciples saying, Take, eat all of you for this is My Body. Why said He not, This is My Godhead Which is being broken for |154 you? and again giving the cup of the Mysteries, He said not, This is My Godhead Which is being poured forth for you, but This is My Blood which is being shed for you for the remission of sins."
§7. That it is therefore an exceeding folly to want to oppose oneself to those who are not at all, and to no purpose to march forth, taking for contradiction that which no one (I suppose) cared either to think or say, how is it not manifest to all? for if one chose to contend that the ox is not by nature an horse, nor yet man an horse, whereas no one would even endure to think or say this;----how would he not be laughed at and besides a vain talker, beating the air and fighting against things uncertain and devising for himself sweat and toil against what was not there? For I say that something confessed ought first to be laid down, in order that then in duo order ours may be ranged against it.
But let us come to this: for if there be any who should dare to say the Word out of God had been transformed into the nature of the body, one might very reasonably object to him, that He on giving His Body did not rather say, Take eat this is My Godhead which is being broken for you, and, this is not My Blood but rather My Godhead which is being poured forth for you. But since the Word being God made His own the Body born of a woman, without undergoing any alteration or turning, how must not He who saith no untruth say, Take eat this is My Body? for being Life as God, He rendered it Life and Life-giving.
Having therefore opened your eyes but a little to the Truth, you will I suppose charge, yourself against yourself, your superfluity of language, on all sides stuttering and unlearnedly arraying against the Doctrines of piety this thy counterfeit and joyless discourse.
[A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical references, follows]
1. b "Thus is there One God, the Holy-Trinity by sameness of Nature speeding unto one Godhead, even though in the giving of Names and conceived of in Proper Existence only, It fitly admit the number Three." Thes. cap. 32 pp. 311 fin. 312. " He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine and shall tell it unto you; for being the Spirit of Truth He will enlighten them in whom He is, and will lead them unto the apprehension of the Truth. And this we say, not as severing into diversity and making wholly separate, either the Father from the Son, or the Son from the Father, nor yet the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, but (since One Godhead truly is, and is thus preached as viewed in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity), defining the Acts belonging to Each and which seem to be attributed to Them severally, to be the Will and Operation of the Whole Godhead. For the Divine and Unsevered Nature will work through Itself, in no divided way, so far as pertains to the one count of Godhead, although Each hath Personal Existence: for the Father is What He is, and the Son likewise, and the Holy Ghost." On S. John vi. 45 p. 402 O. T. add in S. Johannem p. 784 a. S. Cyril further speaks of the Incarnation as the act of the Whole Holy Trinity. "But He says that He was Incarnate by the Father, although Solomon says, Wisdom builded her an house: and the blessed Gabriel attributeth the creation of the Divine Body to the Operation of the Spirit, when he was speaking with the holy Virgin (for The Holy Ghost, he says, shall come upon thee, and the Power of the most Highest shall overshadow thee) that thou mayest again understand, that the Godhead being by Nature One, conceived of both in the Father and the Son and in the Holy Ghost, not severally will Each in-work as to ought of things that are, but whatever is said to be done by One, this is wholly the work of the whole Divine Nature." Ib. on vi. 57 pp. 424, 425 O. T.
2. c The Word was made flesh and tabernacled in (or among) us. The Easterns in their great dread of Apollinarianism, suspected S. Cyril of pressing S. John's earlier words (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) to mean, was turned into flesh (see p. 44 note e): Nestorius on his side would seem to have rested his, 'the Divine Nature not enduring change into flesh but inhabitation in man' (pp. 28, 30) in part on the words, tabernacled in us. S. Cyril gives two most carefully-weighed expositions of the verse at pp. 4, 5 and 35.
3. e Thus the MS., omitting the intermediate part, ver. 32 and most of 33. Omissions of this sort are not uncommon, even in good MSS., while the frequent citation of these verses by S. Cyril, together with the sense, shew that the omission is a slip of some transcriber. The omission seems to indicate that as in other places so here too S. Cyril read from Heaven in verse 33 also and so that the omission took place through the eye of the scribe wandering from the words from heaven in verse 32 to those same words in verse 33.
4. f There appears to be an omission here; the Roman editors conjecture that τὸ ἅγιονπνεῦμα may be to be supplied.
5. g "Following the faith of the holy Fathers we say that the SON was in God-befitting and Ineffable way truly begotten out of the Essence of God the Father, and that He is conceived of in His Proper Hypostasis, yet is united in Identity of Essence with Him Who begat Him, and is in Him and hath again the Father in Himself. And we confess that He is Light out of Light, God out of God by Nature, Equal in glory and in work, Impress and Radiance and in all Equal, in nought minished. For thus, the Holy Ghost being counted besides, the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity is united in One Nature of Godhead." Ep. 1 to Monks p. 6 b.
6. h This is given by Mercator with the heading, Also from the second volume quire 2 as though against the Arians and Macedonians, p. 118 Bal.
7. l I have construed this from a Syriac extract in one of Severus' Epistles, which supplies the words, confess and the Same, God made Man, and gives rightly as instead of the et of the present Greek text. Severus' ms. omits the words just above after the Union, and very likely rightly.
8. n Marius Mercator gives a Latin translation of this, citing it as "in another treatise in the fifth quire of the book, On the passage of Holy Scripture where it says, If thou shalt have remembered that thy brother hath ought against thee." Op. p. 115 Baluz. It occurs also in a fuller form among the passages cited before the Council of Ephesus, ib. pp 209, 210. and by S. Cyril in his Defence of his 11th chapter against the Eastern Bishops, pp. 192 e 193 a b.
9. o [he says]. I have supplied this to fill up the sense from S. Cyril's fuller citations against the Eastern bishops.
10. p S. Cyril means that if not God the Word have been sent but a mortal body only, to this same must refer the words which follow, He. that eateth Me, he too shall live, must refer to a mortal body only, and one just like ours, so that our food should be no longer the Eucharist but only that.
11. q See the same explanation given in S. Cyril's commentary on S. John, ad loc.p. 435 O.T.
12. s S. Cyril in his great Letter to the monks which Nestorius had seen (see above p. 20 note 1) and was apparently contradicting had said, " And the Divine-uttering Paul will assure us, saying, But when the fulness of time came God sent forth His Son made of a woman made under the law, in order to redeem them that were under the law, in order that WE might recover the adoption. Who then is He who is sent, made (as he said) under the law and of a woman, save He Who is above laws as God? but since He has been called man, made under the Law too, in order to be in all things likened to His brethren?" Ep. 1 to the monks, p. 13 b. And in his 16th Paschal homily, "For as the Divine-uttering Paul writes, God sent forth His Son made of a woman made under the law. For we do not say that the Word of God came down into a man born through woman, in just the same way as He was in the Prophets; but rather we shall crown with right approval John's voice clearly and truly saying, And the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us. And we shall conceive that the Word has been made flesh, participating in flesh and blood; and this in like way with those who are in blood and flesh, ourselves." p. 227 d e. Nestorius' objection to the idea of Sent anyhow referring to God the Word appears in his objections on pp. 48, 51, 52, 84 as well as in the present section. To it we owe S. Cyril's magnificent teaching here of the Blessings given us in and by the Holy Eucharist: for to the verse specially in controversy, S. John vi. 57, Nestorius adds the preceding ver. 56, with a view to the argument he draws from the word flesh, and S. Cyril in replying gives the full teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject both of the Eucharist, and of the sending. S. Cyril meets Nestorius' teaching not only here but (on the Holy Eucharist) in his great Letter (,3 Epistles p. 65 and chapter 11, p. 69) and the Explanation of chapter 11, p. 156 c d. But in his defence of his chapter 11 against the attack of the Eastern Bishops, S. Cyril cites in full this passage of Nestorius and (after alluding to the present treatise in the words that He has already made a long treatise in answer to Nestorius) proceeds, "What it is he wants to understand, in saying that it is not God the Word Incarnate and made Man that has been sent, but putting severally and apart (as he says) 'the visible,' I cannot say, yea rather his sophism is now evident, for he undoes the plan of the union in order that Christ's Body may be found to be a common body, no longer in truth the 'proper Body of Him who is mighty to quicken all things.'
"For petty confessedly to God the Word are all human things, but since He deigned for our sakes to endure the emptiness that is the salvation of the world, even though He be said to have been sent to preach remission to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, He is glorified rather as enduring the abasement of the Economy with flesh, and no one of those who are wont to think aright will (I suppose) find fault because He lowered Himself for our sakes in our condition.
"Does he not therefore by affirming that 'the visible,' to whom alone he hath allotted the fact of being sent, is some other son and christ than the Word out of God, exhibit our mystery as cannibalism, in unholy wise bringing round the mind of believers to feeble notions and essaying to subject to human reasonings what are apprehended by unquestioning faith alone? for not because the Nature of the Godhead is not eaten, will one therefore say that the holy Body of Christ is common: but it is needful to know (as we said before) that it is the Proper Body of the Word which quickeneth all things, and since it is the Body of Life it is also life-giving, for through It does the SON infuse life into our mortal bodies and undoes the mastery of death: and the HOLY SPIRIT of Christ quickeneth us in equal wise; for it is the Spirit that quickeneth, according to the Saviour's own voice." Def. cap. 11 adv. orient. p. 193 b c d e. So again in S. Cyril's Letter to the Emperor de recta fide (which Nestorius is very likely to have seen though probably not sent so soon as this) S. Cyril cites the text and says, "Yet how is it not true to say that the flesh hath come not out of heaven, but was out of the Virgin according to the Scriptures? yet is not the Word eaten, but He is seen in thousand ways gathering both into One [uniting] the properties of the natures by an economic coming together (σύμβασιν)" p. 35 d e. When S. Cyril republished this treatise in a revised form, he concluded this extract, " gathering both into One and as it were immingling (ἀνακιρνὰς) the properties of the natures." p. 708 a. In his treatise to the Empresses (Eudocia the Emperor's wife and his sister Pulcheria who had been Empress in her Brother's minority), written at the same time as the treatise to the Emperor, S.Cyril says, "As the Living Father sent Me both I live because of the Father and he that eateth Me he too shall live because of Me. I would gladly ask them who distinguish into two christs, the One, Who I pray is He Who has been sent by God the Father and Who both lives because of Him and is on that account Life-giving? If therefore it is the Word who is out of Him, bare and by Himself, how is He eaten by us in order that we may live because of Him (for unembodied is the Godhead by Nature)? but if they say that he that hath been sent is man alone and by himself, how is he life-giving because he lives because of the Father? albeit how are not all we that are on earth among the living, God the Father quickening us, if it is true that in Him we live and move and are? Since therefore we all of us live because of the Father, how (I pray) is the body of one man alone life-giving on this account and those of the rest have not rather the same operation, seeing that we all (as I said) both are and live because of the Father? what then do we say to this? The Word of God appearing in human form has been called Sent (apostle) (for He was sent to preach remission to captives and recovery of sight to the blind), but He lives because of the Father for He was begotten out of the Living Father: for it must needs, it must needs that the SON born of God the Father Living and Life be full surely Life by Nature. But since He made His own the body which was taken out of the holy Virgin, He rendered it Life-giving and with reason, for it is the Body of the Life which quickeneth all things. Hence we may not sever into two sons the One Son and Christ and Lord; since He is the Same, Life as out of the Father, Life and Living; Lifegiving through His own Body too, as GOD made as we and Incarnate." de recta fide to the Empresses § 40 p. 177 abed. In the Thesaurus S. Cyril speaks of sending in reference to either the Eternal Generation or the temporal Birth for our sakes (compare S. Aug. on S. John hom. 21 fin. pp. 338 sq. O.T. with homm. 36 40, pp. 507, 545 O.T.) " The SON says that He has been sent by the Father, either [either is supplied from MSS.] after the mode of obedience and Incarnation (for He emptied Himself taking servant's form and became obedient unto death), or as out of the sun the light that is born and emitted from forth it, or out of the fire its heat, indivisibly and inseparably permeating to its participator." Thes. cap. 32 p. 325. In his comm. on S.John, S. Cyril takes sent as belonging to the Incarnation, p. 424 O.T. The very Rev. John Burgon B.D. Dean of Chichester, very kindly sent me from his laboriously constructed Indices of the New Testament citations of the Greek Fathers, a list of the citations in S. Cyril's extant writings of S. John vi. 57. It is probable that Nestorius' allusion to S. Cyril's interpretation of sent, belongs not to any comment on this verse but to the meaning as given in his great Letter to the Monks; which letter Nestorius elsewhere contradicts.
13. u Here the part between They shall see and They shall look appears to have been omitted by a not infrequent carelessness of the Scribe in letting his eye wander from the one word to the same word just below. For the sequel refers to these omitted words They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds and indicates that their omission was accidental, not intentional.
14. x This passage occurs in Mercator, in the middle of a long piece which he gives with the heading, Also in the sixth quire of the same on Judas, against the heretics (p. 110 Bal.). The portion preceding this is given below,p.171. The extract concludes, "Sever the nature but connect the union: confess Christ Son of God, yet a two-fold son, man and God, in order that the suffering may be allotted to the human nature, the undoing of the suffering which was wrought on the man who suffered, may belong to the Godhead alone."
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: cyril_against_nestorius_05_book .htm
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius (1881) Book 5. pp.155-184.
Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius. LFC 47 (1881) Book 5. pp.155-184.
TOME V.
[Translated by P.E. PUSEY]
Jewish disbelief in Christ followed by some Christian teachers. The SON GOD by Nature gave His own body to death to free us, albeit His Godhead might not suffer. "Glory before the world was," can be no man's glory but that of GOD. Father most strictly God the FATHER though He permit such relations to us. 'Crucified out of weakness,' yet, Lord of glory. 'Servant's form.' 'Not Mine own will.' The forsaking on the Cross. He raised His own Body. S. Thomas' confession. Nicene Fathers. Testimony of GOD and man to the SON.
THE Divine-uttering Paul glories in the Sufferings of Christ and says, one while, But to me be it not that I should glory save in the Cross of Christ through Whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world, another while again, For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believeth, to the Jew first and to the Greek. And thus did the Spirit-clad deem right both himself to think and besides to teach others, for he hath written not without purpose, but that he might persuade us to be zealous for the rightness of the faith that was in him, choosing to delight us in the Sufferings of Christ. But some are ashamed of the Cross and impiously rising up against them that have been made teachers of all below the sun, by reason that they choose to think contrarily, they (wretched ones!) all but smile at Christ's sufferings and and are ashamed of the Gospel, sick with the Jewish unlearning and in no way inferior to them in infatuation. For the Saviour's Cross hath become to them an offence: and verily they beholding the Prince of Life, the fulfilment of the Law, affixed to the wood, they were wagging at Him their impious heads, not believing that God is of a truth made Man and come down unto emptiness, but supposing rather that He was simply a man as we, and they said, putting forth as out of the evil treasure |156 of their heart evil things, Thou That destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days save Thyself; if Thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross: and again, He saved others, Himself He cannot save, if He be the king of Israel, let Him now come down from the Gross and we will believe on Him. For they thought not, as I said just now, that He was God by Nature, nor yet in truth Son of God the Father but rather that He was bragging and daring to allot to Himself the glory of the Godhead. Hence they used to say, one while, For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy, because THOU being a man makest Thyself God; another while they brought Him to Pilate and besought that He should be crucified, and when he demanded that they should tell the reason of their awkwardness towards Him, they straightway began to accuse Him saying that He made Himself the Son of God. But lo now too, not at the hands of them of Israel nor yet from the multitude of the Pharisees, but at their hands who seem to be Christians and are ranked among teachers and them whose lot is the Divine Priesthood, doth He manifestly suffer equal case. For He is disbelieved to be both God by Nature, and One and Alone and Verily Son of God the Father, and the plea of their ill-counsel as to this very thing, that He chose to suffer death in the flesh, albeit for this cause He descended unto emptiness economically, in order that suffering for us in the flesh, He might bring to nought the mastery of death, as being Himself by Nature Life and sprung of Life, God the Father. For the nature of man was sick of decay, in its firstfruits and original root, i. e., Adam. For since it offended through its disobedience its Law-giver and God and That brought it forth unto being, straightway it was accursed and liable to death, and death hath reigned from Adam unto Moses, the doom for this extending over the whole seed and race that is from him. For as sprung from corruptible root, corruptible are WE too, and abide (wretched!) holden in the meshes of death. But when the Creator planned good things concerning us and willed to transelement the nature of man, decay being taken away, unto what |157 it was at the beginning, He adorned a new root (so to speak) for us, which endured not to be overmastered by death, the One Lord Jesus the Christ, that is, God the Word out of His Essence made man as we, made of a woman. For we do not say that just a man is God-bearing, but that the Word out of God has been of a truth Its very Self united to flesh, in order, having laid down His Life for us, and given to death His own Body for our sakes economically, and then shewn it superior to corruption through the Resurrection from the dead, to give pledge to all who believe on Him that He will raise up us too, and make us superior to the bonds of death, and little heedful of the nets of decay.
Hence I deem it is that the Divine-uttering Paul too, makes a matter of much speech and marvel, the love towards us of God the Father. For he said thus, What shall we say therefore to these things? if God he for us, who is against us? He that spared not His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him too freely give us all things 1? albeit exceeding many are the sons by grace and of adoption (for we too have been called gods and all are sons of the Most High), but One and Alone is He Who is so by Nature and is His Own, that is, God the Word Who is out of Him even when He was made Flesh. For thus do we say that He has been given even for all, as Himself too somewhere saith, For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. Only-Begotten therefore is He Who was given, for He Alone sprung from the Essence of God the Father, the Word both out of Him and in Him: |158 but since He hath, been made Man, therefore do we make our faith in Him declaring His death after the Flesh and confessing His Resurrection, knowing that the Same is both Son before the ages and Man economically in the last times and that He suffered in the flesh for our sakes and hath risen from the dead.
But (I know not how) the advocate of the Jews' unlearning is indignant at our words, for he said again,
"That therefore the divine Scripture puts, Son, of the birth from the Virgin, Mother of Christ, we have shewn. Hear of His death also, whether God is any where put, so as we might bring in a passible God: Being enemies, it says, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, it said not, Through the death of God the Word."
§1. True is it, according as it is written, There is a righteous man that perisheth in his righteousness: for that whoso nature is to hurt, putting on sometimes the shew of being helpful, turns aside from what is right, even the well stablished mind. For he thinks he is pious in no slight degree, essaying to confirm what is confessed by all, therefore saying, In His own Nature the Word out of God the Father is as God beyond sufferings and superior to death; for how should Life die? Yet he not a whit the less too offends against the doctrines of the Church, wholly unrecking of the economy with flesh of the Only-Begotten, and in no wise considering the depth of the mystery.
If it were under examination by us, what were the Nature of the Word, or we had to declare it to them who asked and were desirous of learning it; it would I suppose be of a surety meet and necessary, hastening to go through every wise and true thought, to shew that It is unapproachable by death and utterly removed from sufferings. But since the mode of the Incarnation gives Him, so far as pertains to the plan of the Economy, even though He choose to die in the flesh, to suffer nought in His own Nature, why bereavest thou us of our fairest boasts? for thou heard'st Him say. The Good Shepherd layeth |159 down His Life for His sheep. Hence even though He be said to suffer, we know that He is Impassible as God, we say that He hath suffered death economically in His own Flesh, in order that treading it and risen in that He is Life and Life-giving, He might transelement unto incorruption that which is tyrannized over by death, i. e., the body: and so unto us too spreadeth the might of the achievement, extending unto the whole race. And verily the Divine-uttering Paul saith, I through the Law died to the law that I might live unto God, I am crucified with Christ, I live, no longer I, but Christ liveth in me, and wherein I now live, I live in faith, in the flesh 2 of the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God. For no longer do we live our own life but rather that in Christ, and true is it that One died for all that they who live should no more live unto themselves but to Him which died for them and rose. For before that the Only-Begotten Word of God beamed on us, mastered by unlearning and darkness and having the yoke of sin and impiously ascribing worship to the creature rather than our Creator and Maker and practising unblamed every kind of baseness, we wretched abode in severance [from Him], in mind hostile to Him, but we have been reconciled through the death of His Son, as it is written.
But THOU again hast made but slight account of the truth, and putting forth unto us thy speech unbridled unto vapidness, sayest that the world has been reconciled to God, not through the Only-Begotten, i. e. the Word That sprang of the Father; and hearing, the death of His Son, and investigating subtilly as thou supposest, the words of the Divine, thou fearedst not to say, "He said not, Through the death of God the Word." Then how (tell me) were such a word wise, yea rather, how were it not replete with utter distraction? for how were it meet (tell me) to set forth the Life as subject to death; and to the Nature Which |160 quickeneth all things to lay a charge of decay, how were it not wholly distraught and would it not be, and that with reason, a charge of blasphemy reaching unto the very extreme? By no means therefore does the mind of the saints go along with thy subtilties herein, or rather thy idle words: for it knows, it knows that the Word of God suffered in the flesh for our sakes, and through the death of His own Body hath called the world unto reconciliation with the Father Which is in Heaven. And verily when making His discourse with one of the holy disciples He somewhere said, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life and no man cometh unto the Father but by Me: but Truth and Life and Way, who else may be, save the Word which sprang of God, even though He have been made as we, by taking servant's form?
And that through Him we have been manifested partakers of the Divine Nature and, we who once were far, have been made nigh, united participatively through Him to the FATHER and besides to one another in one faith and unity of soul by reason of being made participant of One Spirit; Himself will give assurance saying unto God the Father in Heaven, Not for these alone do I ask but for them also which believe on Me through their word, that they all may be one, as THOU Father art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that THOU sentest Me, and I. the glory which Thou hast given Me, have given them, that they may be one even as WE are one, both I in them, and THOU in Me that they may be perfected into one. Understand therefore how Himself is of Nature in His own Father but is set forth a Mediator and Reconciler through being made as we: He is in us, both through His own Flesh Which quickeneth us in spirit and through partaking of His holiness, I mean again through the Holy Ghost. And He asketh as glory from the Father to make His own Nature manifest unto us, that It is both Life-giving |161 and superior to corruption as God. And verily He said again, I glorified Thee on the earth by perfecting the work which Thou hast given Me to do, and now do Thou glorify Me, o Father, with Thyself with the glory which I had before the world was, with Thee. And a perfected work are WE, in Him first overcoming decay and treading on the might of death, for He lived anew from the dead, having all in Himself.
But haply bearing off to other ideas what has been said, thou sayest that not of God the Word ought these things to be understood, but removing from Him and putting apart by himself him that is born of the holy Virgin as another son, thou affirmest that him it is whom such things befit and art zealous to teach others also to think and say with thee: and wilt (I suppose) surely say that the Only-Begotten Word of God being Lord of glory, would not as though lacking glory, have sought it from the Father. Hear therefore from us too, If thou sayest that the Only-Begotten Son Who is out of God by Nature is not He Who here asketh glory from the Father; who was it who said, Glorify Me with the glory which I had before the world was, with Thee? How then (tell me) was he that is of the holy Virgin, conceived of according to thee as man separately, before the world? will it not pertain to the Creator of the ages, to have a being elder than the world and Co-eternal with the Father? no one will doubt it of those who are accustomed to think aright. When therefore He emptied Himself receiving servant's form, then, then, desirous to mount up unto the glory inherent in Him by Nature and along with the Flesh which was united to Him, in fit season does He say, Do THOU Father glorify Me with Thyself with the glory that I had before the world was with Thee; that the world may believe that THOU sentest Me, and I, the glory which Thou hast given Me, have given them, that they may be one as WE are One, I in them, and THOU in Me that they may be perfected into one. Through Him |162 therefore have we had the reconciliation, for thus hath He perfected the work which the Father hath given Him for consummation. And the supporter of my words will I make again the most holy Paul who thus wrote to those who have been called out of the Gentiles, But now in Christ Jesus YE who sometime were far off were made nigh in the Blood of Christ: for He is our Peace, Who made both one and undid the middle wall of partition, having abolished in His Flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in ordinances, for to make in Himself of twain one new man, making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body through the cross, having slain the enmity therein, and came and preached peace to you which were afar off and to them that were nigh, and again elsewhere too, Justified therefore by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we have been reconciled to God the Father through the death of His Son, who brought to nought or slew the enmity in His Flesh, according to the faith of the sacred scriptures.
But thyself art undoing the words of the economy and deignest not to confess that the Word of God hath suffered in the flesh for our sakes, making use of certain unskilful loquacity: for thou sayest that Son is a name common to the Word Which sprang of God and to ourselves. Then having made God the Word, through Whom we have been saved, no worker of the good things that have been wrought to us-ward, thou wilt be evidently caught allotting the things wherein He is glorified to one as we, conceived of as other than He and apart, and thou supposest that community of name will suffice full well for demonstration of what thou saidst and unrightly thoughtest; not considering that even though with things which obtain by nature the being ought, certain other of things that be, be said to be co-named, one must not therefore thrust away the things that are by nature, ever putting their properties about those which are by adoption or imitation. But we must (I deem) ever test the natures of things done and allot them to whomsoever they rightly pertain. As for example, the |163 Father is named and is in truth God, and from Him is every father-hood both in heaven and upon earth named, as it is written, yet are there with us other fathers too both fleshly and spiritual. If therefore ought of things most God-befitting be said of God the Father, will it belong to those too who by adoption obtain the same title with Him, and will the identity of name thrust Him away from the things which in the highest degree befit Him alone? yet how is it not evident to all that it is both absurd and discordant that any of ours should be minded thus to think and say? Why then dost thou ever talking to us of community of name, dishonour the by Nature and truly Son, putting Him forth and rendering Him alien from kindly deeds to usward? albeit thou oughtest to gather into union what thou blushest not utterly to sever, and [oughtest] to deem one with His own Flesh the Word that is out of God the Father: for thus wilt thou free thyself from much toil, and deeming aright wilt at length be praised. And thou wilt in no wise say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten is passible, but wilt with us confess that He is Life and Life-giving by Nature and moreover beyond all suffering; next that the flesh suffering which was united to Him, He by the grace of God, as it is written, tasted death for every man, that having shewn His own Temple superior to him who had conquered all that are on the earth, He might be called the firstfruits of them that slept and the firstborn from the dead: transmitting to us too the grace, that being One and Only Son, both before the Incarnation and after it He might yet be called Saviour and Redeemer of all: and freeing (as I said) from sin all who believe on Him, might become peace to them that are afar and to the near, reconciling through Himself to God the Father them who of old worshipped the |164 creature and through sin were at enmity with the All-good God.
But severing again into a pair of sons the One Lord Jesus Christ, he says after this wise:
"Hear their other testimony also; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Lo he says the Lord of glory, he calls not so the manhood but the Godhead. But this belongs to those who pluck asunder the accurate connection, for when thou sayest, This is not Lord, but the other is, THOU makest Christ a mere man. What then dost thou say, o heretic in clerical form 3? is the man too Lord or not? if then he be Lord, the things said agree; if he be not Lord, do not THOU making Christ a mere man, fasten the reproach of it on me." Then he says, "Hear we the blessed Paul openly crying out who He is who is crucified. Hear then most plainly the voice, For (says he) He was crucified out of weakness, yet He liveth out of the Power of God. If He were crucified out |165 of weakness, who was it who was weak, heretic? God the Word?"
§2. He is carried away unto absurd thoughts and unto a reprobate mind, in no wise understanding the force of the mystery, as seems to me, but rather every way following his own devices and haply afraid, lest he should be caught either thinking or saying ought that pertains to Tightness or truth. For he arrays against himself, as he supposes, the words of the orthodox, but is caught again putting those things which no one of those who are wont to walk aright as to the Faith, would even so much as endure another saying. For we say that He which was crucified is Lord of glory, and He is so of a truth: yet acknowledging that the Word of God is inseverable and one with the flesh united, to Him having a reasonable soul, we say that He it is Who offered Himself, as it were the Immaculate Offering and most sweet-smelling Sacrifice of His Own Body, to God the Father, and nailed to the wood the handwriting that was against us. And one may hear Him say by the mouth of David, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not but a Body preparedst Thou Me, whole burnt sacrifices and for sin Thou tookest no pleasure in: then said I, Lo I come (in the volume of the book it has been written of Me) to do Thy Will, o God. The commandment according to the Law now availing nought, and perfecting nothing, and God the Father holding the sacrifices through blood unacceptable;----He says that a Body has been prepared for Himself, in order that giving it a Ransom for the salvation and life of all, He might redeem all, from both death and decay and yet more from sins.
We say then that the very Word out of God the Father chose even to suffer for us in the flesh, according to the Scriptures: thus hath the most holy Paul instructed us, Who being in the Form of God held not the being Equal with God a thing to seize, but emptied Himself taking |166 servant's form, made in likeness of man and found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, the death of the cross, wherefore God also highly exalted Him. View now how He That is in the Form of God the Father as God, the Impress of His Person and in no wise falling short, being and being conceived of in Equality in everything, hath emptied Himself and brought Himself down of His own will unto lowliness.
What then (tell me) will be the mode of the emptying, how again has He been abased receiving servant's form and made obedient unto death, the death of the Cross? is it not clear to all that the High is abased, not that which from itself and of its own nature is in abasement and brought low; that (I suppose) is emptied which is full and in need of nought; receives the servant's form which before it was free by nature, He is found to be man too Who was not so, before He was so found when He was not? Who then is He That was High by Nature and abased Himself unto lowliness? who the full, that He may be conceived of as emptied? who He That is beyond the measures of bondage, that so He may be said to take the bondman's form? who that not being aforetime man as we is said to have been so found? For I suppose that to dare to allot this to one of those as we and to a common man, would be folly and verily replete with the uttermost of all unwit, but it will pertain with all reason to the Supreme Nature.
But the Word of God, of His exceeding Clemency and Kindness towards us, hath offered for us His own Body and having taken the servant's form, hath become obedient to God the Father unto death: and the choice to suffer in the Flesh, He made not a thing to be spurned, albeit by Nature Impassible as God. Yet does this man foolishly blush at His most God-befitting schemes for us, and thinking he honours Him, wrongs Him: for he bears Him away from the suffering, though no one else says that He suffers in |167 His own Nature; and does not perceive that he forbids Him to be confessed Saviour and Redeemer of all, if so be that he is son and lord other than He, separately and apart, through whom we have been saved and redeemed through the precious Cross. And if so be he be simply man, and not rather the Word out of God the Father appearing in human form, let him come, let him shew that he is both in the Form of the Father and in Equality with Him (for He thought not the being equal with God a thing to seize) and moreover that he took the form of the servant as at one time not possessing it, and came to be in emptiness, as possessing fulness in his own nature: for the Divine-uttering Paul says that He Who is in the Form and Equality with God the Father, was made obedient unto Him even to death, the death of the Cross.
Is not then the absurdity of their notions manifest? when blessed Paul calls Him that was crucified Lord of glory, no one will say, 'He is not speaking of the human nature but the Godhead.' For we confess One Christ and Son and Lord of Glory, the Word out of God the Father made man for our sakes and suffering for us in the flesh, according to the Scriptures.
But he in no small measure blaming, as wishing to pluck asunder the accurate connection (as himself says), those who allot to God the Word the name of Lordship and bear it away from the human nature:----he falling into forgetfulness of what he said, is caught plucking asunder into two the One, and little recking of accurate (according to him) connection. For he unlearnedly enquires, "Is the man too lord or not? if then he be lord, the things said harmonize." Hence if according to thy witless enquiry, the Word is Lord by Himself and the man lord, two surely are the lords and sons. The force then of accurate connection will in no wise profit them who have believed that one ought to conceive of One Christ and Son and Lord with the Flesh united to Him. For the Person of Immanuel being put and brought forward, though one should say man, we conceive of the Word out of God the Father |168 having taken the servant's form and say that He is shewn by the measures of emptiness: and if [we say] Only-Begotten God, we believe the Same now Incarnate and made Flesh. But he (as I said) allotting to a man, individual and alone and considered apart from the Word Which is out of the Father, the achievements of the Economy with flesh, says that he too endured the cross for us and affirms that he is the Lord of glory, putting about a mere creature the glories of the Supreme Nature, for he says, "Let us hear the blessed Paul openly exclaiming who he is that is crucified; for verily He was crucified out of weakness but He liveth out of the Power of God; who is weak o heretic, is it God the Word?"
Utterly imparticipate therefore of all weakness is the Word out of God the Father by us believed to be: for He is the Lord of Hosts. But tell me this, art thou afraid to admit the appellation of weakness in respect to Him? why? albeit the Economy with flesh puts Him apart from all blame, even though He be said to suffer ought of what is beside His own Nature and glory: for if being Rich He became poor and was made as we receiving servant's form, even though He should be said to be weak by reason of the human nature, there is nought repugnant, that you should see the Hich poor, the High in low estate, the Lord of Hosts in weakness as we. Marvellous on this account also is the mystery respecting Him. For how is He said also to hunger, albeit Himself the Bread of Life and Who came down from Heaven and giveth Life to the world? how was He wearied with the journey, Who stablisheth the Heavens with His own Spirit?
But thou wilt not endure (it seems) if one say these things of the Only-Begotten Himself, albeit investigating thine own words I find them clearly saying, as of the Person of the Only-Begotten,
"The form of God, I am clad in servant's form: being |169 God the Word, am seen in flesh: Lord of all, am clad for your sakes in person of a poor man: hungering visibly, I supply food to the hungry."
§3. How then, say, didst thou fearing the appellation of weakness and bearing it away from Him, albeit the plan of the economy will it not, say that He hungers visibly, i. e., humanly, yet Divinely supplies food to the hungry? dost thou not say that it is a form of weakness to be in need of food and to be said to hunger as we? but against them who desire to be fault-finders, full strong will the mode of the economy array itself. We must therefore, either bearing Him away from all things that are said humanly and in mean wise, put such passions about a mere man, or considering that He being God has been made as we, confess that He is impassible in respect of the Nature of the Godhead, but say besides that He endured the weakness in our behalf, according to the human nature and after the flesh, I mean. Since, tell me who ask thee again, The Divine-uttering Paul says that He has been crucified out of weakness; but dost thou bear away this thing from God the Word, saying (I suppose) that it is small and ignoble and not worthy of Him? Other therefore than He is he that was crucified, Whom also our Divine instructor calls Lord of glory, saying, For had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Hath He, then yet remained Lord of Glory Who put it aside and endured this ignoble and mean suffering? If therefore He hath remained so, neither hath He any loss through being weak. How then fearedst thou to say that the Word of God came to be in this case economically? But if He truly fell from being any longer Lord of glory, and any one affirm that it is so, he will incur the charge of the most utter blasphemy and that with reason: for to Him boweth every knee and every tongue shall confess Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. For over all that is under Heaven extendeth the glory of Christ Who suffered for us in the flesh, as |170 we have full often said. When therefore thou nearest the Spirit-clad saying, He was crucified out of weakness but He liveth of the Power of God, understand it piously: for he says that He hath suffered humanly, albeit He hath a nature utterly beyond passion. And so having, He bare with the weak flesh and having suffered death humanly, He lived again Divinely, Himself quickening His own Temple, as the Might of the Father.
And verily when the time was now at hand in which He must endure the Cross for us, He went away and prayed saying, Father if it he possihle, let this cup pass from Me, but added hereto at the close of His Prayer, Nevertheless not as I will but as THOU. But since He albeit Word and God all-Powerful, has once been held to be in weakness like we, He giving the cause of this most economically, says, The spirit indeed is willing, the flesh weak. Consider therefore how He though Himself letting go nought, nor yet suffering weakness in His own Nature, permitted His Flesh to go after its own laws, and this thing is said to be His, because His Body is His own. Hence the being weak according to the Flesh proved to us that He was Man, the not enduring death and scaring away decay from His own Body that He is God Who knows not to be weak: for He is the Life and Might of the Father. For that the weakness herein unwonted and unwilled by Him 4, He made voluntary in the good-pleasure of God the Father, to save all under Heaven, Himself will teach saying, For I have come down from Heaven, not to do Mine own Will but the Will of Him That sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up at the last day.
Yet how, if the will of the Father be good, does the Son say that He has His own Will, a good one surely, and other than this? For if it be not good, how is He any longer believed to be His Image and Impress? how will He be true, saying, I and the Father are One, and, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father? for not in the not good, would one behold the Good by Nature. But verily the |171 Son being Good hath sprung from a Good Father and is His exact Image in everything. What Will therefore, which He says is His own, does He letting go, say that He hath done that of the Father? He was about by the death of His own Flesh to set free from death those who had become subject thereto, i. e., us. But to die in the Flesh was ignoble, and unwonted (as I said) and repugnant to Him: yet hath He endured this too for our sakes in the Good-pleasure of the Father. For He knew, He knew and that well that a little dishonoured by reason of the sufferings of the Flesh He should save all, transforming them unto what was incomparably better. For if any be in Christ, a new creature, old things are gone by, behold all things have become new, as it is written.
The God-inspired Scriptures therefore proclaim to the world One Christ and Son and Lord and say that He is the Lord of Glory and that He of His own Will bare for our sakes the contumelies of the Jews, and economically endured Death upon the wood, not in order with us to remain dead, but that having undone the might of death which none might withstand, He might bring again to immortality the nature of man: for He was God in Flesh.
But this man again essaying to gather to himself from all quarters occasions of severing into two the One, arrays himself to no purpose against those who exist not at all, and makes accusal of certain as though they spake against the truth and desired to adulterate the plan of the mystery, and says,
"Here 5 I would gladly enquire of the heretics who mix up into one essence the Nature of the Godhead and of the Manhood, who he is here who is by the traitor betrayed to the Jews: for if there have been a mixture of both, both were together holden of the Jews, both God the Word and the nature of the manhood: which is it that endured the slaughter? I am obliged to use meaner |172 words that what I say may be plain to all. To whom (tell me) befell this deed? for if the Nature of the Godhead, how darest thou commingle both? God 6 hath both remained unholden of the Jews and hath not shared with the flesh in its slaughter: whence (tell me) dost thou get in the mixture?
§4. If then there be who say that there has been a commingling of the natures one with another and that they undergo an impossible fusion, and who maintain that the Nature of the Word could suffer change into flesh, or the Flesh united to Him ever pass into Godhead; they have erred from the truth and, out of their right mind, yea rather sick with the veriest distraction, they shall hear from us, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God; for steadfast is the Nature of God the Word, nor knows it to suffer a shadow of turning, but participate in flesh and blood and taking part with us in the same, as it is written, He abode the Same. But if every one who is educated in the Holy Scriptures holds it repugnant to so much as hear that any change was wrought in the Only-Begotten, why dost thou admitting as true and really spoken things so disgraceful and condemned by one voice by all and utterly rejected, essay to sever the Indivisible and that after the Union? For if thou wouldest indeed of a truth learn who it is who is by the traitor given up to the Jews, and endured slaughter, thou wilt clearly hear, The One and Only Christ and Son and Lord, that is the Word out of God Who took the servant's form, made man and Incarnate: for He was sold by the traitor to the rulers of the Jews, and was holden humanly, because He was Man too along with abiding God, but Divinely He was convicting the weakness of them who hold Him. And this the Divine-uttering Evangelist John makes manifest to us, thus writing, Judas therefore having received the band and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees cometh thither |173 with torches and lanterns and weapons; Jesus knowing all things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said unto them, Whom seek ye? they answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am. And Judas which betrayed Him was standing with them. When therefore He said unto them, I am, they went backward and fell to the ground. Hearest thou that He does not let them who have been gathered together by the traitor behave themselves proudly against His Glory? for He offered Himself saying, I am, but they unstrung by the voice alone, went backward.
And that it was no work of their own strength to hold Him, but that in his season and in need He made death for us welcome, He hath proved saying, As a robber came ye forth with swords and staves to take Me? daily did I sit in the Temple teaching, and ye laid no hold on Me, but all this has been done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled. For what He hath of old foretold through the holy Prophets, this hath He fulfilled, abasing Himself unto emptiness Who is above all the creation, and found in fashion as a man Who is in the Form and Equality with the Father.
Why then dost thou, essaying to bring in privily the name of mixture, wrong in the ears of the more simple the marvel of the economy with flesh? for it does not befit thee bitterly and harshly to come forward saying, "Was God the Word holden? did the nature of the Godhead undergo slaughter?" That of no accurate.... thou art saying such things, thou wilt know hence and that easily. We say that the holy Martyrs have been perfected, choosing to suffer all things in order that having striven the good strife, finished their course, kept the faith, they might bind on them the crown of true relationship to Christ. If then any were to come forward and ask, When the bodies of the saints were torn by the steel or wasted by fire or again when they first became prisoners, were |174 their souls holden along with their bodies? did they too become the work of fire and sword? albeit we say that they [the souls] were apart from their bodies, enduring nought of such contumelies in their own nature. Will they therefore (tell me) be for this reason imparticipate of the crowns, because they have not suffered the things of the body? But verily the word of truth does not put them apart from suffering, for they suffered the things of their own, not those of others' bodies.
Unlearned then is it to want to ask whether the nature of the Godhead have been betrayed along with the flesh, or whether It were holden in the meshes of the Jews or endured the slaughter also: but it is pious to conceive rather that the Word will surely and entirely make His own the sufferings that have befallen His own Flesh, but abode Impassible as God yet not external to His suffering Body 7. But he involving in charges of absurdity the things so economically wrought, and again and again saying that the Nature of the Godhead ought not to be said by any to have undergone slaughter, unholily arrays the force of the Mystery about a man by himself, and says that he it is who was crucified and endured death for the life of the world. For I hear him saying in another exposition of his,
"This is he who was encircled in the thorny Crown, this he who saith, My God, My God why forsookest Thou Me? this he who endured a three days' death." 8
§5. Such things then doth he say, following his own aim, but WE will shew him a wiser and truer Emmanuel, the whole world's Saviour and Redeemer. For the Word, as we have full often said, was made flesh, and making His own, a Body which knew to suffer contumelies and death, |175 He hath given it for us and, as the Divine-uttering Paul saith, endured the cross, despising the shame. For was it not shame and a sort of abashment to Him that hath a Nature All-Strong and Quickening and above suffering, to seem to be crucified out of human weakness and to come to death after the flesh? And verily the Same saith through the voice of Isaiah, My Back I have given to scourges, My Cheeks to blows, My Face turned I not away from the shame of spittings, and again, Therefore was I not confounded, but I set My Face as a firm rock and I know that I shall not be ashamed, for He is near that justifieth Me. For as far as regards the impious multitudes of the Greeks and also of the Jews, the Mystery of Christ is reputed a stumbling block alike and foolishness, for they deride (miserable ones!) the Precious Cross; but the end of the weakness (as it seemed to them) resulted in might of glory most truly God-befitting. For through the Resurrection from the dead it has been testified that He is God and Son of God in truth, as superior to death and decay, and is worshipped by all together with Him Who begat Him.
And hear the sacred Scriptures proclaiming to us this very thing: Thus saith the Lord, Sanctify Him That holdeth light His Soul, Him that is abhorred by the nations, the servants, the rulers: kings shall see Him and princes shall rise up and worship Him. Confess (it said) that He is Holy by Nature as God, Who held cheaply His own Soul, i. e., despised His own life (for He hath laid it down for His sheep, as Good Shepherd): Him Whom the nations vilely esteemed, servants and officers insulted with blows, while the multitudes of the Pharisees impiously outraged Him, Him shall kings see and rise up, Him shall princes worship, as God, that is, who descended into emptiness, in order that suffering in the flesh, He might save all under Heaven. This is He Who for us was encircled with the Thorny Crown, this, not another, He Who as Man is crucified and says, My God My God why forsookest Thou Me? yet who restrains as God the Light of the sun, and makes it night in mid-day that we should not confess Him Man, |176 simply honoured with mere connection (according to thee) with the Word I mean That is out of God, but should believe rather that He is God, in likeness as we, and in servant's form, remembering Him Who saith by a Saint's voice, And I will clothe the Heavens with darkness, and I will make their covering as sackcloth. For He Who speaketh is at hand, and what He of old hath as God foresignified would be, He in due season was fulfilling, crucified as Man. For the Heaven put on darkness, all but a mourning dress, the sun no longer giving the brightness of its rays to them who had durst outrage the Lord and God of all, hath foresignified the darkness which they should have in mind and heart. For the blessed David too sings somewhere of them, Let their eyes he darkened that they see not and bow down their back alway. And the veil too of the Temple was rent, revealing now to those who believe on Him the holy of holies and shewing the most inward parts, the first tabernacle no longer standing, but the way into the holy now made manifest, that is into the holy of holies. For holy confessedly was the Law too, in that it was the furnisher of righteousness, our guide too unto Christ: yet incomparably holier is the life in Christ esteemed, and more excellent and in better case the worship in spirit and in truth than that in shadows and types. Will not such achievements then be God-befitting and above the nature of man? hath not the saving Passion shamed the waving sword, brought man again into Paradise? for Christ said to the robber who hung with Him, Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise: beamed He not on them that were in darkness, uttering with authority, Shew yourselves? For He has emptied Hell as God, and loosed from their bonds those who were in it: and He it was Who of old crieth out to the most enduring Job, Camest thou into the springs of the sea? walkedst thou in the tracks of the depth? are the gates of death open to thee in fear [of thee]? did the doorkeepers of hell seeing thee tremble?
Wherefore then blushest thou not allotting things that are yet God-befitting to one as we and to a mere man? |177 For that the Word of God Himself, taking servant's form, participate in flesh and blood, endured to give His own Body to death for our sakes and, being Impassible by Nature, suffered in the Flesh of His own will, the all-wise Paul will give us proof, writing, Giving thanks unto the Father Which made us meet to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, Who delivered us from the authority of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His Love, in Whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the firstborn of every creature; for in Him were created all things in Heaven and upon earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or principalities or authorities, all things were created through Him and unto Him, and He is before all things and in Him all things consist, and He is the Head of the body, the Church, Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence. See now the Priest of His Mysteries said and that very clearly that the Very God the Word, through Whom are all things and in Whom are all things, Who is the Image of the Invisible God; He through Whom were brought into being both the things which are in Heaven and those on earth, the visible and invisible; He Who is before all things, in Whom all things consist; has been given as Head to the Church, and is Himself the firstborn from the dead.
But (you will perhaps say) the Word out of God the Father is by Nature Life; how then or in what way might Life die? well: necessary and useful is your question. Therefore unto the force of the mystery is serviceably taken, that we conceive and say that the ever-living and Life-giving Word of God was made Flesh, i. e., made His own a Body recipient of death, that Himself might be conceived to suffer, because His Very own Body suffered. For thus do we say that He became the firstfruits of them that slept, and the firstborn from the dead: for He is said to have been laid with us in a tomb through His own flesh, Who raiseth the dead, that we too might be co-raised with Him: for this way did He inaugurate for us and for this |178 hath He humbled Himself, abasing Himself unto emptiness and unto manhood with us; albeit the Only-Begotten is God by Nature and beamed from God the Father.
But he thinks (it seems) that they who suppose that these things are so, and who deem aright, have advanced to the goal of the uttermost distraction; and everywhere alleging that we ought to confess the Word out of God the Father to be Impassible, he removes from Him and that utterly the mode of His Economy: and thinks it not meet either to think or say that He suffered for us, albeit the God-inspired Scripture says that He suffered in the Flesh, He both Impassible and Unembodied, because the Body suffered that is His own and united to Him. He says again thus,
"Therefore concerning our first-fruits, blessed Peter telling, and relating the exaltation by the Godhead of the nature that is seen, says, This Jesus God raised up. God did not dio, He raised up. Hear, o Apolinarius, the words of Peter, hear with Apolinarius, thou too Arius. This Jesus, he says, God raised up, the visible, him who was seen with the eyes, affixed to the wood, handled by the hands of Thomas, who cried to him, Handle Me, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have. And by these words the disciple persuaded, and by the handling of the crucified body persuaded of the resurrection, began to glorify the wonder-working God, Glory to Thee 9, my Lord and my God: not addressing as God that which was handled, for not by handling is the Godhead discerned." And after other, "Of this that was handled was Peter too exclaiming, This Jesus God raised up, being therefore by the Right Hand of God exalted. God the Word had no need of an aiding right hand, o Arius." §6. The Son raiseth up the dead and we say that He is superior to death, for we remember Him Who hath openly said, I am the Resurrection and the Life: yet when the |179 Divine-uttering Peter announces to us saying, This Jesus God raised up, we believe that the Word made man is Jesus Himself. How then will one say that He has been raised by the Father and exalted by His Right Hand? for I think that this should be clearly set forth to those who cannot understand, in order that cutting off occasion of stumbling, we may set forth the way of truth straight and most unerring.
He gave therefore His own Body to death for a little while: for by the grace of God, as Paul saith, He tasted death for every man. Then being Himself the Life-giving Right Hand and Power of God the Father, He rendered it superior to decay and death: and of this He gives us assurance saying to the Jews, Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up. Understand therefore that Himself promises to rear His own Temple, albeit God the Father is said to raise it: for the Son is, as I said, the Life-giving Right Hand and Power of the Father. So that even though the Father be said to work the quickening of the Divine Temple, He hath wrought it through the Son, and though the Son again be seen to work it, yet not without the Father in the Spirit. For One is the Nature of Godhead, conceived of in three several Persons, and having Its motion and Operation, spiritual I mean and God-befitting, in regard to all things that are done.
The body therefore yielded to the laws of its own nature, and admitted the taste of death, the Word united thereto permitting it for profit's sake to suffer this: but was quickened by the Divine power of the Word Personally united to it. We conceive then of Whole Emmanuel, which is interpreted, With us is God, when we hear the Divine-uttering Peter say, This Jesus God raised up; and though thou speak of the visible and affixed to the wood, of "him who was handled by the hands of Thomas," no less do WE conceive of the Word out of God the Father Incarnate, and confess One and the Same Son. For being Invisible by Nature He hath become visible, because His too was the visible Body. And verily the Divine David sings to us, God |180 shall come manifestly, our God and shall not keep silence, and moreover the blessed Habaccuc, God shall come from Teman and the Holy One from the deep-shaded mountain. He being also Impalpable is said to have become palpable by reason of the Body united to Him. And Luke writes, Since many essayed to set forth in order an account of those things which have been most surely believed among us, even as they handed them to us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, and to this the wise John saith, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked on and our hands handled, of the Word of Life, and the Life was manifested and we have seen and bear witness and declare to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us. Yet had He not become palpable and visible, as having for His own a Body which is subject to touch and sight, how had the all-wise disciples been made eye-witnesses of the Word? how had they both seen, and say that they handled the Word of Life, Which was with the Father and was manifested to us? This very Same therefore Which was both palpable and visible, Which was affixed to the wood, Thomas recognized and did rightly confess to be God and Lord: for he said immediately, My Lord and my God. Then said to him our Lord Jesus Christ, Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed, blessed they which have not seen and believed. Believed what, tell me? is it not that being God by Nature, He raised from the dead His own Temple? yet how could there be any doubt of this?
But this good man, all but foolishly ashamed of the words of the disciple, says not, 'He confessed Him that He is both Lord and God, the Firstborn from the dead:' but rather he perverts to his own pleasure the force of the word and says that he "began to glorify the wonder-working God, saying, My Lord and my God," and subjoins, "Not addressing as God that which was handled, for not by the touch is the Godhead discerned."
Blamest thou therefore (tell me) the disciple calling |181 Christ Lord and God? though our argument has but just now shewn that the Only Begotten being by Nature God, Impalpable and Invisible, became palpable and visible. But when thou sayest, "for not by the touch is the Godhead discerned," we again will say, Why dost thou, thrusting aside the Economy discourse of Godhead as though bare? and rushing full speed to forgetfulness that the Impalpable and Unembodied was both Incarnate and made Man, endurest not the God-inspired Scripture naming Him God, because that He had been both handled in flesh and likewise seen of the holy Apostles? But WE, my friend, together with blessed Thomas, crowning with the praises befitting Him, Him That was affixed to the wood, Him That was handled by hands and seen of human eyes, say, My Lord and my God.
But that though a man should say that the Word of God suffered in His own Flesh, he would not be without share in being praise-worthy nor in having chosen to think the truth (for even thus hath He abode Impassible): I will essay to shew again from what thyself hast written or saidst in Church. For thou deemest worthy of praise our holy Fathers, those (I mean) who were in their season gathered together at Nicea, as having formed full well for us an accurate and finished confession of faith: yet thou thinkest not what they do (whence should'st thou?) nor yet fixing thy mind on the doctrines of the truth, dost thou long to go straight, but haltest on both thighs, as it is written: foolishly blaming the lovers of right doctrine, yet holding for truth what liketh thyself, yea rather not even caring to abide in what thyself saidst, for I find thee saying of the holy fathers,
"For since if they had said, We believe in One God the Word, death would have been imputed to the Divine Nature, they admit a common term, Christ Jesus, that they may indicate both Him That died, and him that did not die." And he adds, "So that if a man should say, Such an one is dead, though the soul is immortal, yet |182 since he said the word which iudicates the two natures, both the mortal body and the immortal soul, the expression is free from risk: for both are called man, both the body and the soul: thus it is therefore that that great band spake of Christ."
§7. That in naming Christ Jesus, they did not indicate two several sons, having a common name, Christ Jesus, but rather the Word out of God made Man, I think no one that deems aright will gainsay, and I think it superfluous for us to yet array many words on this matter besides what have been already said. Yet if thou be not persuaded by our words to think that though we say that the Word of God hath suffered in the Flesh for our sakes, we hold Him even thus Impassible as God, at least allow to thine own words that they appear to have been rightly framed. For just as he who said man, indicated the soul together with the body although it be of other nature than it; and even though such an one's body were said to be dead, the whole person would reasonably be held to have suffered this, albeit he possess a soul which is not recipient of death: so of Christ too the Saviour of us all. For since the Word out of God the Father (as we have repeatedly said) hath partaken of blood and flesh in like manner as we, and made His own the Body that is of the holy Virgin and has thus been called Son of man too; for this reason when His Flesh died, the plan of true union attributes the suffering to Him, yet knows that He hath remained apart from suffering because He is both God by Nature and Life. And verily the Divine-uttering Peter setting before us this teaching says of Him somewhere to them that believe on Him, Whom having not seen ye love, on Whom, though now ye see Him. not, yet believing, ye exult with joy unutterable and glorified, receiving the fulfilment of your faith, the salvation of your souls, of which salvation the prophets searched out and examined into, who prophesied of the grace to youward, searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ Which was in them was signifying, when It testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should |183 follow, unto whom it was revealed that not unto themselves but to us they were ministering the things which are now declared unto us through them that preached the Gospel unto us with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven: which things the Angels long to look into.
Hearest thou that the Spirit of Christ was in the holy Prophets too, and that they proclaimed beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow? Did they then proclaim to the world as though a mere man were suffering for us? and is this the mystery which through our holy Apostles and Evangelists hath been given in trust, and into these things does he say that the Angels long to look? yet how is not he to be utterly repudiated who essays to shut up the might of the mystery within the limits of the human nature alone? God the Word Himself, Who is in the Form of God the Father, hath emptied Himself taking servant's form and hath undergone birth in the flesh for our sakes, Himself hath suffered for us in His own Flesh, and He lived again as God, having emptied Hades and said to them that were in bonds, Come forth, and to them that were in darkness, Shew yourselves. Why then essayest thou to overturn the so dread and marvellous economy through which we have been both saved and have been brought within all good? for what we gained through it, thou wilt know and that very clearly, since blessed Paul hath thus written, And you that were sometime alienated and enemies n your mind in wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body oj His flesh through death to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight if so be ye endure in the Faith. Therefore the faith profits them who will hold it unshaken; how it profits, the all-wise John will assure us saying, Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in water only, but in water and blood, and the Spirit is Truth; for three testify, the Spirit, the water and the Blood, and the |184 Three are One. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, for this is the witness of God, because He hath witnessed concerning His Son: he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself, he that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believed not the testimony which He hath testified regarding His Son. And how God the Father hath testified to His Son, the Divine-uttering John the Baptist will declare saying. And I knew Him not, but He That sent me to baptize with water, He said to me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, This is He Which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and have testified that This is the Son of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ therefore is witnessed to through the Father's Voice, that He is by Nature and in truth His Son, He is witnessed to no less through the water and the Blood and the Spirit. For by the holy water He purgeth away the sins of them that believe, He quickeneth through His own Blood and connecteth to God them on the earth: and since He is God by Nature He maketh also richly the grant of the Holy Ghost, pouring It forth as His own into the hearts of them who believe, and making them partakers of the Divine Nature, and crowning them with the hope of the good things to come.
We confess therefore One Son, Christ Jesus the Lord, that is, the Word of God made Man and Incarnate and Him crucified and raised from the dead and to come in due time in the Glory of God the Father with the holy Angels; through Him and with Him to God the Father be glory with the Holy Ghost for ever. Amen.
[A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical references, follows]
1. b S. Cyril in his first Letter to the Monks comments thus on this text: "Then (tell me) how is He who is forth of the holy virgin called God's own Son? for as the own of a man and so of each animal besides, is that which is born thereof by nature: thus God's own will be conceived and said to be that which is out of His Essence. How then has Christ been called God's own Son, who has also been given by God the Father for the salvation and life of all? for He was delivered because of our transgressions, and Himself bare the sins of many in His Body upon the Tree, according to Prophet's voice. It is evident then, that the fact of the Union, of necessity brought forward, shews that He who is forth of the holy Virgin is God's own Son." Epp. p. 15 a b. see also de recta fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina p. 104 a.
2. c This transposition is probably a manuscript-error, there is no trace of it in the same citation in Glaph. 227 e, 403 b, de Ad. 408 a, de Recta fide G b, in xii Prophetas 853 d.
3. g.... see exactly the same expression at the close of serm. 2 in Mercator, "Si haereticus tibi ex persona ecclesiastica mortuum Deum tuum exprobaverit," p. 69 fin. Bal. It is not clear whom Nestorius is addressing as "heretic" and as having called the Godhead Lord of glory. The learned but uncritical Jesuit, John Garnier (see Tillemont's remarks in notes 71, 73, 74, 91 on S. Cyril of Alexandria, t. xiv. 780, 781, 792 sq. ed. 2) supposes this to be a reply (Marii Merc. opp. ii. pp. 29,30. Par. 1673) to S. Proclus' famous homily on the Incarnation (Migne, Patrol. lxv. 679 sqq.), but I do not see any special mention of this point in S. Proclus' Homily. One would naturally expect S. Cyril to be the person referred to, but besides that S. Cyril immediately after disclaims the expression, a List of references to S. Cyril's extant citations of 1 Cor. ii. 8 (generously furnished me by the Dean of Chichester) do not supply any passage likely to be referred to by Nestorius. S. Cyril in his work against the Arians cites the text in proof that the Son is not less than the FATHER. "Making discourse of the princes of this world and the folly that is in them, he says, For had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Hence if the SON Who endured the cross for our sakes is Lord of glory, how is He not God by Nature? how a creature or made, Who is even hymned by the Seraphin? for they say that full is the heaven and the earth of His Glory, and call Him Lord of Sabaoth: for it is clear that of Him are they saying this if He is Lord of glory, as Paul saith." Thes. cap. 32 p. 272 a. Commenting on the whole passage (1 Cor. ii. 6-8) in reference to Nestorian errors, S. Cyril says, "If the mystery of Christ be God's wisdom, and. it is preached to the world and if He is not truly God according to what somehow pleases some to imagine, and our faith is to Himward; how is the mystery wise if it bear away them on the earth from the true knowledge of God and render the world worshipper of a man? But it is not so, the mystery IS wise for it brings to God them that have strayed. Christ therefore is God, He that has been crucified is rightly called Lord of glory." de recta fide to the princesses, p. 62 a. "Therefore the blessed Paul himself somewhere says of the rulers of this world, For had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. He knows then that the Crucified is Lord of glory." de recta fide to the Empresses, § 31 p. 168 b c.
4. m See also S. Cyril's commentary on these verses of S. John, book 4 beg. pp 383 sqq. O.T.
5. n This is given also by Mercator, among his collection of extracts made by S.Cyril, with the title, Also in the sixth quire of the same, on Judas, against the heretics, p. 116 Bal. Mercator's extract is much ampler, comprising as well the heading of § 7 of book 4 (above p. 153) and a little more.
6. o The one Greek MS now extant has καὶ μεμένηκεν ὁ θεὸς, the Roman Editors conjecture εἰ μεμένηκε, but Mercator translates, Is therefore the Word of God, Who has no participation in the slaughter of His flesh, capable of being apprehended and led to slaughter by the Jews?
7. " q How therefore is Life said to die? by suffering death in Its own flesh, in order that It may be shewn to be life by quickening it again. For come if in regard even to our own selves the mode of death be searched into, no one who deems aright would say that souls perish along with the bodies that are of earth. I suppose that no living person would hesitate as to this. Yet is what happens called the death of man. Thus you will conceive of as to Emmanuel too. For the Word was in him that is of a woman as in His own Body, and He gave it to death in due time, Himself suffering nought in His proper Nature." Letter 1 to the Monks, Epp. p. 17 d e.
8. Serm. 2 p. 64. Bal. see above p. 69.
9. r The words Glory to Thee, seem to be a gloss, they are not in the Latin translation of Nestorius' Homily 2. p. 58 ed. Baluz., nor does S. Cyril cite them in his comment a little below, when citing this portion of Nestorius' words.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts
SOURCE SECTION: cyril_christ_is_one_01_text.htm
Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One. LFC 47 (1881) pp.237-319.
Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One. LFC 47 (1881) pp.237-319.
|237
Cyril of Alexandria
THAT CHRIST IS ONE
by way of dispute with Hermias
[Translated by P. E. Pusey]
Wrong thought of Christ either before the Incarnation or when Incarnate. Nestorius. If Virgin not Mother of God, Christ not God. Objection to the word "was made." He takes ours, gives us His. Meaning of name "Christ." The Incarnation gives to the Son names no longer common to the Father and the Holy Ghost. "Connection.,, "Reference,,, ἀναφορά. Not Two Natures after the Incarnation: yet no confusion. The Burning Bush a type. Union. Phil. ii. 5-9. The "emptying." A man not "made man." 2 Cor. i. 19. "Connection,, undoes union. "Yesterday To-day and for ever." S. John i. 29-31: S. Matth. xiv. 32, xiii. 41. ἀνθρωπαῖος. The Incarnate Son called in O.T. " the glory of the Lord." Objections put forward: Sanctifier and sanctified, received glory and exalted, learning obedience and forsaken, fear of death, weariness, sleep, advancing in wisdom. Perfect through sufferings. Impassible yet "suffered in the flesh." 2 Cor. xiii. 3, 4. Equality of honour involves duality. S. John iii. 16. Phil. ii. 5-11. S. John xvii. 5, vi. 38. S. Matth. xxviii. 19. 1 Cor. i. 22-25. Suffering in the flesh. ONE SON begotten from Eternity from forth the FATHER, in the last times born of a woman.
A. There shall no satiety of holy teachings ever come to them who are truly sound in mind and who have gathered the life-giving knowledge into their understanding. For it is written, Not by bread alone shall a man live but by every word that goeth forth through the mouth of God. For the mind's nourishment and spiritual bread which stayeth man's heart, as is sung in the book of Psalms, is the word which is from God.
B. You say well.
A. The wise therefore and eloquent among the Greeks admire elegancy of speech, and good language is among their chiefest aims and they make their boast in mere refinements of words and revel in bombast of language: and their poets have for their material falsehood, wrought by proportions and measures unto what is graceful and tuneful; but of the truth they reck full little, sick with a scarcity of right and profitable doctrine, I mean regarding God Who is by Nature and truly, yea rather as the most |238 holy Paul says, They became vain in their imaginations and their heart void of understanding was darkened. Saying that they were wise they became foolish and changed the glory of the Incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things.
B. True, verily of them said God by the voice of Isaiah, Know ye that their heart is ashes and they are deceived.
A. Thus much for them: but they who have become inventors of unholy heresies, profane and apostate and enlarging their unbridled mouth against the Divine glory and uttering things perverted, will be caught as having of their folly slipped into charges not slighter than those of the infatuation of the Greeks or haply into charges even surpassing theirs. For it were better for them not to have known the way of truth than having known it to turn back from the holy commandment given to them: for the true proverb hath come to them, The dog returned to his own vomit, and, The washed sow to the wallowing in the mire. For they parted amongst themselves the charges of blasphemy against Christ and like fierce and bitter wolves they waste the flocks for which Christ died, and despoil what is His, multiplying to themselves that which is not theirs, as it is written, and weighting their yoke heavily, of whom may be said with much reason, They went out from us but they were not of us.
B. Surely.
A. Seasonably does our discourse contend about such things. For some in their lack of understanding do bring down the Only-Begotten Word of God from His Supreme Excellence and lower Him from Equality with God the Father, affirming that He is not Consubstantial, nor liking to crown Him with an Identity Exact and of Nature: others going as it were along the same road with these and falling into the snare of death and pitfall of Hades turn aside the mystery of the Economy with flesh of the Only-Begotten and pursue a folly fraternal (so to speak) with the former. For the one will be caught dragging down as it were (so far as in them lies) from the heights of His |239 Godhead the Word sprung of God the Father ere yet Incarnate; the others have elected to make war with Him Incarnate, well-nigh finding fault (daring ones!) with His Pitying grace, maintaining forsooth that it counselled not well for that He underwent flesh and the measures of our emptiness, i. e. was made man and was seen on earth and conversed with men though God by Nature and co-seated with the Father.
B. You say rightly.
A. God-inspired Scripture therefore will cry out against the unlearning of them both, setting forth to us the truth and shewing that feeble and of none account is their speech, and establishing on the path of the Godhead them who are used to view with subtil and accurate eye of understanding the Mystery thereof. But who they will be who in unhallowed wise debase the so august and ineffable Economy of the Saviour (for you seem to be in no small degree troubled about this very thing) I would fain ask you.
B. You testify rightly, for with jealousy am I jealous for the Lord, and, yet more, goaded am I distraught and that exceedingly. And I fear when I look whither their words will end. For they adulterate the faith that was delivered to us, using the inventions of the new-seen dragon and pouring like venom into the souls of the simpler certain frigid and perverse things and full of infatuation.
A. But who is this new-seen dragon and what his triflings against the doctrines of the Truth tell to me who ask.
B. The new-seen dragon, this crooked one and who has his tongue drunk with venom, who all-but bids farewell to the tradition of the initiators of the world, yea rather to all the God-inspired Scripture, and who innovates what seems good to him and says that the holy Virgin is not Mother of God, but mother of Christ and mother of man, bringing in moreover other things discordant and senseless, upon the right and sincere doctrines of the Catholic Church.
A. You say (I ween) Nestorius, for I understand, but I do |240 not know, my friend, the actual state of his words: how does he say that the holy Virgin is not Mother of God?
B. She bare not (he says) God: for the Word was before her too, yea rather before every age and time, Co-eternal with God the Father.
A. They will therefore manifestly deny this too, that Emmanuel is God, and to no purpose as it seems, does the Evangelist interpret the name saying, Which is interpreted, With us is God, for thus did God the Father clearly affirm through the voice of the Prophet that He was to be called Who has been born of the holy Virgin after the flesh, as God Incarnate.
B. Yet it appears to them to be not so, but they would say that with us is God or the Word out of God, in the way of succouring us: for He hath saved all under heaven through him who was born of woman.
A. And was He not (tell me) with Moses too freeing Israel from the land of the Egyptians and the tyranny there, in a strong hand and a high arm, as it is written? shall we not find Him after this also saying clearly to Joshua, And as I was with Moses so will I be with thee too?
B. True.
A. Why then was none of these called Emmanuel, but the name befitted Him alone Who was wondrously born after the flesh of a woman in the last times of the world?
B. How then shall we deem that God has been born of a woman? that the Word partook of Being, in her and from forth her?
A. Away with so frigid ill-advice! For these are the words of one who wanders, and of a mind diseased with a turning aside to what it ought not, to think that the Ineffable Being of the Only-Begotten has become fruit of flesh: He was as God Co-Eternal with the Father Who begat Him and Ineffably begotten of Him by Nature. But to those who would know clearly how and in what manner He appeared in likeness to us and became man, the Divine Evangelist John will make it known, saying, And the Word was made flesh and tabernacled in us (and |241 we saw His glory, (the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.
B. Yet if the Word has become (they say) flesh, no longer hath It remained Word but hath left being what It was.
A. Verily this is jugglery and humbug and the inventions of a mind beside itself and nought else. For they (it appears) are supposing that the word Was made indicates as of unavoidable necessity, turning and change.
B. Yes (they say), and they moreover confirm their affirmation, taking proofs out of the God-inspired Scripture itself. For it has been somewhere said (he says) of Lot's wife that she WAS MADE a pillar of salt, and besides of Moses' Rod that he cast it on the ground and it WAS MADE a serpent. For in these cases a change of nature took place.
A. Therefore when certain sing, And the Lord WAS MADE to me a refuge, and again, O Lord, Thou WERT MADE a refuge, to us in generation and generation, what now will they say 1? hath He Who is hymned, letting go His being God, passed by a change into being a refuge, and removed He by Nature into something other than what He was at first?
B. How is such a thing not incongruous and unbefitting Him Who is by Nature God: for being by Nature without change, He abideth full surely what He was and ever is, even though He be said to be made a refuge to any?
A. You spoke most excellently, and very right. Hence the mention of God being brought forward, if Was made be said by any body, how is it not unlearned and unholy exceedingly to suppose that it means change, and not rather to strive to conceive of it in some other way, and to turn in wisdom to what most especially befits and is congruous to the Unchangeable God?
B. How then do we say that the Word WAS MADE flesh, |242 preserving to It ever Unchangeableness and without-turning, as Its own and Essentially innate to It?
A. The all-wise Paul, the steward of His mysteries, the Priest of the Gospel preachings, will make it clear saying, He ye thus minded each one in yourselves according to what was in Christ Jesus also, Who being in the Form of God held not the being Equal to God a thing to seize, yet emptied Himself taking bondman's form, MADE in likeness of men, and, found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, MADE obedient unto death, the death of the Gross. For His Only-Begotten Word albeit God and out of God by Nature, the Brightness of the glory and the Impress of the Person of Him Who begat Him, WAS MADE man and that not turned into flesh, or undergoing commingling 2 or mixture or ought else of such like, but rather abasing Himself unto emptiness, and for the joy set before Him despising shame and not dishonouring the poverty of the human nature. For He willed as God to render the flesh which is holden of death and sin, superior to both death and sin, and to restore it to what it was in the beginning, having made it His own, not (as some say) soulless but ensouled with intellectual soul: yet, not disdaining to go along the path hereto befitting, He is said to undergo a birth like ours, abiding what He was. For He has been born in wondrous wise according to flesh of a woman: for no otherwise was it possible that He being God by Nature should be seen by them on earth than in likeness of us, the Impalpable and without body, yet Who thought good to be made man and in Himself Alone to shew our nature illustrious in the dignities of Godhead: for He the Same was God alike and man, and in likeness of man, in that herewith He was also God, but in fashion as a man. For He was God in |243 appearance as we, and in bondman's form the Lord, for thus do we say that He was MADE FLESH.
Therefore do we affirm that the holy Virgin is also mother of God.
B. Does it like you that arraying their words against yours we make a subtler scrutiny of the conceptions, or shall we yield it simply to your word that the matter has been well apprehended?
A. Irreprehensible as I deem is all that will be said by us, wisely and skilfully and not repugnant to the God-inspired Scriptures. But say, yourself too, what seems good to you: for a counter-plea will beget something profitable.
B. The Divine Paul writes (they say) of the Son as having BEEN MADE both curse and sin 3: for he says, Him that knew not sin He made for our sakes sin, and again, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, MADE for our sakes a curse. They say that He was not MADE actual curse and sin, but the holy Scripture is indicating hereby something else: thus they say that And the Word WAS MADE flesh is conceived of by us. |244
A. And verily as in saying that He WAS MADE a curse and sin, so this that He WAS MADE flesh introduces with it and has in its horizon the conception of what follows thereupon.
B. How say you? for when one says of Him, He that knows not sin has BEEN MADE sin for us, and has bought from the curse of the law also them who were under the law, MADE for their sakes a curse, how should one doubt that this is in the times wherein the Only-Begotten was Incarnate and MADE man?
A. It introduces therefore with the mention of the Incarnation the things too that on account thereof are economically brought upon Him Who underwent the voluntary emptying, as are hunger and weariness. For as He would not have been wearied Whose is all might, neither would He have been said to hunger, Himself the Food and life of all, had He not made His own the body whose nature it is to hunger and be weary 4: so neither would He ever have been numbered among transgressors (for thus do we say that He WAS MADE sin 5), He would not have been MADE a curse, enduring the cross for our sakes, had He not been MADE flesh, i. e., been Incarnate and made man, enduring generation like ours in human wise, that I mean through the holy Virgin.
B. I assent, for you deem aright. |245
A. It is without understanding another respects too to think and to say that the Word was in such sort MADE flesh as He WAS MADE a curse and sin.
B. What way do you mean?
A. Was He not accursed that He might undo the curse and did not the Father make Him sin that He might end sin?
B. Thus do they too say.
A. Therefore if it is true, as it is understood by them to mean rightly, that the Word has in such sort been MADE flesh, as He has been MADE both curse and sin; i. e. to the destruction of the flesh; how will He render it incorruptible and indestructible, as having achieved this in His own Flesh first? for He did not leave it to remain mortal and under decay, Adam transmitting to us the punishment for the transgression, but rather as the flesh of the uncorruptible God, Own and His, rendered it superior to death and to decay.
B. You say well.
A. The sacred Scripture somewhere says, that the first man, i. e. Adam, WAS MADE a living soul. Him that was after, i. e. Christ, a quickening spirit. Do we then say that as for the destruction of curse and sin He was MADE curse and sin, so that for the overthrow of being a living soul was He MADE a quickening spirit? for they twisting into what is incongruous the force of MADE, say that He was in such wise MADE flesh, as He was made both curse and sin. We must therefore take away the Incarnation, or being made man, of the Word. Which when it is received as a verity, gone is the whole plan of the Mystery; neither was Christ born, nor died, nor raised, according to the Scriptures. Where therefore is the Faith, the word of faith which we preach? for how did God raise Him from the dead except He also died? how died He except He was born after the flesh? where too is the living again of the dead, bringing in for the saints a hope of the undying life, except Christ have been raised? where too the quickening of our human bodies, which is wrought by the participation of His holy Flesh and Blood? |246
B. We say then that the Word WAS MADE flesh in regard of the birth after the flesh from a woman, which in the last ages of the world He is said to undergo, albeit before every age as God.
A. Full surely: for thus WAS He MADE in likeness to us in everything except sin. And the all-wise Paul will testify saying, For since the little ones have partaken of blood and flesh He too likewise partook of the same that through death He might destroy him that hath the sway of death, that is the devil, and might free them who in fear of death were through their whole life subject to bondage: for verily He taketh not hold of angels but taketh hold of Abraham's seed, whence He ought in all things to be likened to His brothers. The likeness in all things has as a sort of beginning and introduction thereof the birth of a woman, and the manifestation in flesh of Him Who in His own Nature is not visible, and the economic habitation in our estate of Him of mightiest Name, and the lowliness in human nature of Him Who is high on the Thrones above, and that He Who is in Lordship of Nature WAS MADE in servants' degree: for the Word was God.
B. You deem aright: yet know that those men say this too, that it is impossible and uncomely to deem and to say that the Word Born of God the Father Ineffably and above our understanding should undergo yet a second generation from out of woman: for it were enough for Him (they say) to be once begotten of the Father in God-befitting wise.
A. They find fault therefore with the Son and say that He counselled not aright in undergoing the voluntary emptiness for our sake: brought to nought too and empty is now the august and mighty Mystery of godliness, and the fair scheme of the Economy with flesh of the Only-Begotten they represent as useless to them on the earth. But not to their stutterings does the Word of truth give the mastery, but rather it will convict them as babbling things most senseless and knowing not a whit the mystery of |247 Christ. For God the Father hath begotten of His own Self the Son by a single generation, yet did it please Him in Him to save the human race by the means of Incarnation or being made man, which must full surely take place through birth of a woman, in order that by the likeness to us of the Word that is born from God, the law of sin in the members of our flesh might be condemned, death be brought to nought in the likeness of the death of Him Who knows not death: for if we have been co-planted (it says) in the likeness of His death so shall we be also in the likeness of His Resurrection. Hence needs has He Who is and Who existeth been born after the flesh, transferring ours into Himself in order that the offspring of flesh, that is we, corruptible and perishing, might abide in Him Who at length has ours for His own in order that WE too may have His. For for our sakes became He poor who is Rich in order that WE by His Poverty might be rich.
But they by affirming that not Himself, the Word from out of God, WAS MADE flesh, or underwent generation after the flesh from out of woman, take away the Economy. For unless He being Rich became poor, lowering Himself out of His Clemency to our estate, neither have WE gained the riches that are His, but are yet in poverty and holden of curse and death and sin: for the Word BEING MADE flesh is the undoing and overthrow of the things which from curse and penalty befell the nature of man. Therefore if they undermine the root of our salvation and dig up the foundation of our hope, where will be that which follows? For (as I said) if the Word have not been MADE flesh, neither is the sway of death overthrown, sin is in no wise brought to nought, and we are yet subject to the transgressions of the first man, i. e. Adam, having no return unto what is better, through (I mean) Christ the Saviour of us all.
B. I understand what you say.
A. And besides who is he to be understood to be who in like manner with us hath partaken of blood and flesh, as though other than we by nature? for one will not say that that it pertains to a man to partake of human nature: for |248 what one is by nature how can one be conceived of as taking 6 as though it were something else than what he is? does not my argument seem very reasonable?
B. Quite so.
A. Consider in another way too that it is both unhallowed and discordant to attempt to take away from God the Word His Birth of woman according to the flesh: for how will His Body quicken except it be His Who is Life? how does the Blood of Jesus cleanse us from all sin, if it is that of a common man and one who is under sin? how did God the Father send His Son, made of a woman, made under the law? how condemned He sin in the flesh? for it pertains not to a common man and who has with us his nature despotized by sin to condemn sin. But since it has BEEN MADE the body of Him Who knows not transgression, therefore with reason did it shake off the despotism of sin and is rich in the Property of the Word which is Ineffably and in mode unutterable united with it, and is holy and life-giving and replete with God-befitting operation. And as in Christ our first-fruits, we too are trans-elemented into being superior to both decay and sin. And it is true that according to the voice of blessed Paul, As we hare the image of the earthy we shall hear the image too of the heavenly, i.e. of Christ. Christ is called an heavenly man, not as though He brought down to us His flesh from above and from Heaven 7, but because the Word being God hath come down from Heaven, and entering our likeness, that is, undergoing birth after the flesh from out a woman, hath remained what He was, i. e. above and out of Heaven and above all as God even with flesh. For thus somewhere says the Divine John of Him, He that cometh from above is above all. For He hath remained Lord of all even when economically made in bondman's form, and truly marvellous |249 therefore is the mystery of Christ. And verily God the Father said somewhere to the Jews by one of the Prophets, See ye despisers and perish and marvel because I am working a work in your days, a work which ye shall not believe if one should detail it to you. For the mystery of Christ is in peril of being disbelieved by reason of the intensity of its marvellousness: GOD was in human nature, and in our estate He that is over all creation; the Invisible, visible by reason of flesh; He that is out of Heaven and from above in likeness of things earthy; the Impalpable subject to touch; He that is in His own Nature Free in bondman's form; He Who blesseth the creation WAS MADE subject to curse, among the transgressors All-Righteousness, and in guise of death Life. For the Body which tasted death, was not another man's but His who is by Nature Son. Have you ought to find fault with in these things as not right or rightly said by us?
B. By no means.
A. Consider I pray this too in addition.
B. What do you mean?
A. Christ somewhere said to them who would take away the resurrection of the dead, Read ye not that He which made man at the beginning made them male and female, the Divine Paul too writes, Marriage is honourable in all and the bed pure. Then how did the Only-begotten Word of God, minding to enter the likeness to us-ward, not permit the laws of human nature to prevail, for the subsistence or birth of His own flesh: for not from marriage-bed and wedlock did He endure to take it but from a Virgin august and unwedded, with child of the Spirit, the Power of God over-shadowing her, as it is written. Since God therefore dishonoured not marriage yea rather honoured it with blessing, why did the Word being God make a Virgin with child of the Spirit the mother of His flesh?
B. I cannot tell.
A. Yet how is not the reason hereof clear to all who consider this? the Son came (as I said) or was made man, translementing our estate as in Himself first unto a holy |250 and admirable and truly marvellous birth and life: and Himself first became born of the Holy Ghost, I mean as to the flesh, in order that, the grace passing through as by a path unto ourselves too, we having not from blood nor from the will of the flesh nor from the will of man but from God through the Spirit our souls' new birth and spiritual conformation unto the SON Who is by Nature and truly, might call God Father and might thus abide undecaying, as possessing no longer the first father, Adam, in whom we decayed. And verily Christ said, at one time, And call no one your father on the earth, for one is your Father which is in Heaven, at another, for that He therefore descended in our estate in order that He might bring us to His own God-befitting dignity, I am going to My Father and your Father and My God and your God. For His Father by Nature 8 is He Who is in Heaven, our God; but since He that is SON by Nature and truly has BEEN MADE as we, He says that He has had Him as His God, after the manner that is which beseems the emptying, and has given His own Father to us too; for it is written, But as many as received Him He gave them authority to BE MADE children of God, them which believe on His Name. But if we in our unlearning take away from being MADE in birth as we the Word from out God the Father, Him who in all things hath the preeminence, as the most wise Paul saith; after whom shall WE any more formed, be called begotten of God through the Spirit? whom shall we take as a first-fruit for us in this, or who at all will bring the Dignity unto us?
B. They too will say, I suppose, The Incarnate Word.
A. How will this be true, except He have BEEN MADE flesh, |251 i. e. man, making the human body His own by a union which may not be plucked asunder, in order that it may be conceived of as His and not anyone's else? for thus will He send unto us too the grace of the sonship and we too shall be born of the Spirit, in that in Him first the nature of man attained this. And the Divine Paul appears to me, thinking over with himself something of this sort, to have said full rightly, For as we bare the image of the earthy we shall bear the image too of the heavenly: and he said that the first man was from out of earth, earthy, the second from out of Heaven. But as the earthy such (he says) are the earthy ones too, and as the Heavenly One such the Heavenly ones also. For we are earthy, in that there stole in upon us as from the earthy one, Adam, the curse, decay, through which the law of sin too entered in, which is in the members of our flesh: but we have been MADE heavenly, receiving this in Christ. For He being God by Nature and out of God and from above, hath come down in our estate, in an unwonted and strange way, MADE offspring of the Spirit according to the flesh, in order that WE too as He might remain holy and undecaying, the grace descending upon us as from out a second beginning and root, i. e., Him.
B. You speak excellently.
A. How do they say that He has been made like also in all things to His brethren, i. e., us? or who at all will He be conceived to be who entered into this likeness, unless He were other by Nature and not in our estate? for that which is made like to any, must full surely be different from them and not like to them but rather of other form, other nature. The Only-Begotten therefore being by Nature unlike us is said to have been made like when MADE as we, i. e. man: and this will take place rightly and solely, in birth in our estate, even though in wondrous wise in Him, for He Who was Incarnate was GOD. Yet let it be acknowledged that the body united to Him has been rationally ensouled: for the Word being God, would not, letting alone that which is superior in us, i. e., the soul, have taken thought for |252 the earthy body only, but in wisdom provided for soul and body alike 9.
B. I agree, for you deem rightly.
A. Hence if the opponents say that the holy Virgin ought to be called in no wise mother of God, but mother of Christ, they blaspheme openly and drive away Christ from being God and Son: for if they believe that He is really God, in that the Only-Begotten has been MADE as we, why do they shudder at calling her mother of God, who bare Him, I mean after the flesh?
B. Yea (they say): for the name Christ because of his having been anointed with the Holy Ghost beseems only him who is of a woman and of the seed of David: the Word out of God will never need so far as belongs to His own Nature such grace, seeing He is holy by Nature. For does not the Name Christ indicate that some anointing took place?
A. You said right, that because of the anointing alone is He called Christ, just as Apostle by reason of Apostolate, and Angel from bearing tidings, (for such kind of names signify certain things, not special persons or known individuals; for the Prophets too have been called christs, as is sung in the psalms, Touch not My christs and deal not wickedly with My prophets; the Prophet Habbacuc too said, Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people, to save Thy christs): yet tell me this, Do not themselves too say that the Only-Begotten Word of God is One Christ and Son, as being Lord Incarnate and made man?
B. Perchance they say so, yet they want the name Christ |253 not to belong to the Word born from out of God the Father, by reason that Ho has not been anointed according to His own Nature as God, but they add this as well: For it is not (they say) one of the names by which we should speak of the Father Himself or of the Holy Ghost.
A. The statement is not yet quite clear; explain it therefore, for you will do well.
B. Listen then: for one can see the appellation of the Son most manifold and diversely brought out by the God-inspired Scriptures, for He has been named God and Lord and Light and Life and besides King and Lord of hosts and Holy and Almighty. But if one pleased to say these things of the Father too or the Holy Ghost, one would not miss what is befitting. For of One Nature, one full surely is the Excellence of the dignities. If therefore Christ is a name truly befitting the Only-Begotten, let it pass (they say) without distinction with the rest both to the Father Himself and the Holy Ghost: but seeing it is utterly unmeet to accommodate it to the Father and the Holy Ghost, neither will it rightly pertain to the Only-Begotten Himself but rather has been apportioned in truth to him of the seed of David in regard to whom anointing by the Spirit may without any blame be conceived and said.
A. We too ourselves say that the names of the God-befitting dignities are common to Father Son and Holy Ghost, and with equal glories are we wont to crown together with Him Who begat Him the Son Who is begotten out of Him and the Holy Ghost besides.
Yet, o most excellent (would I say), the name Christ and the fact itself, that is, the Anointing, along with the conditions of the emptiness have accrued to the Only-Begotten, introducing to the hearers a manifest proof of the Incarnation: for that He has been anointed in that He has been made man, it will very well betoken. If therefore we were investigating not the plan itself of the Economy with flesh but it were proposed to us to look on the Only-Begotten Word of God as yet external to the measures of the |254 emptiness, it were with good reason wholly dishonouring to call Him Christ Who has not been anointed: but since the Divine and most holy Scripture says that He WAS MADE flesh, the anointing too will now befit Him, which took place in regard to the Incarnation which is His. And truly the all-wise Paul says, For both the Sanctifier and the sanctified are all out of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers saying, I will declare Thy Name to My brothers: for He was sanctified together with us when He WAS MADE in our estate.
And that truly SON was He Who is anointed in that He WAS MADE flesh, i. e. perfect man, the Divine David will testify saying to Him, Thy Throne o God is for ever and ever, a sceptre of Tightness the sceptre of Thy Kingdom: Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst transgression wherefore God Thy God anointed Thee with the oil of rejoicing above Thy fellows. Understand therefore how having both said that Ho is God and given Him a Throne for ever, he says that He has been anointed by God, clearly the Father, with some choice anointing above those who partake of Him 10, i. e. ourselves. For if the Word have BEEN MADE man too, albeit God, yet was He thus too without lack of the Goods of His proper Nature; being Self-Perfect and full of grace and truth, according to the voice of John: and Himself Perfect in every kind of thing God-befitting, while from His fulness all we received, as it is written. Making His own therefore along with the measures of His own human nature what also belong thereto, He is called Christ, even though He be conceived of as not anointed, according (I mean) to the Nature of the Godhead or as |255 He is conceived of as God. Since (tell me) how else will He be conceived of as Christ Son and Lord, if the Only-Begotten have disdained the anointing and abide not the measures of the emptiness?
B. They hasten along another path than ours, unskilfully interpreting the mystery of piety. For they say that God the Word hath taken a perfect man from out the seed of Abraham and David according to the declaration of the Scriptures, who is by nature what they were of whose seed he was, a man perfect in nature, consisting of intellectual soul and human flesh: whom, man as we by nature, fashioned by the might of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin and made of a woman, made under the law, in order that he might buy us all from the bondage of the law, receiving the sonship marked out long before, He in new way connected to Himself, preparing him to make trial of death according to the law of men, raising him from the dead, taking him up into Heaven and setting him on the Right Hand of God. From whence he being now far above all rule and authority and might and lordship and every name named not in this world only but in that to come also, receives worship from all creation as having a connection inseverable with the Divine Nature, the whole creation allotting to him its worship in reference to and in idea of God. And we say neither two sons nor two lords: but since God the Word the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, to Whom this man is connected and partakes, is Son by Essence, he shares the name and honour of Son: and God the Word is Lord by Essence, to Whom connected, this man shares the honour. And therefore we say neither two sons nor two lords: seeing that He Who is by Essence is clearly Lord and Son, he who for our salvation is assumed, having an unseverable connection with Him, is borne up up along with Him to name and honour of son and of lord.
A. Fie! the folly and distraught mind of them who imagine somehow that these things are so: for it is unbelief |256 and nought else, and the novelty of impious inventions and the subversion of the divine and sacred preachings which have proclaimed One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word that is out of God the Father made man and incarnate, so that the Same is God alike and man; and to One belongs all, the God-befitting and moreover the human. For He being and existing ever in that He is God underwent the birth after the flesh from out a woman. To One therefore and the Same pertaining both that He Eternally is and existeth and that He in the last times is born after the flesh, Who, by Nature Holy as GOD, was hallowed with us in that He became man to whom it befitteth to be hallowed; Who, both in rank of Lord and, having as His own bondman's form, did call the Father His God; Life and Life-giving as God, is said to be quickened by the Father in that He became Man. All things therefore are His, and He does not dishonour the economy which the Father Himself too praised, if it be true which is said by Paul's voice: for in one place he said, Him who knew not sin He made sin for our sakes in order that WE might be made God's righteousness in Him, in another. Who verily spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for all us in order that with Him also He might bestow on us all things. Does not therefore our discourse go after the scope of the sacred Scriptures?
B. Surely.
A. If now as our opponents say and choose to hold, the Only-Begotten Word of God, taking a man of the seed of Divine David and of Abraham prepared him to be fashioned in the holy Virgin and connected this man with Himself and hath made him to come into experience of death, yea and raising him from the dead took him up into heaven and seated him on the Right Hand of God: superfluously (it seems) is He said both by the holy fathers and by ourselves and the whole God-inspired Scripture to be made man (for this I deem and nought else did the all-wise John signify when he wrote, The Word was made flesh), and the mystery of the Economy with flesh has been (it is like) turned right round to the exact opposite. For one cannot |257 see that the Word being by Nature God and beaming forth from God, abased Himself to emptiness, taking bondman's form, and hath humbled Himself, but on the contrary, man was brought up into the glory of the Godhead and the excellency that is over all, and took God's Form and was rather exalted, co-throned with the Father: is it not true which I say?
B. Full surely.
A. If it be true as they say, and the Only-Begotten disdained the Economy, what shame did He despise? how hath He become obedient to the Father unto death yea the death of the cross? and if taking a man, He led him both to experience of death, and bringing him into Heaven too, shewed him co-throned with the Father; where now at last will His own Throne 11 be seen, if they say not two sons, but one who co-sitteth, him that is who is of the seed of David and Abraham? how will He too be said to be Saviour of the world and not rather patron or bringer-forward of a man through whom we have been also saved, and a man, other than He, has become the completion of law and Prophets? for the Law uttereth the mystery of Christ and of Him hath Moses written, who hath also become the bringer of us to Him. Our faith hath come I ween to nought, for it streamed away; wholly nought is pur august mystery, which the all-excellent Paul too openeth to us saying, Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven? that is to bring down Christ; or, Who shall go down into the deep? that is to bring up Christ from the dead. But what saith the Scripture 12? Nigh thee is the word, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is the word of faith which we are preaching: that if thou say in thy mouth, Lord |258 Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
How then is the mystery of piety any longer great and famous and in supremest admiration, if we are to believe that (as the perverted ones say) a man taken and connected by way of accident to God the Word, died and lived again: and he was borne up into Heaven, yet is it I suppose to some past belief, if not being by Nature and truly God, he delights him in the seat of Godhead, the Son by Nature haply thrust forth therefrom: and there stand in ministering position Angels and Archangels and the Seraphim who are higher yet, before----not Him Who is in truth Son and God but before----a man who is rich in name of sonship by participation and importation and in fashion as we and who has been vouchsafed the so God-befitting honour? for in no wise do our opponents blush at saying this too. Is not their dogma replete with the uttermost impiety and blasphemy? for that which is given and brought in may be lost, and that which is imported from without, has the loss of it not inconceivable. I pass over the farther blasphemy and incongruity.
Why then do they drag down the choiceness of the Economy unto what is uncomely, and make our Divine and most holy worship, a man-worship and nothing else, taking it from Him Who is in truth Son and persuading us to worship one connected with Him by way of accident, whom they say also sped above all rule and authority and lordship, imposing the blame of having been deceived, not only on them on earth but also on the very rational powers above, if with us they worship, not the by Nature and truly Son and the Word which beamed forth of the Essence of God the Father, Incarnate, but as other than He, a man from forth the seed of David, a god modelled by mere will perchance of His and by external embellishments, not so in truth?
B. Yet although he is conceived of as man severally (say |259 they), he hath worship from the whole creation, in reference to and in conception of God.
A. Then how (tell me) will this reference they talk of be meetly conceived and spoken of by us? And come, investigating the Divine and sacred Scripture, let us seek the solution from it. They of Israel 13 therefore, recking little at one time of reverence to God, bitterly attacked Moses and Aaron: then Moses addressed them, And who is Aaron, that ye murmur against him? for not against us but against God is this your murmuring. For they were sinning against Moses and Aaron, but what they did touched the Divine glory, and the covert intent of them who insult has reference to that glory. Yet Moses and Aaron were not gods, nor has the creation worshipped them in reference to God.
God reigned over Israel after the flesh through Prophets. And they came and said to the Divine Samuel, Make us a king like the rest of the nations. At this the Spirit-clad was grieved and with good reason, yet he heard God say, Not thee have they set at nought but Me that I should not reign over them. See again here too the mode of the setting at nought has reference to God.
And indeed the Saviour and Lord of all Himself too says respecting those in need, Inasmuch as ye did it to one of these least, to Me ye did it. Is it then in this way that if any be said to honour him that is of the seed of David, he hath done it to the Son? and if any do not believe, hath he surely offended against the by Nature Son, Who haply wishes him too to be honoured and believed in by us in equal and exact manner? How then hath not the bond been brought into equal honour with the Lord, that which hath been made and a new god (according to the Scriptures) is in the excellencies of Godhead, and to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity there hath been appended |260 that which is of unequal nature with It and with It is worshipped and partaketh of equal glory with It?
B. They say that the reference must be taken in some such manner as this: viewing God the Word inseverably connected to him of the seed of David we worship him as God.
A. Suffices it then in order to his duly taking the glory that befits God and to his being borne above the measures of creation, that he should be only connected with Him, and will this render him that is not God an object of worship? Yet I find one saying to God through the Psalmist's lyre, My soul is fast joined 14 after Thee: blessed Paul too writes, He that is fast joined to the Lord is one spirit. Shall we then (tell me) worship those too in reference to God as having been fast joined to Him? Yet the word fast-joining has I suppose a greater and more forcible significance than the word connected, if it be true to say that what is fast-joined to any has its connection most strait.
B. It seems so.
A. Why now dropping union, though a word in wonted use amongst us, yea rather that has come down to us from the holy Fathers, do they call it connection? though the term union by no means confounds them whereof it is said, but rather shews the concurrence into one of the things conceived of as united: and not (full surely) will that which is simple and of one kind be alone said to be One 15, but those too which are compounded out of two or more and out of diverse kinds. For so they think to be right who are skilled in these matters.
Most mischievously therefore do they, severing into two the One and by Nature and Truly SON Incarnate and made Man, reject the Union and call it connection, which any one else too may have with God, being almost tied to Him by virtue and holiness, according to that which is by one of the Prophets rightly said to them who fall back into carelessness, Be ye gathered together and tied together, o |261 undisciplined nation, ere ye become as a flower that passeth away: a disciple too may be connected with his teacher by means of love of learning, and ourselves, one with another, not in one way but in many. Or perchance he too who is an assistant in any work will be reasonably conceived as not unconnected in point of good-will with him who took him to that service. And this rather is what the word connection appears to signify to us on the part of the innovators. For you learnt that they unlearnedly maintain that God the Word taking a man, as some son other than Himself, set him forth, as a sort of minister of His Will, so as to make trial of death, and live again, and ascending into the very heaven, sit on the Throne of the Ineffable Godhead! For is he not through these words full surely seen to be altogether other than the by Nature and truly Son?
B. I admit it.
A. But since they have slipped down to this depth of unlearning, as to think and say that not the Only-Begotten Word of God Himself was made as we, but that He took a man; in what way do they want the assumption to be conceived by us? is it as fore-ordained by Him for the accomplishment of somewhat that He willed, just as one of the holy Prophets says, I was not a prophet nor son of a prophet but I was a goatherd and dressing mulberries, and the Lord took me from the sheep and said to me, Go, prophesy to My people Israel? A goatherd, He set him to be a prophet and appointed him minister of His Pleasure.
B. They will say perhaps that not of this kind was the taking, but just as taking bondman's form is conceived of by us.
A. Hence that which is taken will with reason be conceived of as the own of the Taker by an inseverable Union; so that Jesus is both God and Son, One and Only, of Very God, as being Word from forth of God the Father, begotten Divinely before every age and time, and in the last times of the world, the same after the flesh forth of a woman: for not any one's else, but His has the bondman's form been made. |262
B. How do you mean?
A. Will (tell me) that which is by nature bond be said not incongruously to take bondman's form, or that which is truly free and is Essentially above the measures of bondage?
B. The free I suppose: for how will it be made what it was by nature?
A. Consider then that the Only-Begotten Word of God albeit made as we and having entered on the measures of bondage according to the human nature, hath witnessed to Himself freedom by Nature, saying in His joint-contribution 16 of the didrachma, Surely free are the sons. He receives therefore bondman's form, making His own the results of the emptying 17 and not spurning the likeness to usward: for it were not possible otherwise to honour the bond unless that which befitteth the bond had been made His that it might be made illustrious by the glory that is from Him: for that which excelleth ever hath the pre-eminence and the shame from our bondage was wiped out by us. For He Who is above us has been made as we and the Free by Nature was in the measure of the servants. Hence the dignity hath passed unto us too: for WE too have been called sons of God and inscribed as our Father Him Who is properly His Father; for our human things have been made His also.
Therefore in saying that He took bondman's form, is the whole mystery of the Economy with flesh. But if confessing One Son and Lord, the Word from forth of God the Father, they say that a man, him who is forth of the seed of David has been simply connected with Him, a partaker of His Sonship and of His glory, time is it that we in friendly grief over them who choose thus to think should say, Who will give to my head water and to my eyes a fountain |263 of tears, and I will weep this people day and night? for they are turned aside to a reprobate mind, denying the Lord Who bought them. For a pair of sons unequal in nature is proclaimed to us, and the bond is crowned with God-befitting glory, and some supposititious son is glorified with equal excellencies with the by Nature and truly Son, albeit God says plainly, My glory I will not give to another: for how is he not other and apart from the by Nature and truly Son, who has been honoured with mere and sole connection and taken as an assistant and vouchsafed sonship even as we ourselves are, and has partaken of glory from another and attained thereto by gift and grace?
B. We must not therefore sever Emmanuel into man severally and into God the Word.
A. By no means: I affirm that we must say that He is God Incarnate, and that He is in the Same both One and Other. For neither hath He, made man, ceased from being God, nor doth He hold the Economy unacceptable, despising the measure of the emptying.
B. Therefore (they say) consubstantial with the Word was His body, for thus and no otherwise will He be deemed One Only Son.
A. Yet how is not this now raving and clear proof of a mind wandering? for how can one behold in sameness of essence things so far removed one from another in respect of their nature? for one thing is Godhead, and another manhood. For of what do we say that the Union was made? for a person will not say that the things united are one in number, but either (it may be) two or more.
B. We must therefore sever (they say) the things named.
A. We must not sever (as I said) into a several diversity, in regard I mean to their being away from each other and apart, but must rather bring them together into an indissoluble union. For the Word has been made flesh, as John saith.
B. Have they therefore been confused and both become one nature?
A. But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to |264 suppose that either the Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we say that One is the SON and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made, and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man.
B. There will then be not two natures, of God and of man?
A. Godhead and manhood are one thing and another, according to the mode [of being] existing in each, yet in Christ have they come together, in unwonted wise and passing understanding, unto union, without confusion and turning 18. But wholly incomprehensible is the mode of the Union.
B. And how out of two things, Godhead and manhood, will One Christ be conceived of?
A. In no other wise (I suppose) than that whereby the things brought together one to another unto a union indissoluble and above comprehension will be One.
B. As for example?
A. Do we not say that a man like us is One and his nature one, although he has not simpleness [of nature] but is compounded out of two, I mean soul and body?
B. We do.
A. Does anybody, taking anew the flesh apart by itself, and sundering from it the soul that was united to it, divide a single person into two and not thereby destroy the right description of him?
B. Yet the all-wise Paul writes, For even though our outward man perish yet is the inward renewed each day.
A. You said right: for he knew, he knew well from whence he is one, and makes the distinction [between the two] one to be grasped in idea only: he calls the soul, the inward man, and the flesh, the outward. For I call to mind |265 the holy Scriptures which sometimes signify to us the whole living thing from a portion, as when God says 19, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh, and Moses says to them of Israel, In seventy five souls did thy fathers go down into Egypt. And we shall find that this has been done in regard to Emmanuel Himself: for after the Union, I mean that with the flesh, if any call Him Only-Begotten and God from forth of God, he will be conceiving of Him as not apart from flesh or manhood, and if he say that He is man, he will not be excluding Him from being God and Lord 20.
B. But if we say that the Nature of the Son is One, even though He be conceived of as Incarnate, all need is there to confess that confusion and commixture take place 21, |266 the nature of man being lost as it were within Him. For what is the nature of man unto the excellency of Godhead?
A. In highest degree, my friend, is he an idle talker who says that confusion and commixture have place, if one Nature of the Son Incarnate and made man, is confessed by us: for one will not be able to make proof thereof by needful and true deductions. But if they set their own. will as a law to us, they devised a counsel which they cannot establish, for we must give heed, not to them but to the God-inspired Scripture: if they think that needs, on account of the nature of man being nothing compared to the Divine Excellency, must it be lost and consumed as they say, we again will say, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God: for it were not impossible for God Who loves man to make Himself endurable to the measures of the manhood. And this He foresignified to us darkly, when initiating Moses and limning the mode of the Incarnation as yet in types, for He came in likeness of fire on the bush in the wilderness, and the fire kept playing on the shrub yet was it not consumed. And Moses marvelled at the sight. Yet how is not a tree a thing that has no alliance with fire? and how is the readily consumed wood patient of the onslaught of flame? But this matter was (as I said) a type of a mystery, which exhibited endurable to the measures of the human nature, the Divine Nature of the Word 22, at His Will, for to Him is nothing impossible.
B. Know well that they will not choose so to think.
A. Their speech will be caught setting forth to us most undoubtedly two sons and two christs.
B. Not two: they say that the Son by Nature, the Word from forth God the Father is One; he that is assumed is |267 a man by nature son of David 23, but is son of God by reason of his having been assumed by God the Word, and that by reason of God the Word dwelling in him hath ho come to this dignity and hath by grace the sonship.
A. Then wherever will they go as regards mind and understanding who thus think? or how do they say 'not a pair of sons,' when they are severing one from another man and God, if (according to them) the One has the sonship by Nature and truly, the other " by grace and came "to this dignity, God the Word indwelling him?" Hath he then ought greater than we? for He indwelleth in us too. And the most holy Paul confirms us in this, saying, For this cause bend I my knees to the Father from Whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that He would give you according to the riches of His glory to be strengthened with might through His Spirit that Christ may dwell in your hearts: for He is in us through the Spirit wherein we cry Abba Father. Hence our position is in no wise inferior, if we have been vouchsafed the equal by God the Father (for by grace WE too are sons and gods): we have been surely brought unto this supernatural and marvellous dignity as having the Only-Begotten Word of God in-dwelling.
But profane and distraught altogether is it that they should say that JESUS has been vouchsafed the sonship and has won the glory thereof as a matter of favour.
B. Would you say how?
A. Certainly. For first (as I said) He will be thus conceived of as separately another son and christ and lord from Him Who is so truly and by Nature: besides this, another impossibility is brought in and which not unreasonably militates against right reasoning.
B. What is that?
A. The all-wise John says of Christ, He came unto His own and His own received Him not, but as many as received Him He gave them authority to become God's children. Will |268 then he who has the sonship of grace and has it as an adventitious dignity that he won the being what he is; will such an one bestow freely on others also what he has with difficulty grown rich in? does not this appear to you incongruous?
B. Very.
A. That which accrues not by nature but has been introduced from without, will it not be to be lost, as far as possibility goes?
B. How should it be otherwise?
A. Hence it will be a possible contingency that the son should some time be able to fall from his sonship: for what is not based on laws of nature is not free from a suspicion of being lost.
B. It is so.
A. In another way too one may see that their dogma is both uncomely and of a truth replete with the supremest ill-counsel: for if it is true that that which is by adoption and grace is ever in the likeness of that which is by nature and in truth, how are WE sons by adoption, having reference to Him Who is truly Son if He too along with us is among them who are so by grace? how too in the Gospel-parables is He sent as Son after the servants [had been sent]? whom when the guardians of the vineyard saw they said, This man is the heir, come let us kill Him.
He therefore Who hath appeared in flesh and Who made trial of the crooked ways of the Jews is SON in truth and Free, as born of the Nature that is Free and is not among those who are under the yoke, in that He is conceived of as God, even though He hath been made, as we who are under the yoke, son of bondage, He the SON (as I said) by Nature and truly, Who is beyond the yoke and above the creation: after Whom WE too who are sons by adoption and grace have been formed.
B. We do not say (say they) that the man is Son of God, lest we should speak of two sons by Nature. For as the Word Who came down from Heaven is not by nature son |269 of David, thus neither is he who is forth of the seed of David, Son of God by Nature 24.
A. They will therefore sever into two sons, and both of them will be proved to be falsely so called, and I think one may say that the mystery of Christ is idle trickery if it is thus as our opponents foolishly say. Where then is the Union and in regard to what do they say that it has been wrought? or haply this that the Word was made flesh is found to be untrue and to have been superfluously brought in, if the Word from forth God the Father have not been called son of David by reason of His being made from forth his seed after the flesh. But I think that they ought to hear from us too what was said by Christ Himself to the chiefs of the Jews, What think ye of Christ? whose son is He? and should they say, David's, they will hear from us, How therefore does David in spirit call Him. Lord saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My Right Hand until I put Thine enemies the footstool of Thy Feet? if therefore David in spirit 25 call Him Lord, how is He his Son? does he who is not by Nature and truly Son (as our opponents say) co-sit with God, and is he co-Throned (tell me) with Him Who ruleth all things? albeit, as saith the all-wise Paul, to no one of the angels hath the Father at any time said, My Son art THOU, nor yet, Sit on My Right Hand. How then is he who is forth of a woman in supremest dignity and on the seat of the Godhead and beyond all Rule and Lordship, Thrones and Authority and every name that is named?
And note how the Lord saying, If therefore David in spirit call Him Lord how is He his Son, induces those who would be searchers of the truth, to hold that the Word when in participation of flesh and blood hath remained even thus One Son: witnessed to that He is God from God-befitting Excellency and Lordship, while His being called also Son of David signifieth full well that He is Man.
B. Perhaps they will say to this (for I am pointing out |270 [their reply]), "Are we then to admit that he too who is forth of the seed of David is forth of the Essence of God the Father?,,
A. Yet how hath not such a question exceeding worthlessness? and it is incongruous to the might of the mystery and to them who delight in the truth.
B. Tell me how.
A. Do not divide, saying that he who is forth of the seed of David is other than the One Christ and Son and Lord: for right utterance wills that the Only-Begotten Son Who hath His Being forth of God the Father is Himself, and none other, him who is forth of David after the flesh. Let them not therefore of their boundless stupidity say that as the Word Who came down out of heaven is not by nature David's Son, thus neither is he who is forth of the seed of David Son of God by Nature. For the Word Who by Nature and in truth beamed forth of the Father, having assumed flesh and blood, as I just now said, hath remained the Same, that is, by Nature and truly Son of the Father, being One Only and not as if one with another, that His Person may be conceived of as One. For thus gathering unto union true and above mind and speech things which by the count of their nature had been sundered unto unlikeness, we shall advance on the unerring path of the faith. For we say that One and the Same Christ Jesus is forth of God the Father as God the Word, forth of the seed of Divine David after the flesh. Do not I seem to you to have most rightly considered these things?
B. Surely.
A. I will ask the opponents something else too.
B. What is that?
A. Are they not assured that the Only-Begotten God the Word hath His Being from forth God the Father and do they not affirm that the man taken (as they say) by connection is made from forth the seed of Divine David?
B. So they say.
A. The Word therefore being God will most assuredly surpass both in Nature and in glory him who is forth of |271 the seed of David and will overpass to the extent of the difference of the natures. Or if it be not as I say, why do they sever and allot to the one the right to the glory, and bring in the other as recipient, and as gaining what he is by way of a prize and in the light of a largess? but less full surely and inferior is the receiver to the giver and to him who gives the glory that which is participant of the glory from him.
B. I suppose that they too would say that most vast is the difference between God and men.
A. Then how does the all-wise Paul, the priest of the Divine mysteries, he that hath indwelling Him Who is preached, and who speaketh in the Spirit: how does he both call Him that after the flesh is of the Jews, God and say that He is blessed for ever, amen? what is there above God Who is over all? what will a man behold in the Word Who is forth of the Father greater than he is who after the flesh is of the Jews if he be a son other than He and separate and not truly so?
B. But he who is forth of the seed of David was admitted (they say) by connection and, seeing that the Word being God indwelt him, he shares His Dignity and His Honour: and this the most holy Paul will teach writing of him that he was made subject to the Father unto death, yea the death of the cross, wherefore God also super-exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name: and this name is God.
A. Do they then say that to him that is of the seed of David separately and as to another son apart by himself has been given by God the name which is above every name?
B. Yea (they say), for to the Only-Begotten Who is God and forth of God by Nature, how could that be given which He hath?
A. Therefore, if the receiving is not put respecting Him, let accurate investigation be made from what the Divine Paul himself hath written: For let each one of yourselves be of the mind which was also in Christ Jesus Who being in the form of God held not the being Equal to God a thing to seize 26, |272 yet did He empty Himself taking bondman's form, made in likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man He abased Himself made subject unto death, yea the death of the cross: wherefore God also super-exalted Him and gave Him the 27 name which is above every name. If 28 therefore it is, according to them, the man that is forth of the seed of David conceived of separately and by himself who received the name that is above all, let them shew him pre-existing in the Form of God, and not holding the being equal to God a matter for robbery and moreover taking bondman's form, as though that is he had it not and was not so ere he took it: albeit as themselves say and choose to think, himself is the bondman's form. Then how can he take it as though he had it not? how too will a man be conceived of as made in likeness of men, and be found in fashion as a man? The force of the ideas then will turn them round even against their will to know the truth.
B. What truth?
A. God the Word Who is in the Form of God the Father, the Impress of His Person, Who is in all Equal to Him Who begat Him, hath emptied Himself.
B. And what is the emptying 29?
A. The being in assumption of flesh and in bondman's form, the likeness to us of Him Who is not as we in His own Nature but is over the whole creation. Thus hath |273 He abased Himself, lowering Himself economically into the measures of the human nature; yet was He even so God, as having not by gift That which comes to Him by Nature. Therefore He also said to God the Father Which is in Heaven, Father glorify Me with the glory which I had before the world was, with Thee. For I do not suppose that they will say that he is asking for the glory which was before the world as being his own, he [I mean] who in the last times of the world was born of the seed of David, if so be he is son by himself other than He Who is so by Nature and truly: but this utterance will rather be a most God-befitting one. For it needed, it needed that He should be co-fashioned in the measures of the manhood and should have the Excellence of the God-befitting Dignity Unimpaired and Essentially in Himself just as it is in the Father too. For how will that be true, There shall he in thee no new god, if according to them a man is made god by connection with the Word and is declared co-enthroned and sharer of the Father's Dignity? b. You say well.
A. How is one to conceive of that which is wisely spoken by voice of Paul, For even though there be many gods both in heaven and on earth yet to us is One God the Father from Whom are all things and we from Him, and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom are all things and we through Him? For there being One Lord Jesus Christ and Paul having full well affirmed that through Him all things have been brought to their birth, what shall we do, noble sirs, when ye distinguish from the assumed man as ye call him, the Word from forth God the Father? which are we to say was the Creator of all?
B. The Son by Nature from forth God the Father, i. e., the Only-Begotten.
A. Yet does the priest to us of the Divine Mysteries say that through Jesus Christ were all things brought to being, and that He is One and Only. I will recall that when investigating the name Christ we said that it introduces to us the declaration of anointing: for on account of having |274 been anointed would any be called christ 30. Either therefore let them say that the Word from forth God the Father has been anointed in His proper Nature and that He was in need of sanctification through the Spirit and of participation from Him, or let them teach how He is to be conceived of as Christ Who has never been anointed, and how the Only-Begotten Word of God will be called separately Jesus, although blessed Gabriel says to the holy Virgin, Fear not Mary, for lo thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bear a Son and shalt call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
B. Do we then say that all things have been made through a man and that he who in the last times of the world hath birth of a woman is Creator of heaven and earth and in short of all things that are in them?
A. Do thou too say, for I will ask: Has not the Word been made flesh? has He not been called son of man? took He not bondman's form? emptied He not Himself, made in likeness of men and found in fashion as man? If therefore they deny the Economy, the Divine Disciples will withstand them saying, And WE saw and testify that the Father hath sent the Son Saviour of the world: whoso shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God God abideth in him and he in God, and again, Herein is known 31 the Spirit of God, every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not from God. Besides what sense has it, to conceive of a man that he has come in flesh? to one who is external to flesh and who is of Nature not ours, will rather |275 belong the being made in flesh also and therewith coming into this world together with remaining what He is. Hence even though He have been made man, there is nothing to hinder our conceiving that through Him were all things brought into being, in that He is conceived of as God and co-eternal with the Father. For the Word being God has not been changed, even though He have assumed flesh ensouled with a reasonable soul, not connecting a man with Himself, as they say who innovate the Faith, but Himself made flesh as I said, i. e., man: for thus will the having been anointed befit Him nor meet with any objection; and He will be called Jesus too, being Himself in truth He Who underwent birth in the flesh from forth a woman. For thus hath He saved His own people, not as a man connected with God but as God made in the likeness of the imperilled, in order that in Him first the human race might be re-formed to what it was in the beginning: for all things were new in Him.
B. Hence we must refuse to think or to say that a man has been connected with God the Word and been made partaker of His Dignity and that he possesses the sonship as a grace.
A. Most entirely: for the sense of the sacred Scriptures acknowledges it not, but it is the invention rather of a mind loving novelty and feeble and weak and unable to see the depth of the mystery: for where has anything of this kind been said by the holy Scripture? for the Divine Paul stating full clearly the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, says, For since the little ones have partaken of blood and flesh, He too likewise partook of the same in order that through death He might bring to nought him that has the power of death, i. e. the devil, and elsewhere, For the impossibility of the law wherein it was weak through the flesh God sending His own Son in likeness of flesh of sin and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not |276 according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. But we say that there has partaken of blood and flesh according to the mind befitting the inspired writers----not he who is in flesh and blood of his proper nature and cannot be otherwise but----He Who is not so and is of other Nature than ours; and that He has been made both from forth a woman and in likeness of flesh of sin Who is for our sakes as we together with being above us too in that He is conceived of as God. For the Word has been made flesh, yet not flesh of sin: but in likeness of flesh of sin did He converse with them on the earth as man and has been made in likeness as we, yet not along with us under sin but removed from knowing transgression (for the Same was God alike and Man): but they who bear away (I know not how) from the Only-Begotten the so august and admirable Economy, connect with Him a man by way of accident, embellished with honours from without and adorned with glory not his; and no true God but partner and partaker with God, and son falsely so named, saviour that is himself saved, redeemer who is redeemed: albeit the blessed Paul has written thus, For the saving grace of God appeared to all men, in order that denying impiety and worldly lusts we might live soberly and religiously in the present life, awaiting the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
B. Yea, they say: for seeing that He was altogether vouchsafed connection with God the Word, he too was called great God albeit made of the seed of David.
A. For shame, what madness: affirming that they are wise they became foolish, as it is written. For they transform (as I said) the force of the mystery of Christ into all that is opposite; and their saying that he has been vouchsafed will be nought else than declaring that he is mere man and in ill counsel severing him into an utter diversity, so that a pair of sons be conceived of, to be worshipped, whereof One is so by Nature and truly, the other adopted and bastard and having nothing that is his own, that to him too along with ourselves it may be said, For what hast |277 thou that thou receivedst not: and then whither will the all-wise Paul go who says, For the Son of God Christ Jesus Who was preached among you through me and Silvanus and Timothy was not Yes and No but in Him was Yes? For how was He not Yes and No, if He is said to be God and is not God? if the names SON and LORD are falsely attributed to Him? and if He be thus as they say, it will belong to Him to have to say, But by the grace of God I am what I am. For that which belongs not by nature but is from without and introduced and given by another, will not belong to the recipient but to Him who imparts it and bestows it. And how did He also say, I am the Truth, if there is nothing true about Him? haply too He was comprehended by the darkness, if He lies. But He did not sin neither was guile found in His mouth, as it is written. b. No surely.
A. And where is the emptiness? and of whom will it be conceived to have happened? for one cannot see any one emptied but on the contrary being filled albeit he has not fulness in his own nature: for he would not have needed what was another's and it would have been superfluous to him to have received, if he had had, of his own, self-completeness and sufficiency unto every thing, but of Christ's fulness did all WE receive, and the preaching of the inspired will not lie. For full is Christ and nothing whatever is given to Him so far as He is conceived of as, and is, God, even though to receive have been made His by reason of the measure of the manhood and in that He became as we, to whom it will be said full rightly, For what hast thou that thou receivedst not?
B. Yea, he says, the Word from forth God the Father is One Christ and Son and Lord, he who is forth of David's seed being connected with Him.
A. But, most excellent sirs, may one say to them, he who has another connected with him will not be conceived of as one, how could he? but as one with one, i.e. with another, and these are full surely two. But He will be conceived to be in truth One Son, if we say that the Same is God the |278 Word Divinely begotten from God, and in marvellous manner man and from a woman after the flesh.
But if setting apart and severing him that is from the seed of David, they dismiss him from being in truth God and Son and say rather that he is partner in sonship and partaker of glory not his own, not idly (as I suppose) shall we find the accusations against Him by the Jews to have been made. For they said, For a good work we stone Thee not but for blasphemy because THOU being man makest Thyself God.
B. And indeed they do say that both Very God and Son is the One Christ, i. e., the Word out of God taking by connection him who is of David's seed.
A. But if the Word out of God the Father is not He Who is also according to the flesh from a woman, but is Other with other 32, how will ho be called Christ who has not been anointed as we already said?
B. Therefore if he who is of the seed of David is none other than the Word from forth God the Father, let him be called also before time: then how does the all-wise Paul, repelling the opinion, demand as it were with a question, and say, Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day, is he the same for ever too? Or in another way too: for Jesus, he says, who is yesterday and to-day, will be the same for ever too, i. e., recent and yesterday and to-day, albeit God the Word co-existeth with His own Father.
A. They do wrong exceedingly, turning aside the truth unto that which in their unwisdom seems good to them and corrupting the accuracy of the sacred Scriptures. If now one say that Christ Jesus is also before time, he will not miss of the truth, if the Word which is before time is One Son and Lord, Who in the last times underwent birth after the flesh of a woman. And that the Word made man |279 as we has not been changed, the Spirit-clad has shewn saying, Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day, the Same too for ever. And yesterday indicates past time, to-day present time, for ever that which is future and to come.
But if they think that they have thought out something clever, in taking yesterday and to-day to mean recent, asserting and saying, He that is yesterday and to-day how will he be also for ever, WE too will transfer the force of the question unto the direct opposite: The Word which is for ever how will He take to Himself Yesterday and to-day, if Christ is One and has not been divided, as says the Divine Paul? For that thus He would be known by us, you will know hence also. For although seen in the flesh and having entered on the measures of the human nature, He has testified to Himself His Eternal Being saying, Verily I say to you, Before Abraham was I am, and again, If I told you the things of earth and ye believe not, how will ye believe if I tell you those of Heaven? and no one hath gone up into Heaven except He which descended from heaven, the Son of man. For as Word Which ever is and before the ages, come down from heaven, and then the Same appearing man as we; as One Christ and Lord even when He was made flesh, does He say these things.
B. Another argument too has been discovered by them, it is this: they say that he which is of the seed, of David, ought so to be called son of God as the Word Which is forth of God the Father is said to be son of David: for neither is so by nature 33.
A. Now let the mode of the true Union come in, that so the Word be believed to have been made flesh, i. e. man, and therefore son of David not falsely but as from forth him according to the flesh, having remained too what He was, i. e. God out of God. And verily the priests of the gospel preachings, knowing that the Same is God alike and man, have told us of Him. It is written of the blessed Baptist that, On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming to him and |280 saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world: this it is of whom I said, After me cometh a Man which has been made before me because He is prior to me, and I knew Him not, but in order that He should be manifested to Israel, therefore came I baptizing in water. Understand therefore how he saying, a Man, and calling Him a Lamb, says that none other is He who taketh away the sin of the world, and hath allotted to Him this great and truly vast and God-befitting Dignity. And he says that He is before and prior to him, albeit made after him, I mean according to the time of the generation after the flesh. For if Emmanuel is late-born as man, yet was He before every time as God. His therefore is both the recent humanly and the Eternal Divinely: hence the all-excellent Peter too, looking on the Word not bare nor without flesh, but appearing in flesh and blood, clearly and unerringly 34 made his tribute of faith in Him, saying, THOU art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and heard in reply, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood revealed it not to thee, but My Father which is in Heaven. But were not the Mystery deep, and God in the flesh, but [only] a man having according to them the sonship by grace, how should he have needed an Initiator 35 so great, that no one of them on the earth revealed it to the disciple, but that he had the Father Himself as his Instructor in this?
And the Divine Disciples too, seeing Him once traversing 36 the expanse of the sea, were astonished at the miracle and confessed the Faith, saying, Truly Thou art the Son of God. Yet if he is bastard and falsely-called and has from adoption that he is son, let them accuse the disciples of falsehood, and that when they sware it. For they have added Truly, affirming that He is the Son of God the Father.
B. You speak most excellently. |281
A. How too has the Son of man His own angels 37, and shines forth in the glory of His Father? for He says, The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father 38 with His angels, and again. And the Son of Man will send His Angels. And if they disbelieve yet, even seeing Him crowned in God-befitting glory and dignities so splendid and supreme, they shall hear Him say, If ye believe Me not believe My works, and again, If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not 39. For the beholding in a man the excellency of the unspeakable glory, supplied not as Another's nor in the light of a favour, but His very own: how will it not persuade us that He was God in likeness as we and truly Son of God Who is over all?
B. He affirmed (he says) that His were the angels, and He was made the worker of these signs, the Word indwelling Him and having imparted to Him His own glory and operation: for it is written, Jesus of Nazareth how God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost and power, Who went about doing good and healing all that are oppressed by the devil. Anointed therefore both with power and with the Spirit, was He a wonder-worker 40.
A. Then, since the Word being God, both Holy and having Essentially and by Nature All-Might, will never need either power from another or an imparted holiness: who now is He Who has been anointed with power and the Holy Ghost?
B. They will perhaps say, The man who is assumed by connection.
A. He therefore is Jesus Christ by himself and separately, of Whom too the all-wise Paul says, Yet to us One God |282 the Father from Whom all things and we from Him and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom all things and we through Him. How then (tell me) are all things through a man? why is he ranked as Son with the Father and that immediately, no one intervening? and wherever shall we put the Only-Begotten when we have brought into His place the man; and that (as he says) inwrought by Him and honoured because of Him?
Has not their argument outstepped what is reasonable, is it not borne beyond bound, and as having utterly missed of the truth, will it not reasonably incur laughter?
B. The Word of God (he says) has been called man in some such way as this: as the man who was assumed by Him was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, but is called a Nazarene because he dwelt at Nazareth 41, so too God the Word is called man because He dwelt in man.
A. O understanding senile and mind unstrung and knowing how to stutter and nought else! Rouse ye, ye drunkards, from their wine, let one say to the opponents: why do ye violence to the truth and, turning aside the force of the Divine doctrines, are borne forth of the King's way? The Word (as it seems) has no longer been made flesh, according to the Scriptures, but rather a dweller in man, and it were meet that He should be called, of-man, not man, just as he who dwelt at Nazareth was called, of-Nazareth, not Nazareth. And I think that there is nothing at all to hinder, if they think that their foolish invention is right, that together with the Son, the Father and also the Holy Ghost should be called man: for the fulness of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity dwelleth in us through the Spirit. And verily Paul saith, Do ye not know that ye are God's Temple and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you, yea, |283 and Christ Himself, If a man love Me he will keep My word, and My Father will love him and we will come to him and make Our Abode with him. Yet the Father has never been called man, nor yet has the Holy Ghost, by reason of indwelling in us: but those men laugh at the Mystery of the Incarnation and twist round unto what is discordant, the doctrines of the Church which are so right and worthy of being heard.
But let our argument proceed again on its course, bidding farewell to their vomit. For if, because of the Word being in him, he have been made a worker of signs, they perchance say that he is one of the holy Prophets, for [the Word] has wrought Divine signs through the hands of the saints too: but if they say that the Son is in these, they lower Him into the measure of Prophets or Apostles.
B. Yea, they say, for has He not been called Prophet 42 and Apostle?
A. You are not wrong; for Moses said to them of the race of Israel, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you out of your brethren, as me: the Divine Paul too has written, Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High priest of our confession Jesus.
Let them tell then, for I will ask: Would the grace of Prophecy or the being vouchsafed apostolic prerogative, and being called High Priest too, be an honour to a man?
B. Yes.
A. Yet they would say that to Christ in that He is conceived of as God these things are petty and not worthy of receiving, even though through these very things He is seen emptied and receiving them with the manhood. But as being God by Nature and Lord in truth, He took bondman's form, made therein and assuming our estate, so, both giving the Spirit of Prophecy and ordaining Apostles and establishing Priests, He was made like in all things to His brethren: for thus was He named, Prophet, Apostle, High Priest. |284
B. But even though they grant that He was a Prophet, they say that He was not so as one of the Prophets, but that He was placed far above their measure 43. For they had the grace meted to them and accruing to them in time, He was full of the Godhead even straightway from His very Birth, for the Word being God was with Him.
A. It was then in the amount of grace and in length of time that Christ has surpassed the holy Prophets which were before Him, and it is this which is His special privilege. The point for investigation is whether He was a Prophet at all, and not His having more or less or even excelling, seeing that in His being a Prophet and in His not passing beyond our measure does His low estate consist, even though He be conceived of as this from the beginning, just as was the holy Baptist too, of whom the blessed angel says, And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb. How then was the one a servant, the Other All-glorious in the dignity of Lord? And of himself blessed John says, He that is of the earth of the earth he speaketh, but of Emmanuel, He that cometh from above is superior to all.
B. Yet (will they perchance say) the Word which hath beamed forth of God the Father is above, yea and superior to all; and they are afraid to allot to Him what belong to man, lest haply He be wronged thereby and brought down to dishonour. Therefore they affirm that He took a man and connected with Himself this person in regard to whom what belong to man might have place and be spoken of, and no damage should accrue to the Nature of the Word Himself.
A. Hence he who is assumed will confessedly be conceived of and said to be other than He. But we will not follow their fatuity nor make them definers and innovators 44 of our Faith, neglecting the sacred Scripture and |285 dishonouring the Tradition from forth the holy Apostles and Evangelists: nor, for that a mind weak and most empty of learning has taken up its abode in them, and one that cannot look into the depth of the mystery, let us also go astray, sharing their unlearning and refusing to go the straight way of the truth. But we know that the most holy Paul hath written that we ought to throw down reasonings and every height which reareth itself against the knowledge of God and to reduce captive every thought unto the obedience of Christ.
But now, can you tell whereat they are offended and in Jewish wise stumble at the stone of offence?
B. I can, for how should I not? they are very many, but they shall be told one by one.
They say therefore that Christ has been sanctified by the Father: for it has been written, And John witnessed saying, I have seen the Spirit descending out of heaven and It abode on Him and I did not know Him but He who sent me to baptize in water, He said to me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, This is He Who baptizes with the Holy Ghost; and I have seen and have witnessed that this is the Son of God: Paul too hath written of Him, For He Who sanctifieth and the sanctified are all out of One. For the Word being God and Holy by Nature will by no means be sanctified; it remains therefore to say that the man assumed by Him in the way of connection has been sanctified.
A. How then does He Who has been baptized and Who received the open Descent of the Spirit, baptize with the Holy Ghost and perform what belong to and beseem the Divine Nature alone? for He is the Bestower of holiness. And in proof of this the Incarnate Word breathed, as a bodily act, His own proper good, upon the holy Apostles saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins ye remit they have been remitted, whosesoever ye retain they have been retained. And how has the divine Baptist, most clearly indicating Him Who has been sanctified, borne witness |286 that This is the Son of God, alone and with the article? For the initiator of the world should, if he knew that it was another son beside Him Who is truly Son, have signified the Truth, saying clearly, This is he who by connection with the Son Who is by Nature and in truth has been made son by gift and grace: but he said nothing of the kind but, knowing that He is One and the Same, both Word from forth of God the Father, and from forth the seed of David according to the flesh, says that He was sanctified, as man, and again sanctifies, in that He is conceived of as God: for He was (as I said) this and that in the Same. If therefore He have not been made man, if He have not been born after the flesh, from a woman, let us drive away from Him what belong to man: but if it is true that lowering Himself unto emptiness He hath been made as we, why do they part from Him the things through, which He will be conceived of as emptied, with utter ill-counsel undoing the fair scheme of the Economy with flesh?
B. If therefore He be said both, to have received glory and been made Lord and to be exalted by the Father, to be set King also, shall you attribute these too to God the Word and will you not full surely be damaging His glory?
A. That the Nature of God the Word has been filled with true glory, Royalty and Lordship, how can one doubt? and that He is firmly to be conceived of as being in heights the most God-befitting? but since He appeared as man to whom all things are a gift and imparted: therefore He, Full and giving to all from out His own fulness, in human wise receives, making our poverty His own: and in Christ was an unwonted and strange marvel, in servant's form Lordship, in human mean estate God-befitting glory, that which is under the yoke (as to the measure of manhood) crowned with the dignities of Royalty, and in Supremest Excellences that which is low. For the Only-Begotten hath been made man, not in order that He might remain in the |287 measure of the emptying, but in order that taking along therewith what is its. He might thus too be known to be God by Nature and might ennoble because of Himself the nature of man, rendering it participate of holy and Divine dignities. And we shall find the saints themselves too calling the Son even when He was made man, the glory of God the Father, and King and Lord. For Esaias somewhere says, As if a man gleaneth an olive-tree, thus shall they glean them, and when the vintage ceaseth, these shall shout with their voice, and they that are left in the earth shall rejoice together with the glory of the Lord, and again another of the saints says, Shine o Jerusalem for thy light is come and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee: lo darkness and gloom shall cover the earth hut upon thee shall the Lord appear and the glory of the Lord shall he seen on thee: and James His disciple says, Brethren, have not in respect of persons the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory, the Divine Peter again, If ye are reproached for Christ, ye are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God hath rested upon you.
B. Enough, good sir, of such testimonies: but tell us how we ought to understand what is written of Christ, Who in the days of His flesh having offered supplications and entreaties with mighty cry and tears to Him that is able to save Him from death and, heard for His fear, although Son, learned obedience from the things which He suffered and, perfected, became author to them that obey Him of salvation indissoluble; I will add to what I said, this too, My God, My God, why forsookest Thou Me? for they say that such things are incongruous to God the Word and I would say that they come very far short of His inherent Excellence.
A. I myself too know that these things would not befit the Word which is sprung forth of God the Father, if the mode of the Economy be put aside 45 and if we do not admit |288 that He have been made flesh according to the Scriptures: but since we rest firmly on this, and the doubting one whit abont it involves a charge of impiety, come let us view closely, as far as we may, the depth of the economy.
The Word therefore from forth of God the Father appeared in likeness of us, to aid in countless ways our human condition and to shew full well the path that leads us to everything that is admirable. It was then necessary that we should learn, when temptation attacks them who are in peril for the love of God, what sort of people they ought to be who have chosen to live a life and conversation noble and excellent; whether they should be seen by their Saviour remiss and falling back into negligence and out of due season revelling and spreading themselves out for delight: or intent unto prayer and bathed in tears and thirsting for aid from Him and for manliness, if He should be pleased that we should also suffer. It needed besides what we should know to our profit, whither the goal of obedience ends and through what prizes it goes, what and how great the reward of endurance. Christ therefore became a pattern of such things, and hereto the divine Peter confirms us saying, For what renown if sinning and buffeted ye endure? but if well-doing ye endure, this is thank from God, because Christ too died for us, leaving us 46 an ensample that ye should follow His steps. Hence the Word of God no longer bare and imparticipate in the measures of the emptying but in the days of His flesh has been made a pattern to us; in that then without any blame He could use the measures of the human nature and prolong His prayer and shed the tear 47 and seem now both to need a Saviour and |289 to learn obedience, albeit Son. For the Spirit-clad was as it were astonished at the Mystery, that being by Nature and truly Son and Eminent in the glories of the Godhead He let Himself down unto low estate, so as to undergo the meanness of our human poverty. Yet was the pattern (as I said) comely and helpful, so as one might learn hence, and that full easily, that we ought not to hasten another road, when the season calls us to manliness. And indeed Christ said at one time, And fear not them that slay the body but cannot slay the soul, but rather fear Him Who can destroy both soul and body in Hell, at another again, If any man will come after Me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. The duty of following Him, what else is it than that we must be all-manly against temptations, and with that, ask the aid that is from above not negligently nor remissly but using rather intensest prayers and letting fall from our eyes the tear of godly fear?
B. You say well.
A. If moreover He say, My God My God why forsookest Thou Me, how will they understand it?
B. They would deem, as I suppose, that these are the words of the man who is assumed.
A. Of one who has broken down and who considers the |290 onslaught of the trial as not to be borne, as intolerable, or how?
B. Of one who is distraught (as appears) out of human faint-heartedness: since to the disciples too He said, Exceeding sorrowful is My Soul unto death, and fell down before the Father Himself saying, Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from Me, yet not as I will but as THOU.
A. And verily this is nothing else than what we said just now, Who in the days of His flesh having offered both supplications and entreaties to Him Who could save Him from death with a mighty cry and tears. If any think that Christ had come down to this point of faint-heartedness and that He was sorrowful and very heavy, holding it intolerable to suffer, overcome with fear and mastered by weakness, he clearly accuses Him of not being God, and shews that to no purpose, as it seems, did He rebuke Peter.
B. How do you say?
A. For Christ said, See we are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of man will be betrayed into the hands of sinners, and they shall mock Him and crucify Him, and the third day He shall rise. He being pious, says, [God be] propitious to Thee, Lord, this shall not be to Thee. And what said Christ to him? Get thee behind Me satan, thou art an offence to Me, because thou dost not think the things of God but the things of men. And yet how did the disciple miss of what is fitting, in wanting the trial to be taken away from his Master, if it were insufferable to Him and by no means tolerable but rather lowering unto impotence and apt to shiver in pieces Him Who charged His disciples to be stout against the fear of death and to count suffering nothing, so that the good-pleasure of God should be accomplished by them?
And I wonder that they, saying that he has been connected with the Only-Begotten, and declaring him partaker of the Divine dignities, subject him to the fear of death, that so he may be seen to be bare man as we are and to have gained nothing from the Divine Dignities. |291
B. What then is the plan of the Economy herein?
A. Clearly mystical and deep and to be marvelled at by them who know aright the mystery of Christ. For view I pray, the words which beseem the emptying and are not incongruous to the measures of the manhood, how they were uttered in due and needful season, that He Who is over all creation might be seen to have been made in every respect as we. Hereto will follow again this also.
B. What?
A. Seeing that we have been made accursed because of the transgression in Adam and forsaken of God have fallen under the snare of death, and that all things have been made new in Christ, and a return of our condition to what it was in the beginning [has taken place]; need was it that the second Adam which is out of Heaven, He Who is superior to all sin, the All-holy and Undefiled second first-fruits of our race, Christ, should free from sentence the nature of men and call again upon it the good favour that is from above and from the Father and undo the forsaking 48 through His Obedience and entire subjection. For He did no sin, and the race of man in Him has gained the riches of spotlessness and entire blamelessness, so that it at length may with boldness cry out, My God my God why forsookest Thou me?
For consider that the Only-Begotten having been made man, gave forth such words as one of us and in behalf of our whole nature, as though He said 49, The first man hath |292 transgressed, he slipped down into disobedience, he heeded not the command given him, by the wiles of the dragon he was carried off into wilfulness: therefore fall rightly has he been subjected unto decay and has become subject to doom, but Thou didst plant Me a second beginning to them on the earth, I am called, Second Adam. In Me Thou seest the race of man purged, achieving sinlessness, holy, all-pure. Give now the good things of Thy Clemency, undo the forsaking, rebuke decay and let wrath reach its period. I have conquered Satan himself too who of old prevailed, for he found in Me no whit of what was his.
Such then, as I think, is the meaning of the Saviour's words; for He was inviting the good favour of the Father not on Himself but on us rather. For as the [fruits] of wrath passed through as from the first root, I mean Adam, unto the whole nature of man (for death hath reigned from Adam unto Moses over them too which sinned not after the likeness of Adam's transgression): thus too will the [fruits] from our second first-fruits, Christ, pass through unto the whole human race. And the all-wise Paul will be our warrant, saying, For if by the transgression of one man the many died, much more by the righteousness of the One shall the many live, and again, For as in Adam all die so too in Christ shall all be quickened.
B. Unwise therefore and utterly incongruous to the holy Scriptures is it both to deem and to say that the man assumed used human expressions as forsaken by the Word which was connected with him.
A. Blasphemy, my friend, and a proof of the uttermost |293 stupefaction, and that full clear, will this be, yet is it not incongruous to those who understand not to think aright. For since they sever and divide utterly both words and facts and have allotted the one to the Only-Begotten alone and by Himself, the other as it were to a son other than He and from a woman, therefore have they missed of the straight and most unerring way and of clearly knowing the mystery of Christ.
B. We must not then divide either words or facts, when the Gospel and Apostolic preachings are brought forward?
A. By no means, as far as pertains to two persons and hypostases severed from one another and diverging altogether apart and separately: for in that there is One Son, the Word made Man for our sakes, I would say that all are His, both words and facts, both the God-befitting and besides the human.
B. Hence even if He be said to be weary from the journey 50. to be hungry and to share in sleep: will it be fit (tell me) to allot to God the Word things thus mean and abased?
A. The Word still bare and not yet Incarnate and ere He descended unto the emptying, it will by no means befit (for you deem aright), but to Him made man and emptied what hurt can this inflict on Him? for as we say that His flesh was made His own 51, so again His are the weaknesses of the flesh through the Economic appropriation of them and after the mode of the emptying, for He was made like in all things to His brethren, without sin alone. And marvel not that we say that He has made the weaknesses |294 of the flesh His own along with the flesh: whence to Himself again hath He allotted the contumelies too from without, which were put upon Him by the frowardness of the Jews, saying through the voice of the Psalmist, They parted My garments among themselves and upon My vesture they cast the lot, and again, All that see Me sneered at Me, they spake with their lips, they wagged the head.
B. Hence though He say for example, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, I and the Father are One, and to the Jews, Why are ye seeking to kill Me, a man Who have told you the truth which I heard of God, shall we allow that the words both one and other belong to One and the Same?
A. Most certainly, for Christ has never been divided, but is believed to be One and Only and Very Son by all who worship Him. For the Image of the Invisible God, the Brightness of the glory of the Person of the Father, the Impress of His Essence, took bondman's form, not as though connecting a man to Himself, as they say, but rather Himself made in that form, yet even so abiding in likeness to God the Father. And the all-wise Paul hath written, For it is God Who said that the light should shine forth of darkness, Who shone in our hearts unto the illumining of the knowledge of His glory in the Face of Christ Jesus. For view how it is in the Person of Christ that the illumining 52 of the Divine and Ineffable glory of God the Father shines forth: for the Only-Begotten albeit made man shews in Himself the glory of the Father, for This Alone and none other is conceived of and called Christ 53. Else let our opponents teach us how one can behold in a mere man the illumining or the knowledge of the Divine glory? for not in the form of man shall we see God: yet in the Word Alone Which has been made as we and made Man and hath even |295 thus remained by Nature and truly Son, might one in wondrous wise see this too, in that He is conceived of as God. And verily the steward of His Mysteries, having called Him Christ Jesus as having been made as we and Incarnate, knows that He is so together with being God by Nature and in truth: for he writes after this wise, More boldly in part I have written to you, as reminding you because of the grace given me by God that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus, ministering the Gospel of God 54, Zacharias too prophesieth to his own child, I mean the Baptist, And thou, little one, shalt be called the prophet of the Most High, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare a people for Him: and the Divine Baptist pointed out the Most High and Lord saying, See the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world: This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a Man who has been made before me because He was prior to me. Is it then lawful to doubt that One and Only and Truly Son is the Word forth of God the Father together with the flesh united to Him and that not without soul, as some say, but ensouled with reasonable soul and in all respects One Person with it?
B. I would not doubt it in the least, for One Lord, One faith, One Baptism. But if Jesus be said to advance in stature and wisdom and grace, who is it that has been made in these? for the Word Who is forth of God the Father being full and Perfect in Himself, what and whereunto will He take accession or advance? being Himself Wisdom, He will not be said to be recipient of wisdom 55. We must enquire then, they say, to whom these things belong.
A. We must then (it is like) bring in another son and lord, because some cannot reach the depth of the holy Scriptures. The wise Evangelist therefore, having first brought in that The Word has been made fleshy sets Him forth Economically |296 charging His own flesh to proceed by the paths of its own nature; and it belongs to human nature to advance in stature and wisdom, I may say in grace also, in that the understanding too that is in each springs upward conjointly with the measures of the body: for it is one in babes, other again in those that are now children and upwards. For it were not impossible or impracticable to the Word from forth of the Father as God, to rear on high even from the very swaddling-clothes the body which was united to Him and to bring it up to the measure of perfect stature; I will say too that to shew forth admirable wisdom even in His baby-state would have been both easy and without obstacle to Him, yet would it have savoured of wonderworking and been incongruous to the plan of the Economy; for the Mystery was performed noiselessly. He permitted therefore economically the measures of human nature to prevail in His own case, for this too will have been arranged in the meet order of the likeness to usward, whose advance is by little and little to what is greater, as the season calls us to accession of stature and of understanding not out of harmony therewith.
All-Perfect therefore, and un-lacking of ought whatever, and too of increase, is the "Word from forth the Father, as God: yet makes He His own what is ours seeing He has been made as we: yet we know that He is even so above us as God. And verily Paul dares, albeit knowing that He has been made flesh, looking at the Excellences of the Godhead, in places to say that He is not even man: he writes to them of Galatia, Paul an apostle not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ, and elsewhere too, I declare to you the Gospel which was gospelled by me that it is not after man, for neither did I receive it from man nor was I taught it, but through revelation of Jesus Christ.
B. We must therefore adapt to Him both the being said to progress in wisdom and stature and grace, just as [we do] the hungering and being weary and the like: and perhaps even if He be said to suffer and to have been |297 quickened by the Father, we shall allot to Him these things too.
A. Yes, for we say that His are the human by an Economic appropriation, and along with the flesh that which is its: seeing that no other son beside Him is conceived of by us, but the Lord Himself hath saved us, giving His own Blood a ransom for the life of all; for we were bought with a price, not with things corruptible silver or gold but with the Precious Blood as of a Lamb Immaculate and without blemish,, Christ, Who offered Himself in our behalf for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. And hereto will be our warrant Paul most learned in the law, who hath written, Be therefore imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love as Christ too loved us and delivered Himself for us an offering and sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell. But since Christ hath been made a sweet smell for us shewing in Himself the nature of man in possession of sinlessness, we have had confidence through Him and in Him with God the Father Which is in Heaven: for it is written, Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy in the blood of Christ, which He inaugurated for us, a new and living way through the veil, that is, through His flesh. Understand therefore how he says that His is the Blood and His the flesh, which he also calls the veil and with good reason, in order that whatever in the temple the sacred veil used to effect, concealing full well the holy of holies, somewhat of the same might the flesh too of the Lord be conceived of as doing, not permitting the marvellous and choice Excellence and glory of God the Word to it united, to be seen by any bare so to say and unhidden. And verily some imagined that Christ was Elias or one of the Prophets, but the Jews, not a whit understanding the mystery respecting Him, railing said, Is not this the carpenter's son 56? how saith He now, I have come down from heaven? for invisible by Nature is the Godhead, yet was He seen of those on earth in likeness with us Who in His own Nature is not visible, and the Lord God appeared to |298 us. And this I think the Divine David teaches saying, God shall come manifestly, our God, and shall not be passed over in silence.
B. You think aright, but they maintain that these things are not so, far from it. For in no wise do they choose to attribute the suffering on the cross to the Word Who sprang from God, but they say that He prepared the man who was connected with Him in equal honour, to undergo the contumelies of the Jews and the sufferings on the cross, yea and death itself and that he became the captain of our salvation, in the might of the Word Who was co-with him coming back to life and doing to nought the power of death.
A. Will they then be able out of the Holy Scriptures to prove to us that their account hereof is true? or do they innovate the Faith, uttering things out of their heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, as it is written, or haply unable to say, God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of Christ through which the world hath been crucified to me and I to the world?
B. Yea, they say, for the all-wise Paul confirms us hereto having written thus, For it became Him because of Whom all things and through Whom all things, bringing many sons to glory, to perfect through sufferings the Captain of their salvation. For He (they say) in Whom are all things and throughb Whom all things will be none other than the Word Which sprang from forth of God. He therefore perfected through sufferings the captain of our salvation, i. e. him from forth the seed of David.
A. We have therefore been redeemed by God no more (for how or whence could we?) but by another's blood, and some counterfeit man and falsely-called son hath died for us, and the august and mighty mystery of the Only-Begotten was then idle talk and quackery, and neither hath He been made man, but we will register as our saviour and redeemer, not Him but that other rather, who hath given his own blood for us. Yet the most holy Paul hath written to b The Syriac translation transposes in and through |299 some, It was therefore necessary that the patterns of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these; for not into sanctuaries made with hands, figures of the true, entered Christ, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us, nor that oftentimes He should offer Himself as the High Priest entereth into the sanctuary yearly with another's blood, since He must needs often have suffered from the foundation of the world; but now once in the completion of the ages hath He been manifested for the abolition of sin through His sacrifice. Hence the type hath, that certain make their entry with another's blood and are cleansed: the reality, i. e. the Truth, will surely possess what is better, i. e., that Jesus does this, entering with His own blood, not into any temporary tabernacle and made with hands, as it were in shadow and type, but into that which is above and true, into Heaven: for it was necessary that the patterns of the things in the heavens should be purified with these (i. e. with the typical and another's) but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
We must therefore necessarily seek for in Christ what is superior to the types, I mean the truth, which is in His own Blood.
B. You say right.
A. But since they set up against us the Apostle's saying, as though it were put forth of a common man, come let us say, taking from the beginning of what is written unto a sufficient close of it. It is written therefore, But we behold Jesus Who has been some little abased below the angels because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour: for it beseemed Him because of Whom all things and through Whom all things, bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the Captain of their salvation through sufferings: for the Sanctifier and the sanctified are out of one, all of them, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers saying, I will declare Thy Name to My brothers, and again, Behold I and the children which God gave Me. Since therefore the children have partalcen of blood and flesh, He too likewise |300 shared the same, in order that through death He might do to nought him that hath the power of death, i.e., the devil, and might rid those who in fear of death through all their life were subject to bondage: for not I suppose of angels taketh He hold but of Abraham's seed He taketh hold, whence He ought in all things to be likened to His brothers. See, see and that most clearly, saying that He has been abased below the Angels because of the suffering of death, yet has been crowned therefore with honour and glory, he makes evident Who it is of Whom he is discoursing, the Only-Begotten: for he says that He has partaken of blood and flesh like us, and that He took hold not of angels but of Abraham's seed. For it beseemed God the Father because of Whom all things and through Whom all things, to perfect the Son Who had descended to emptying and become man, having taken bondman's form, through sufferings 57 in that He consecrates His own flesh a Ransom for the life of all. For Christ hath been sacrificed for us, the spotless Victim, and by One offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, re-forming man's nature into what it was in the beginning: for all things in Him are new.
For that God the Father hath given His own Son for us, no less will the all-wise Paul be our warrant, writing of. Him, Who spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all, how will He not with Him too bestow on us all things? and we say that the own Son of God is the Word Who beamed forth of His Essence, and that He has been given for us, not still bare and without flesh but when He was made flesh. And His being said to suffer is free from any blame, for He suffered not in the nature of the Godhead but in His own flesh: for God the Father as I said above, made Him Who knew not sin sin for us, in order that we might be made the righteousness of God with 58 Him.
B. Do we therefore conceive that He was made sin, or |301 rather because He was made like to them who are under sin, is He therefore said to be sin?
A. You say right: as therefore He made Him Who knew not sin sin for us in order that WE might be made the righteousness of God in Him (for the nature of man has been justified in Him): so Him Who knows not death (for the Word is Life and lifegiving) He caused to suffer in the flesh, though He remained external to suffering in that He is conceived of as God, in order that we might live through Him and in Him. Hence also the suffering of Christ has been named, 'the likeness of death.' It is written therefore, For if we have been co-planted in the likeness of His death so shall we be too of His resurrection: for the Word was living, even while His holy flesh was tasting death in order that, death worsted and decay trodden down, the might of the resurrection might come unto the whole human race. For it is true, that as in Adam all die so too in Christ all shall be quickened. Since, how do we say that the Mystery of the Economy with flesh of the Only-Begotten aided man's nature, unless the Word being God has been made flesh? unless He Who is above all the creation lowered Himself unto emptying and hath come down to be in our estate? unless that have been made the body of Life which is subject to decay in order that it might become superior to death and decay?
B. We say therefore that the Word which is forth of God the Father Himself suffered in the flesh for us?
A. Surely, if Paul is true in saying of Him, Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because in Him were created all things, visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or governments or authorities; all things have been created through Him and unto Him: and He is before all things, and all things consist in Him, and He is the Head of the Body, the Church, Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, in order that He may become in all pre-eminent. For see, see, he says and that full clearly, that the Image of the Invisible God, the first-born of all creation, both visible and invisible, through Whom all |302 things and in Whom all things, has been given a Head to the Church, and that He is First-born from the dead too. For He makes His own, as I said, the properties of His own flesh, and endured the cross, despising the shame. For we do not say that a man simply, honoured (I know not how) by connection with Him, has been given for us, but it is the Lord of glory Himself Which was crucified for us (for had they known, he says, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory): but He hath suffered for our sake and in our behalf in the flesh, according to the Scriptures, Who according to the flesh is of the Jews, Who is over all God and blessed for ever Amen. For thus hath the most holy Paul written, His herald and apostle and who hath Christ in him.
And tell me this besides, how they would understand what has been said by Christ to the woman out of Samaria, YE worship ye know not what, WE worship what we know, for salvation is from forth the Jews? albeit there hath saved us, not elder, not angel, but the Lord Himself, not with another's death and the mediation of a mere man but, with His own Blood. Hence, with good reason, said the all-wise Paul, One who disregards Moses' law dieth without compassion at the hands of two or three witnesses: of how much worser punishment, suppose ye, shall be be accounted worthy who trampled on the Son of God and accounted common the blood of the covenant and insulted the Spirit of grace in Whom he was sanctified 59? But if it be not the precious Blood of the in truth Son Incarnate but of some spurious one other than he and one that possesses the sonship of favour, how do they say that it is not common?
Therefore even though He be said to have suffered in the flesh, freedom from suffering even thus is kept to Him 60 in that He is conceived of as God. Therefore the |303 Divine Peter too says that Christ once for our sins died for us, the Righteous for the unrighteous, in order that He might bring us to God, put to death in the flesh, quickened in the Spirit. For why, might one I suppose say, did the Spirit-clad say not simply or indefinitely that He suffered, but added, in the flesh? for he knew, he knew that of God was he speaking. Therefore he hath allotted to Him impassibility in that He is conceived of as God, most skilfully adding, in the flesh, in respect to which suffering exists.
B. Yet they say that it savours of the marvellous and inclines much to the incredible, that we should have to say that the Same both suffers and does not suffer 61. For either surely He hath as God not suffered or if He is said to have suffered, how will He be God? hence he who suffered will be said to be only he which is from forth the seed of David.
A. Yet how will it not be a most manifest proof of a feeble understanding, to choose so to say and to think? for God the Father hath given for us, not a common man, taken aside to be in the rank of a mediator, and having a made-up glory of sonship and honoured with an accidental connection, but, made in likeness with us for our sakes, Him Who is above the whole creation, the Word Which beamed forth of His Essence, in order that He might be seen an equivalent for the life of all. It is (I deem) of all things most absurd, when the Only-Begotten has been made flesh according to the Scriptures (as I said) and disdained not the Economy, to find fault as it were with Him as though He had militated against His own glory and had chosen to suffer in the flesh apart from what was fit. Yet, good sir, the matter was salvation to the whole world: and since He for this cause willed to suffer Who is beyond the power of suffering because He is God by |304 Nature, He put about Him flesh recipient of suffering and made it His own, that His too might the suffering be called, because it was no one's else's but His own Body 62 which hath suffered. Hence, for that the mode of the Economy gives Him without blame, both to be pleased to suffer in the flesh, and in the Godhead not to suffer (for He was God alike and Man in the Same) the opponents speak idly, and most unwisely debasing the force of the mystery haply deem that they have made a contention 63 replete with praise. For His being at all pleased to suffer in the flesh seemed to attach some blame to Him, yet it was glorious in another way: for the Resurrection has testified that He is superior to death and decay, being Life and Lifegiving as God, for He hath raised His own Temple. Therefore the Divine Paul says, For I am not |305 ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth, and again, For the word of the cross is to them that perish folly, to us who are saved it is the Power of God, to them that are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ God's Power and God's wisdom: and indeed the Son too when about to ascend unto the saving Passion says, Now is the Son of man glorified and God is glorified in Him, and God will glorify Him in Himself and will straightway glorify Him. For He lived again, having spoiled Hades and this not after a long while but as it were straightway and on the very heels of the Passion.
B. Albeit the all-wise Paul says, Since 64 ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, Who is not weak but is mighty in us: for verily He was crucified out of weakness yet lives out of the power of God. Then how will one say that the Word Himself is weak and moreover that He lives out of the power of God?
A. Do we not over and over again say that the Word of God was Incarnate and made man?
B. Yes, for how should it be otherwise?
A. Therefore He Who is weak in the flesh in that He appeared as man, This lived out of the power of God, a power not alien but inherent in Him, for He was God in flesh.
B. And verily the Father is said to raise Him, for it is written, According to the inworking of the mastery of His might which He hath inwrought 65 in Christ, having raised Him from the dead and set Him on His Right Hand in the |306 heavenly places above all rule and authority and lordship and every name that is named.
A. Yet we say that He is the life-giving Power of the Father and it is like that He rejoices in the Dignities of Him Who begat Him even though He have been made flesh. And Himself will come in, His own witness, saying, For as the Father quickeneth whom He will, so the Son too quickeneth whom He will. And able to accomplish this full well without toil, He hath addressed the people of the Jews saying, Undo this Temple and in three days I will rear it. But He Who rose hath sat on the Right Hand of the Father in the heavenly places above all rule and authority and throne 66 and lordship and every name that is named. Is it therefore as being another son than the Word Which sprang from forth Him, honoured with mere connection, and receiving the Name of Godhead as a favour; or rather He Who is by Nature and truly Son, made in likeness of man and found in fashion as a man economically?
B. They would perhaps say that it was the man from forth the seed of David connected with Him by equality of honour, to whom the suffering death too would belong.
A. But that which is said to be of equal honour with ought, will be not one in number (as I already said) but one with one; this is I suppose two and they unequal in nature, if the honoured is in lower case than the honourer: but since one son hath sat down, let them instruct us who it is that hath been honoured with the seats on high and co-sitteth with the Father, if it be a thing most exceeding perilous to venture to bring up to equality of honour the bond with the Lord, the made with the Creator, with the King of all that which is under the yoke, with Him Who is above all that which is ranked among all.
B. You will then clear this up to us still more.
A. Albeit as I suppose a clear and sufficient discourse has already been worked out by me on these subjects, I will without any backwardness add to what I said other things also, and taking up a not ignoble advocacy of the |307 Divine dogmas as a sort of full armour I will rear up the truth against them who think perverse things.
For that the Only-Begotten Word of God, no other son than He mediating the Economy and connected with Him accidentally, hath made void the mastery of death; but that He by His own Self hath done it, He will prove saying, God so loved the world that He gave His Son the Only-Begotten in order that every one who believeth on Him should not perish but have life everlasting. When God the Father exalteth highly His Love for the world and says that it is exceeding great and vast, why do our opponents disparage it, saying that not the truly Son has been given for us, but bring up one of those who are as we, who has the grace of sonship from adoption, into the place of the Son by Nature, whereas it was the Only-Begotten Who was given for us? and whereas John hath clearly written, The Only-Begotten God which is in the Bosom of the Father, how will not one marvel at them for their unlearning who thrust out the Only-Begotten God the Word from the Economy and bring in in His place (as I said) a certain one embellished with glories from without him and having the name of Godhead put upon him? and what great and worthy of admiration will there be any longer apparent in the Love of the Father if He hath given for it some piece of the world and that a small one? or perhaps it would be even unblameable to say that the world hath been redeemed, having nothing from God but, ministered to in this behalf by its own parts.
B. They say that the Only-Begotten has been given by the Father, that He should administer our affairs, not in order that He should suffer ought of what is human Himself in His own Nature, for it is impossible.
A. He will suffer in His own Nature nothing at all (for being unembodied as God He will full surely be external to suffering), but since according to His own voice, I mean that through the Psalmist's lyre, a body has been prepared for Him by the Father, He came, embodied, to do His Will. And this was the redemption through the Precious |308 Cross and the summing up anew of all things, full well accomplished through Him and in Him. And the most excellent Paul will aid to what I said, having written on this wise, Be ye thus minded each one of you as was also Christ Jesus Who being in the Form of God deemed not the being equal with God a thing to seize 67, yet emptied Himself taking bondman's form, made in likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man abased Himself, made obedient to death, yea the death of the cross: wherefore God also highly exalted Him and gave Him a Name which is above every name, in order that at the Name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow of heavenly and earthly and neath the earth and every tongue confess Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. For whom dost thou say is He Who is in the Form of God the Father, and when He might have remained in Equality with Him deemed the so pre-eminent and God-befitting Dignity and the excellency above all to be not a thing to seize? is it not God the Word Who beamed forth from Him? how is this not obvious to all? But this He Who was in the Form and Equality of the Father, taking bondman's form, not by an accidental connection, made in likeness of men and found in fashion as a man (for He was together herewith God too) abased Himself and became obedient also unto death, yea the death of the cross.
B. But it is said (they say) of Him that God gave Him a Name which is above every name, in order that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow. That which the Word was, i.e., God, how will He be conceived as taking? need therefore is it to say rather that to the assumed man has been given the Name which is above all, that we be not caught deeming ought incongruous respecting the Only-Begotten.
A. Then how were it not incomparably better to say that it has been given by the Father to the by Nature Son made man for our sakes, in order that He may be conceived of as God even in human nature and in supremest heights He Who endured abasement as we, in order that |309 no new and late-appearing god may be introduced to both angels and men, having the glory of the Godhead not essentially inexisting but come in from without and as it were at the mere Will of God the Father.
B. To the Word Himself therefore which sprang from forth God the Father do we say that the Name which is above every name has been given.
A. Full surely; and our argument will not err from its course, if it is not false that He deemed the being Equal with God to be not a thing to seize, but hath descended unto the not being in glory in that He appeared as man. Therefore He also said, The Father is greater than I, although He had the right, in that He ever existeth in Him (as He is conceived of and is God) and hath been begotten from forth Him by Nature, to have exactness with Him in every thing and to rejoice in the glory of the Godhead. One must therefore not suppose that He Who for our sakes descended into the measure of the human nature, fell from His inherent Natural splendour and Excellence, but that in emptiness that belongs to us He has fullness Divinely and in abasement loftiness, and that which belongs to Him by Nature, to be worshipped by all, [He has] as a gift by reason of His human nature: for to Him boweth every knee of things both in Heaven and upon earth and every rank praiseth, for Christ Jesus is believed to be Lord unto the glory of God the Father. And verily He said to God the Father which is in Heaven, Father glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. Was then (tell me) the man prior to the world 68, whom they say has been assumed by the Only-Begotten by a non-essential connection?
B. By no means.
A. Who then is it who is asking for glory which He says was inexistent in Himself oven before the very foundation of the world, He ever and continually being with God? is |310 it not God the Word Co-eternal with the Father, Co-throned and Co-existent with Him, of Whom the all-wise Evangelist John saith, The Word was with God and the Word was God?
B. How should it not be so?
A. As therefore being Lord of glory and then letting Himself down to the ill-repute of bondman's form, He asks for a recovery of His ever inherent glory, doing this too as beseemeth man: thus being always God He goes up from the measures of our estate to the excellence and glory of His Proper Godhead, in order that as to One Son henceforth by Nature and Very, albeit made as we and Incarnate, every knee should bow, as I just said. For I think that so minded and thus believing, we shall rid heaven and earth from the charge of worshipping a man. For it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shall thou adore.
B. The argument hereon will need very much support: proceed therefore I pray and elucidate the Mystery to us by means of other conceptions also.
A. I will then proceed very gladly, but I would say that they have missed the truth in coupling, as though another son, him who is of the seed of David with Him Who is by Nature and truly, I mean the Only-Begotten, albeit holy Writ clearly cries aloud, The first man of earth earthy, the second 69 out of Heaven, and moreover the Son Himself, I have come down from heaven not in order to do Mine Own Will but the Will of Him that sent Me, and this is the will of Him that sent Me that everything which He hath given Me I should not lose ought from it but should raise it at the last Day. Whom then do they say is He Who hath come down out of Heaven? for the body hath been born of a woman.
B. The Word that is begotten from forth God the Father, for I suppose that they will not please to think anything else than this. |311
A. Right my friend, and the all-wise John too hath somewhere written, He that cometh from above is above all. Then how, when it pleaseth the Father that all which is given Him should rise, and the thing is good and moreover God-befitting (for to save is like God), does He say that He came down not to do His own will but that of the Father? will then any man among us suppose that the Son Who is born of Him comes behind the Clemency of God the Father and is in no wise good, but that raising up that which is given and ridding it of decay is a thing uncongenial to Him?
B. There is risk of it.
A. Yet we should with reason deem that since He is the genuine Offspring of a Good Father, He will be conceived of as Himself also Good, or Goodness itself. For from the fruit the tree is known 70, according to His own voice, and He will be True, saying He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, I and the Father are One.
B. You say well: clear up then yourself what seems to have been obscurely said.
A. We say that annulling death and driving away decay from men's bodies was a thing not unwilled by the Son, for He delighteth not in the destruction of the living, and the generations of the world were healthful, as it is written, but by envy of the devil death entered into the world. But in no other way was it possible to shake off the cheerless mastery of death save by only the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten. Therefore hath He appeared as we and He made His own a body subject to decay according to the inherent plan of its nature, in order that since Himself is Life (for He hath been begotten of the Father Which is Life) He might implant therein His Proper Good, life. And when He had once chosen out of His Clemency and Loving-kindness to undergo likeness with us, needs must the Passion too befall Him, when the impiety of the Jews was raging against Him. But the disrepute in His Passion |312 was burdensome to Him. And in truth when the time was coming on, wherein He had to endure the cross for the life of all, in order that He might shew that the Passion was not willed 71, He made His approach as beseems man and in form of prayer, saying, Father if it be possible let this cup pass from Me, yet not as I will but as Thou. He says that He came down out of Heaven, to make that which was grievous, not unwilled, in order that He might achieve resurrection for then on the earth, which He Alone hath new-wrought for the race of man. For He has been made First-born from forth the dead according to the flesh and first-fruits of them that are fallen asleep.
B. His therefore and not another's will be said to be the Passion in that He hath appeared as man, even though He hath remained Impassible as He is conceived of as God.
A. Thus I say: call to mind the God-inspired Scripture which says, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a quickening spirit.
B. Do we then say that the Word from forth God, has been called the last Adam?
A. Not bare (as I said), but made in likeness with us. We say therefore that He is, if to quicken be no work of man but God-befitting. He has too the name of the last Adam, as made out of Adam according to the flesh and a second beginning of those on earth, the nature of man being transelemented in Him unto newness of life, life in holiness and incorruption through the resurrection from the dead: for thus was death done to nought, in that the Life by Nature endureth not to submit its own body to decay, because it was not possible that Christ should be holden of it, according to the voice of the most wise Paul 72, and thus passed through unto us too the good from this achievement. |313
B. You say well.
A. Look now at this besides.
B. What do you mean?
A. Christ said somewhere to the holy Apostles, Go disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We have therefore been baptized into the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, Father Son and Holy Ghost. Is it not true what I say?
B. How should it not?
A. Do we not conceive of Him Who hath begotten as Father, the Only-Begotten God the Word again begotten from forth Him as Son?
B. Surely.
A. How then have we been baptized into His Death as blessed Paul saith? for as many (he says) of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death. Yet One Lord, one faith, one baptism: and we will not say that we have been baptized into Him that is forth of the seed of David as into another and several son: but since being by Nature God He is conceived of as beyond suffering, and was pleased to suffer in order that He might save those who are subject to decay, He was made like in all things unto them who are on earth and underwent birth after the flesh from forth a woman and made (as I said) His own a body capable of tasting death and living again, in order that Himself abiding Impassible, He might be said to suffer in His own flesh. For He it is Who hath saved that which was lost. And verily He said in plain terms, I am the Good Shepherd, the Good Shepherd layeth down His Life for His sheep, and again, No one taketh My life from Me but I lay it down of Myself, I have authority to lay it down and have authority to take it again. But it belongs not to one of us nor to a common man to have authority to lay down his life and to receive it back, but the Only-Begotten and truly Son hath laid it down, and He took it back, placing us outside of death's meshes.
And one may very easily see this outlined in the Mosaic books too in shadow unto them of old: for the sacrifice of |314 the sheep rescued from death and decay them of Israel and abashed the destroyer, but it was a type of Christ, for Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, in order that He might undo the cheerless mastery of death and might by His own Blood win all under heaven: for we were bought with a Price and arc not our own, for One died for all, He He Whose worth surpasses all, in order that they which live no longer live to themselves but to Him Who died for them and rose; Paul too will aid saying, For I through the Law died to the Law in order to live to God, I have been co-crucified with Christ: no longer live I, hut Christ liveth in me: and what I now live in the flesh I live in faith of the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me. Christ's therefore are we all and through Him have we been reconciled to the Father, Christ having suffered in the flesh for us, in order that He might manifest us cleansed. For it has been written, Wherefore Jesus too, in order that He might cleanse the people through His own blood suffered outside the gate, and again, And you who once were estranged and enemies in your understanding by wicked wories, He hath now reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and spotless before Him. Understand therefore how He says that it was His Proper Blood and His Proper Flesh which was given for us, in order that we should not say that it belonged to a son other than He, conceived of individually and honoured with a bare connection and having an adventitious glory and non-essential excellence and, as a cloak and sort of mask thrown over him, the name of sonship and of the Godhead that is over all things. For if he is by nature in such case as the opponents like to think, in no wise will it befit him to have to say, I am the truth: for how is that true which is not as it is said to be, but is something bastard and falsely-called? But verily CHRIST is truth and over all as God: for the Word hath remained what it was even though it have been made flesh, in order that He Which is over all and hath been made among all by reason of the human nature may have |315 preserved to Him the being above every thing and beyond the measures of the creation.
B. But (he says) the being said to suffer will impress on God the Word much ill-repute and will besides perchance bring accusation upon our august mystery.
A. Yet despising the shame He chose to suffer in the flesh for our sakes according to the Scriptures: and I would account it a frailty of Jewish mind and a dread charge of Gentile infatuation, to think it right to be ashamed of the suffering on the cross. The Divine Paul writes, Seeing that both Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek for wisdom, but WE preach Christ 73 Crucified, to the Jews an offence, to the Gentiles foolishness, but to them which are called, Jews and Greeks, Christ God's Power and God's wisdom, because the folly of God, is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
B. How? for I do not at all understand.
A. Does he not say that the Suffering on the cross was an offence to the Jews, foolishness to the Greeks? for the one said, when they saw Him hanging from the wood, wagging their blood-thirsty heads at Him, If Thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross and we will believe Thee (for they supposed that worsted by their might He was taken and suffered, for they were in error, supposing that He was not truly Son of God but looking to the flesh alone): and the Greeks able in no wise to understand the depth of the Mystery deem it folly that it should be said by us, that Christ died for the life of the world. Yet is this very thing that seemeth to he folly, wiser than men. For deep is the word and verily replete with the highest wisdom, that I mean in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, and that which is thought to be weakness by the people of the Jews, is stronger than men. For the Only-Begotten Word of God hath saved us, putting on likeness to us in order that having suffered in the flesh and risen from the dead He might set forth our nature superior to death and decay. And that which has been achieved is beyond the reach of |316 our estate. Hence stronger than men is that which seemeth to have been wrought in infirmity as ours and as it were in suffering, and it affords proof of God-befitting power.
B. Then how will the Same (they say) suffer and not suffer 74?
A. By suffering in His own flesh and not in the Nature of Godhead. And wholly ineffable is the plan of these things and no mind can attain ideas so subtil and exalted: yet following reasonings which tend to right belief and viewing the plan of what is fit, we neither alienate Him from being said to suffer, lest we first say that the Birth too after the flesh is not His but another's, nor do we define that the things pertaining to the flesh have been wrought upon His Divine and Supremest Nature: but He will be conceived of (as I said) as suffering in His own flesh, albeit not suffering in His Godhead after some such mode as this. And every force of illustration is feeble and comes behind the truth, yet it sends into the mind a subtil imagination of the reality and as it were from what is before it, brings it up unto the height which is beyond the reach of words. For 75 as iron or other such matter in contact with the onset of fire gives it admission and travails with the flame: and if now it chance to be struck by ought, the matter [struck] admits of injury, but the nature of the fire is in nought damaged by that which strikes; thus will you conceive in regard of the Son being said to suffer in the flesh, not to suffer in His Godhead. And petty (as I said) is the force of the illustration, but it bears nigh to the truth them who choose not to disbelieve the holy Scriptures.
B. You say well.
A. For if the flesh ineffably and above mind and reason united to Him were not made absolutely the Word's own, how will it be conceived of as life-giving? For I am (He says) the Living Bread Which came down from Heaven and giveth life to the world, if any one eat of this bread he shall |317 live for ever, and the bread which I shall give is My flesh for the life of the world. But if so be the flesh, belong to a son other than He, appropriated to Him by a non-essential connection, and called by favour to equality of honour, how doth He name it His own, though He cannot lie? and how will another person's flesh too quicken the world, if it have not been made the own flesh of Life, i. e. of the Word which is forth of God the Father, of Whom the Divine John says, And we know that the Son of God is come and He gave us understanding in order that we might know Him and we are in His Very Son 76 Jesus Christ: this is the true God and Everlasting Life?
B. But I suppose that they would say to this, that it had been clearly said by Him, Verily verily I say to you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in you. WE therefore understand (they say) that the honoured body and blood are not those of God the Word but of the son of man which has been connected with Him.
A. Then wherever will they put the mighty Mystery of piety? for destroyed is the emptying of God the Word, Who was in the Form and Equality of the Father and chose for our sakes to take bondman's form and be made in likeness of us, and to partake blood and flesh, and to make the economy of the Incarnation His largess to all under Heaven. For through it have been saved, the Father summing up all things in Him 77, both the things in Heaven and the things on earth, as it is written. If therefore they say that not He is the Only-Begotten, Who says in God-befitting way and human wise alike, And the bread which I will give is My flesh for the life of the world, but that some son of man other than He conceived of apart by himself hath saved us, it is not the Lord Himself, as it is written, but one from among ourselves: and the things which are subject to decay are quickened henceforth, not through God Who is mighty to quicken, but by one of them who are |318 subject to decay, who received along with us life of favour: but if it is true that the Word has been made flesh according to the Scriptures and appeared on earth and conversed with men, having bondman's form as His own, He will be called also son of man; and if some feel ashamed at this, they will be caught placing themselves under charge of unlearning. For in no other way was it possible that flesh should become life-giving, albeit of its own nature subjected to the need of decaying, except it have become the Proper flesh of the Word Which quickeneth all things; for thus it inworks what is His, replete with His Life-giving Power. And no marvel. For if it is true that fire having intercourse with matter, renders it warm, though not warm of its own nature (for it puts into it full richly the operation of its inherent power): how does not rather the Word being God put His own Life-giving Power and Operation into His Proper flesh, united to it and making it His own, without confusion, without turning and in mode as Himself knoweth?
B. It is therefore necessary to confess that it hath entirely become (none other intervening) the Proper Body of the Word that is forth of the Father, though ensouled with reasonable soul.
A. Most certainly, if we define aright the unerring word of the faith and are lovers of the doctrines of the truth and track the faith of the holy Fathers, not borne aside from the right way nor letting go the King's path-way, carried off by the vain-speakings of some unto a debased mind, but rather built up on the very Foundation, i. e. Christ: for other foundation can no man lay than is laid, as the in truth wise master-builder and Priest of His Mysteries has written.
We believe therefore that One is the Son of God the Father and conceived of in One Person, our LORD JESUS CHRIST, begotten forth of God the Father Divinely as Word before every age and time: in the last times of the age the Same made according to the flesh from forth a woman: |319 and to Him we allot both the God-befitting and the human, and His we say was the birth after the flesh and the suffering upon the cross, for that He made His own the whole that belonged to His Proper flesh 78, yet hath remained Impassible in the Nature of the Godhead. For thus to Him boweth every knee and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord unto the glory of God the Father, Amen.
[Running headers from the pages]
The Bible our Food. Heathen errors. 237
238 Errors of heretics worse. Arians, and
they who blame Incarnation and miscall B. Virgin. 239
240 The Virgin's Son God made man.
Was made, said of God, means not change. 241
242 God born man to enrich man.
Made flesh, man: sin and curse to undo them. 243
244 His the Body, His too all that is its.
Made flesh = born: else all is lost. 245
246 Like to His brethren "begins with Birth.
Word made flesh gives us all, our One Hope. 247
248 Body quickens not except it be Life's own.
Incarnation, what. The Virgin-Birth. 249
250 Conceived of the HOLY GHOST that we might be
born of the Spirit. Made like = GOD Incarnate. 251
252 Mary mother of GOD. Christ a title. He took soul too.
The Son Incarnate has distinct Names, before, common. 253
254 God the Son, Perfect Man anointed imparts.
Fantasy that the Son took a man. 255
256 God, Holy, Lord, Life, man, hallowed, worships, quickened.
If God not made man, it is man who co-sitteth. 257
258 We worship Jesus, a man if God be not made man.
ἀναφορὰ not union. 259
260 Union unites, connection does not.
Modes of connection. Taking bondman's form is True Union. 261
262 The FREE made as we, made us as He:
One: though Godhead he one thing, manhood another. 263
264 ONE in mode wholly passing understanding:
Man, i. e. God Incarnate, yet no mixture. 265
266 nor consumption of the manhood. Bush type of this.
Fallacy that son of David was assumed. 267
268 The gained can be lost, the Free alone give adoption:
He God of God and David's Son. 269
270 David's Son God Incarnate:
else a man over all, God blessed for ever, 271
272 and a man the Form of God. The emptying, what.
Δόξα προκόσμιος. One Lord Jesus Christ. 273
274 One, God made man, anointed, seen, come in
flesh, saved His own people, God in our likeness. 275
276 If Christ not GOD, a redeemed redeemer,
a yes and no, a filled full, not emptied, two not one. 277
278 Jesus Christ before time. Yesterday to-day and for
ever. Thus Himself says. The WORD GOD and man. 279
280 The B. Baptist, S. Peter, Apostles preach Christ GOD,
S. Paul too. A man has not angels of his own. 281
282 If indwelling makes man, Father and Spirit are men.
The Son Prophet Apostle Priest when emptied. 283
284 No dishonour to the Son in confessing these titles.
Holy Scripture our Rule. Sanctifier and Sanctified. 285
286 Difficulties: sanctifies and sanctified, Giver and receives,
set King, wept, feared, learned obedience. 287
288 Supplication and weeping to teach us.
Intensest prayers, manly striving. 289
290 Strange misapprehension of those who sever.
The Forsaking makes us unforsaken. 291
292 Christ calls back on us the Pity of the Father.
To God the Son belong both Divine and human. 293
294 Christ God the Son Incarnate yet still
God. Increased in stature and wisdom and grace. 295
296 The Incarnate Son makes His even the daily growth;
He redeemed us, His the flesh and blood. 297
298 If God the Son Incarnate suffered not,
we are redeemed by the blood of a man. 299
300 Heb. ii. 9-17 explained. His own Son.
The Word lived, overcame death in the death of His Body. 301
302 Salvation from the Jews. Blood not common.
The Son suffers and does not suffer. 303
304 His Suffering and Resurrection.
God the WORD abased weak as to the flesh. 305
306 Equal honour means Two: which of them is enthroned?
The Father gave His Son, some deny it. Impassible. 307
308 The Word emptied Himself, receives, made man,
the Name, lost not His Eternal glory. 309
310 The Incarnate SON out of Heaven, and worshipped.
The Passion willed and nilled. 311
312 His the Passion, He willed it all. The last Adam.
Impassible He suffered, into His Death we baptized. 313
314 Christ's own Blood and flesh given, won, reconciled all.
The shame of the Cross folly wiser than men. 315
316 He suffered unsuffering; His flesh life-giving,
because Life's own flesh: not man quickens us. 317
318 The proper flesh of Him Who quickens all things.
The Birth, Suffering and all, belong to the Impassible Son. 319
[A selection of the footnotes. All the marginal notes, which were either biblical references or words in Greek, have been omitted. Note that OT = Oxford Translation].
1. a The two texts quoted here were used against the Arians by S. Athanasius, to vindicate the use of the same word, ἐγένετο, γενόμενος (in κρείττων γενόμενος, Heb. i. 4), against their misinterpretations of it (against Arians, i fin. pp. 268 sqq. O.T.), as S. Cyril used them here against Nestorian quibbles.
2. b ἥ φυρμὸν ἥ κρᾶσιν. φυρμὸς implies the commingling of a dry substance with a moist, as in kneading: κρᾶσις the blending of two liquids together so as to form a compound. S. Cyril observes (ag. Nest. i. §3 above pp. 16, 17) that some of the older Fathers had used the word κρᾶσις (see Tertullian's use of it Apol. i. 21 and the passages of the other Fathers put together in p. 48 note h O.T.). S. Cyril himself in his writings on the Incarnation denies it in the sense which Apollinaris' error was importing into the word: he uses the expression of mixing to express the intensity of the union of God the Son with us, below p. 250 note i.
3. c Although (as said above p. 24 note q) Andrew's chief objection to S. Cyril's flrst chapter lay in misunderstanding S. Cyril's term, "She hath borne after the flesh," applied to the second Generation, viz. the temporal one, of God the Son, still he very briefly touches on, what was Theodoret's main objection, the risk of Apolinarianism. Andrew closes his objection with these words, "Besides, if we apply ourselves to the words without examination, we shall be imagining both a change of the Word and a passing into flesh, and thus we shall suppose that He has been made both sin and curse, except we give heed to what precedes and follows and to the usage of the Scripture. Moreover that the Word was made flesh, we shall duly take of the tabernacling in flesh, according to the sense of the Gospels."
S. Cyril replies, "Seeing that, on the Evangelist saying, The Word was made flesh, they say that they are afraid lest, the word was made retaining its proper meaning, some change be conceived of as taking place regarding the Divine Nature of the Word; I applaud their fear, but marvel that drawing aside the word and its true and necessary meaning, they say that the Word was so made flesh, as He may be said to be made curse and sin. How ought they not, being men of sense, to have seen, that the blessed Evangelist having put, Was made, removes all suspicion of any change, by subjoining immediately, And tabernacled in us?
"In another way too it is absurd to venture to say, that the Word was so made flesh, as He is said to have been made curse and sin (for He has not been made curse's very self, nor yet sin), but being Righteous He was reckoned among the transgressors, in order to bring sin to nought: and He Who blesseth the creation has been called a curse, in order to undo our curse and rid from sentence them that believe on Him. Hence He has not been made of a truth curse and sin but has been called so, to bring to nought curse and sin.
"Hence if He have thus been made flesh, He hath brought to nought the flesh, just as He hath curse and sin, and hath neither been made man nor been in truth incarnate: but in mere semblance is the mystery and in bare names is the plan of the Incarnation seen." p. 159 c d and 161 d e 162 a.
4. d See S. Athanasius against the Arians iii. § 30-35 pp. 442-450 O.T.
5. e Elsewhere S. Cyril says, "For Christ was made for us sin, as it is written. And surely not guilty of sin (for we are not wont so to wander in mind) seeing that He had no knowledge of transgression, being God by Nature and beaming forth of God the Father. But because He has been made a sacrifice for sin (for Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us), therefore do we say that He was made sin also." Glaph. 349 c. And in commenting upon Hosea iv. 8, They eat the sin of My people, S. Cyril says, "A kid therefore of the goats was wont to be sacrificed for sin, wherefore the sacrifice itself was also called sin." in xii Proph. 71 b. But the two explanations of being made sin may be but two aspects of what the Holy Ghost tells us in tnese words.
S. Athanasius says, "For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the Power of God: and He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself but because He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so &c." Agst Arians. ii. 55 fin. p. 359 O.T. Similarly S. Cyril, " As therefore He is said to have been infirm though not infirm (for He is the Power of God), because He bare our infirmities, and the Divine Scripture says that He has been made a curse, not meaning that He has been actually transmade into a curse, but that He bare the curse for us, and again He is said to have been made sin, not as forgetful of His own Nature nor passing into sin Who knew it not, but because He took on Him our sins, as it is written, in His body on the Tree, so" &c. Thes. cap. 15 p. 162 e, see also cap. 32 p. 276 e.
6. g "For that which is honoured by a relation (σχέσει) which does not belong to it by nature, admits full surely into itself a glory which is foreign to it. And since a thing will never partake of itself but will undergo this from relation with another, there is all need to say that that which partakes is of other nature than that which is partaken of." Dial. 7. p. 643 d: see too above p. 16, below p. 254 note m.
7. h See above p. 101 and in Scholia, § 36 above pp. 226, 227 and note n.; see also more at length in S. Cyril's Ecumenical Epistle to John Archbishop of Antioch, translated in 3 Epistles of S. Cyril (Parker 1872) pp. 72, 73.
8. i "He gives to the nature of man what is His, permitting it to call God Father: Himself taketh the properties of the human nature calling the Father His God. Yet neither do WE deny our bondage that is by nature when we call God Father nor will the SON lose His Natural Dignity by likening Himself to us for our good." Thes. cap. 15 p 160 e. "Commixing therefore in a way and commingling us in Himself and Himself again in us, Himself descends into what is ours, catches us up into what is His.
Thus, we are men by nature, He hastening down for His love's sake into what is beside Nature was made man: God's bondmen by nature we as things made, He too is called bondman, borne unto whatis beside Nature when He was made man. Yea and on the other hand, He GOD by Essence, we too gods mounting up unto what is beside nature for grace's sake (for we are men): He SON by Nature, we too sons by adoption called unto brotherhood with Him." Thes cap. 32 p. 330 fin.
9. k "We say therefore that the whole Word which is out of God has been co-united to the whole manhood of ours: for He would not have deemed of no account, that which is best in us, i. e. the soul, bestowing on the flesh alone the Toils of His Coming." de recta fide to the Emperor Theodosius p. 18 d and (as a Dialogue) with slight modifications in the Ad Herm. Book 7, 692 b. Similarly Theodoret in his great letter to the monks of Constantinople, after saying, " the Only-Begotten Son of God taking both body and soul...." adds, "For if the body only of Adam sinned, it would have needed that this alone should reap the cure; but since the soul not only sinned with it but also before it (for thought first limns the sin, then works it through the body), it were right, I suppose, that it too obtain healing" (Ep. 145 p. 1250 init.). See also S. Irenaeus, "Thus the Lord having redeemed us with His own Blood and given His Soul for our souls and His own Flesh for our flesh" (Book v. 1. 1. p. 450 O.T.).
10. m παρὰ τοὺς μετέχοντας αὐτοῦ. S. Cyril had in earlier life said, "Blessed David sings and says to the SON, Therefore God Thy God anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above them that are participant of Thee (παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου). If therefore that which partakes is other than that which is partaken (for one must be conceived of in other), and the creature partakes of the SON, He will be other than the creature which partakes of Him: hence neither is He generate. But if the Son be not other than the creature, be not severed from it by Nature, what need of participation? or how can any partake of what itself is?" Thes. cap. 1 fin. p. 14.
11. o Theodoret in his Letter to the Monks of Constantinople (the same that is quoted ahove p. 252 note k and p. 33 note b) written in the later years of his life after the Eutychian troubles had commenced and so after A. D. 448 uses words very similar: If, as they accuse me, I proclaim two sons, which do I praise, which leave unworshipped? (Ep. 145, p. 1247): see also p. 1310 fin.
12. p The two MSS D and F of S. Paul's Epistles with some few others add this gloss, the Scripture, of which Origen too and Theodoret are quoted as preserving a trace. There seems little doubt that S. Cyril had it in this treatise as the Syriac translation of the treatise also gives it. Dr. Tischendorf cites S. Cyril as reading the word in-his commentary on Isaiah p. 839 init.: S. Cyril quotes this passage twice in his treatise de Recta fide to Arcadia and Marina, pp. 104 c, 118 e, as far as we know, without the gloss.
13. t Each of these three instances is put forward also in the Scholia § 37, above pp. 234, 235: compare also the famous Pasch. hom. 16 for A.D. 429 (the same as is cited by the Eastern Bishops against S. Cyril's Chapters as tome 1) pp. 231, 232.
14. u see above, p. 79 note d.
15. y see above, p. 41 note c.
16. z συνεισφορᾷ, as the contribution in which He ordered that S. Peter's share ' should be paid along with His own. This is a very favourite passage of S. Cyril, he has commented on it in his commentary on S. John iv. 22, p. 189 c (p. 217 O.T.) xiv. 11 p.791 a b; in his treatise on the right faith to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina p. 82 c d: on Isaiah p. 661 e, in his twelfth paschal homily p. 181 e, in Hom. 88 on S. Luke and at the close of a fragment of a Homily That Christ is One (published at the end of commentaries on S. John iii. p. 458): see too Glaph. 328 a b.
17. a but emptied Himself, Phil. ii. 7.
18. b τροπῆς: comp. S. James i. 17.
19. c Compare Schol. § 27, above p. 214: also fragment 8 of Homilies (sub calce Comm. in S. Joan. iii. 464), Resp. 7 to Tiberius and his fellows (ubi supra, iii. 589) and elsewhere.
20. d So Expl. cap. 3 p. 149 e, cap. 4 p. 150 e, def. cap. 8 adv. Epp. orient. 179 b, schol. § 16 fin., § 36, above pp. 206, 230: also pp. 167, 168.
21. e The fear felt by the Easterns that One Nature Incarnate must necessarily involve the [Apollinarian] mixture, being stated in full here and also by Succensus in his hypomnesticon, S. Cyril replies carefully both here and in his second letter to Succensus, see further on. In his first Letter to Succensus, he says, " There is therefore One Son, One Lord Jesus Christ, both before the Incarnation and after the Incarnation: for not One Son was the Word out of God the Father, another again he who is forth of the holy Virgin, but Himself Who was before the ages is believed to have been born according to the flesh too of a woman, not as though His Godhead took a beginning of being, or was called unto beginning of existence through the holy Virgin; but rather that (as I said) being Word before the ages He is said to have been born of her because of the flesh (διὰ τὴν σάρκα as the better MSS). For His is His flesh, just as of each one of us his body is his own. But since some wreath around us Apolinarius' opinions and say, If ye say that the Word out of God the Father is One Son by an union exact and mingled (καθ' ἕνωσιν ἀκριβῆ καὶ συγκεκραμένην) haply ye are pleased to fancy and say that a confusion or commixture or commingling of the Word with His body has had place or a change of the body into the Nature of Godhead: therefore we repelling very earnestly the accusal say that the Word out of God the Father incomprehensibly and unutterably united to Himself a body ensouled with reasonable soul and proceeded man of a woman, made as we not by change of nature but rather by Economic Good-Pleasure (for He desired to be made man, not losing the being God by Nature): yet even though He came down in our condition and bare the bondman's form, even thus He hath remained in the Excellencies of the Godhead and in Natural Lordship." Epp. 136 c d e 137 a. And in his second Letter to the same Succensus, putting down first the objection which Succensus had sent him,,, If there is one Incarnate Nature of the Word, needs must one say that there is commingling and commixture, the human nature minished as it were and being lost (ὑποκλεπτομένης) in Him:,, S. Cyril replies, "They who pervert right things know not that there is in truth One Incarnate Nature of the Word. For if He Who is by Nature and truly, He Who was ineffably Begotten, be One Son, and then by assumption of flesh, not without soul but ensouled with reasonable soul, proceeded man of a woman, He will not therefore be severed into two persons and sons, but hath remained One yet not without flesh nor without body, but having the body as His own by Union which may not be plucked asunder. And he who says this, full surely he indicates no commingling, no confusion nor ought of the kind, nor will this as of necessity ensue, whence should it? For even though the Only-Begotten &c" as above p. 41, note e. Epp. 142 e 143 a.
22. g " For as the fire was made endurable to the bush, so to our nature too the Excellency of the Godhead." Pasch. hom. 16 p. 231 c.
23. h See the fragments of S. Cyril's two Books against Theodore of Mopsuestia, to be given below.
24. i Compare the fragments of Theodore as cited before the fifth general council, at the end of this volume.
25. k The syriac translation of this treatise has also the words in spirit here.
26. l See above p. 165 note j.
27. m The codices A.B.C. of the New Testament insert the article, the Name. Among the different quotations of this text by S. Cyril there is variation of MSS., but the article frequently occurs: and in the Thesaurus the very good xth century Ms. Cod. Monac. 331 has it.
28. n See this passage carefully explained in S. Cyril's Treatise to the Empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia on the right Faith, cap. 13 pp. 141 e 142.
29. ° "He was God forth of God, Only out of Only, and Ineffably Begotten: but when He was made as we, then then will He at last be classed with His brethren through being called First-born. For where is the emptying, except in His being made First-born out of Only-Begotten, and among creatures with us as man Who is above all creation? where at all became He poor being Rich, except He is seen assuming what is alien to Him, through which also He became poor?" Dial. 4 p. 510 c d. Against the Arians who argued from the name above every name that the Son was exalted in consequence of His humiliation S. Cyril writes, " Therefore (for I will say something) deeming for the moment below what is fitting for need sake: let the Only-Begotten have the greatest thank to the falls of those on the earth and to our sins, let Him know that the sins of human nature are to Him the cause of God-making glory. For had we not sinned He had not been made as we, had He not been made as we, neither had He endured the cross, and had He not died neither had He obtained the obligation of being worshipped by ourselves and the holy angels." Dial. 5 p. 567 fin. See also above p. 57 note y.
30. p See above p. 252 and Scholia § 1 above p. 185, What is Christ. In both passages are mentioned those who were called christs from having been anointed: we have translated, anointed, reserving the Greek word Christ, for the Name of our Master.
31. q γινώσκεται, is known, instead of γινώσκετε, ye know. The interchange of the vowel's e and ai, having the same sound, is so common, that it does not in general amount to a difference of reading. In the treatise de recta fide to the Emperor Theodosius, both MSS. give γινώσκετε, while in S. Cyril's second publication of it as the seventh of these Dialogues γινώσκεται remains. In S. Cyril's Treatise de recta fide (p. 94 c) to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, γινώσκεται is read, and in this place not only does the one MS. which has preserved us the treatise give γινώσκεται but also it was so translated in the Syriac version of this treatise, the British Museum MS. Add. 17149 fol. 58 init. written in the sixth century, i. e. in the century immediately following S. Cyril.
32. s ἕτερος μεθ' ἑτέρου is untrue because God and Man is One Christ; the things we are taught regarding the One Christ (see Scholia§36, above p. 228), His being born and calling into being, His growth in wisdom and being the Giver of Wisdom, His hallowing and being hallowed, baptizing and being baptized, quickening and being quickened belong not ἑτέρῳ καὶ ἑτέρῳ, not to one person and another, but to Christ, κατ' ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, in one way and another, the one to Him as God, the other to Him as man, yet all to One.
33. t Compare the fragments cited before the fifth council from S. Cyril's first book against Theodore of Mopsuestia.
34. v ἀπλανῶς. Euthymius Zigabenus in his extract from this treatise has ἁπλῶς, simply, which is a far more usual expression with S. Cyril: ἀπλανῆ however occurs in de recta fide to the Emperor, p. 26 c.
35. x S. Cyril uses the same argument in his Treatise de recta fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, p. 82 b. comp. too Schol. § 20, above p. 209.
36. y See Schol. § 36, and the Treatise de Recta fide to the Emperor Theodosius, p.28e.
37. z "Lo again He says that the spirits above are His angels, albeit He is called son of man." de recta fide to the Princesses, p. 82 c. "We believe that He is both Very God and hath been made son of man economically for our sakes while remaining God, and is One Lord Jesus Christ." de Recta fide to the Empresses, fin. p. 180 b.
38. a The words, For He says----of His Father, are added from the Syriac translation of this treatise. They may have been omitted by the one Greek MS. which has preserved as this treatise and by Euthymius, from the eye of the copyist wandering from one, in the glory of His Father, to the other.
39. b I have followed in this the Syriac translation, it being very much S. Cyril's habit to cite first one verse, and then a verse or two a little preceding it; the Greek MS. here adds, but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe My works. But it looks like only an attempt to make the citation seem neater.
40. c See Theodoret's objection to chapter 9, where he quotes the same text, in S. Cyril's Def. xii. capp. p. 227 d.
41. d Severus of Antioch, who lived about 70 years after S. Cyril's death, quoting from S. Cyril's books against Diodore and Theodore, gives this passage (S. Cyril cites Theodorus Archbishop of Mopsuestia),,,But, says he, for as, although He was of Bethlehem, He was called a Nazarene on account of His living and His bringing up there; so too a man because He dwelt in man:,, and S. Cyril replies to these things thus, "Madness therefore and childishness and worthy of old women is the word: for not as from a city one is called a citizen or of the place, so on account of indwelling a man is the Word Who is God called man."
42. e See below fragment 5 against Diodore.
43. f See below fragments 14 and 18, against Diodore.
44. g ὁριστὰς καὶ καινοτόμους. The ὁρισταὶ are officials appointed to settle questions of boundary between public and private lands (Liddell and Scott): καινοτόμοι would of course involve that the former boundary would be altered,
45. k So too had S. Cyril written in his Dialogues to Hermias, " If one write of Him, Who in the days of His flesh offered supplications and entreaties to Him That can save Him from death &c, descend a little and take account of the measure of the human nature. For the Impress of the Father would not have died; but since the supplication has been made in the days of His flesh, the fear will be that of the flesh and the dread of death of the human nature in itself (ἰδικῶς). Hence even though He be said to receive the Name which is above every Name, do not drive away the SON from the bounds of Godhead in that He is Word and hath beamed forth from God the Father; for He was by Nature and truly God even before the times of the emptying." Dial. 5 p. 571 e.
46. l Here the manuscript has you: I have translated us with Euthymius and the Syriac translation.
47. n See the magnificent passage in S. Cyril's Defence against Theodoret's objection to his tenth chapter (quoted also by Dr. Bright in his article on S. Cyril in the Dictionary of Christian Biography): "He wept as man that He might stay thy tear, He feared, economically committing to His flesh to suffer what belonged to it, that He might make us of fairest courage, He refused the Cup that the Cross might reveal the impiety of the Jews, He is said to be weak in His human nature that He might end thy weakness, He prolonged prayers and supplications in order that He might render the Father's Ear open to thy prayers, in order that thou mightest learn not to slumber in temptations but rather to be all-intense unto prayers (Def. xii capp. adv. Theod. p. 234 a b)." And in his earlier work, the Thesaurus, " By His own death the Saviour annulled death. As then death had not been annulled, except He had died, so in regard to each passion of the flesh. For except He had feared, our nature had not become free from fearing; except He had sorrowed, it had never been rid of sorrowing: except He had been troubled and dismayed, it would never have been in case external to these. And in each several thing that befals humanly, applying the same reasoning, you will find that the passions of the flesh had motions in Christ, not in order that they should prevail as in us, but in order that when moved, they should be annulled by the might of the Word which indwelt the flesh, the nature being transformed to the better." Thes. cap. 24. p. 233 d e. " Seest thou that what thou deemest to be Christ's weaknesses is thy might?... Those tears wash us, that weeping cleanses us." S. Ambrose de fide, ii. 95. t. ii. 489.
48. q τὴν ἐγκατάλειψιν, the withdrawal of the Spirit from our race, as God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man. Although the Holy Ghost was still given to individuals as God willed, yet the "forsaking" was undone in the great Pentecostal outpour. S.Cyril elsewhere says, "As one therefore of the forsaken, in that He too like us partook of blood and flesh, He says, Why forsookest Thou Me? which was [the utterance] of one who was undoing the forsaking that had come upon us and as it were winning the Father to Himself and calling Him to good favour to us as to Himself first." De recta fide to the Empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia § 12 fin. p. 141 a.
49. r "Wherefore of necessity when He was in a body suffering and weeping and toiling, these things which are proper to the flesh are ascribed to Him together with the body. If then He wept and was troubled, it was not the Word considered as the Word (ἧ Λόγος) Who wept and was troubled but it was proper to the flesh; and if too He besought that the cup might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was in terror but this affection too was proper to the manhood. And that the words, Why hast Thou forsaken Me, are His according to the foregoing explanations, though He suffered nothing (for the Word was impassible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh and free it from them. Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father Who is ever in the Father, both before He spoke and when He uttered these words..... For behold when He says, Why hast Thou forsaken Me, the Father shewed that He was ever and even then in Him; for the earth knowing its Lord Who spoke, straightway trembled and the veil was rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks were torn asunder, and the graves, as I have said, did gape and the dead in them arose." S. Athan. against Arians iii. 56 pp. 478,479 O.T. "When then He is said to hunger and weep and weary, and to cry Eloi, Eloi, which are our human affections, He receives them from us and offers to the Father, interceding for us that in Him they may be annulled." S. Ath. against Arians, iv. 6 p. 520 O.T. See too note q.
50. s "We know, brethren, that One and the Same is He Who through the holy Virgin, Mary Mother of God, was born, Perfect God and Perfect Man, ensouled, rational. Therefore do we both say that the holy Virgin is Mother of God and that God the Word indwelt her, not in semblance but in operation; the Same when two-months old and three-months old, [do we confess] Son of God alike and Son of man. Yea and the words both of the human nature and those uttered in God-befitting authority which theDivine Scriptures recount to us of Him, we say are gathered into One Person. For we know that the Same is He Who sleeps on the pillow, the Same He Who with authority rebukes the sea and the winds: the Same Who was wearied with the journey, the Same Who walked on the sea as on solid ground by His own Power; the Same therefore God, the Same man undoubtedly." From a short sermon printed after the Scholia, t. v. i. pp. 801, 802 Aub. See too from S. Gregory Nyssa, " Human poverty doth not feed the thousands nor doth Almighty power run to the fig tree," in Dr. Newman's translation of S. Athanasius against Arians, p. 479 O.T. note b.
51. t See above pp. 8, 142, 194, 249, 251, 261, and 3 Ecumenical Epistles, pp. 57, 64 and note d.
52. v "Lo clearly and evidently the illumining of the knowledge of God the Father shone forth in the Face [or Person] of Christ. Wherefore He also said, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, I and the Father are One." De recta fide to the Emperor Theodosius 30 a, and (in its later form) Dial. ad Herm. Book 7, p. 702 d.
53. x "Christ is no single term, but in that name which is one, is the signification of both, of Godhead and of manhood. Wherefore Christ is called man and Christ is called God and Christ is both God and man and Christ is One." S.Athanasius against Apollinarius, i. 13, t. i. 932 f.
54. y "They who are entrusted with the priesthood minister to God alone, for priests stand not before men. See therefore the Divine Paul says that grace has been given him of God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus, and to minister among the Gentiles the Gospel of Christ. Christ therefore is God, if preaching Christ to the Gentiles, he says that he ministers to them God's Gospel, that they may be accepted as sanctified in the Spirit." De recta fide to the princesses Arcadia and Marina, p. 60 a.
55. z The syriac translation adds, "Who is the Giver of wisdom to them who are recipient of wisdom."
56. a For the carpenter's son, the Syriac Translation gives, Jesus the carpenter's son.
57. c The Syriac translation adds, Who needed not to be perfected, apparently a mere gloss of the translator, to guard the language.
58. d with seems a mistake of the manuscript for in, which the manuscript gives when quoting the passage again just below.
59. e The Codex Alexandrinus omits the words, wherein he was sanctified; S. Cyril transposes them thus, both here and in his treatise, de recta fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, p. 74 a.
60. f See Schol. § 30, above p. 228, and § 37, patiebatur impassibiliter, He suffered without suffering, above p. 232: and Theodoret's Letter to the Monks of Constantinople, "that which is passible hath suffered and the impassible (τὸ ἀπαθὲς) hath remained impassible. For God the Word was made man, not in order that He should make passible the Impassible Nature, but in order that through suffering He might bestow on the passible nature freedom from suffering;' Ep. 145 p. 1250 fin.
61. g See last note. S.Cyril in his Treatise de recta fide to the Empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia, § 26 fin., p. 103 d e, says, " Hence is Christ neither bare man nor fleshless Word; but united to our human nature, unsufferingly He will suffer (πάθοι ὰν ἀπαθῶς) what belongs to the human nature in His own flesh."
" Hence it is He Who suffered and did not suffer; in His Divine Nature Unsuffering, without change or turning, in His flesh suffering, as Peter says." S. Ath. against Apollinarius, lib. i. 11, t. i.931b. "For it was God Who was set at nought, of God's flesh and soul was the suffering and the death and the resurrection." lib. ii. 16, t. i. 953 a. See too next note and below p. 316.
62. h "For not of any other man, but His, is the Body, wherefore Himself too has been accounted (for Christ is One) mingled (κεκερασμένος) as it were out of human nature and God the Word, not from having been turned into what He was not but from assuming the Temple from forth the Virgin." Thes. cap. 20 p. 197 a. " Christ died for our sakes and for us. As therefore when His Body died Himself is said to suffer this, albeit He is immortal in His Nature, so since His Body is created, Himself is said to have been created albeit Uncreate in Essence. For the Flesh being His and not another's, He makes all His own (i0diopoiei=tai) what befalls it." Ib. cap. 15 p. 107 b. These belong to an earlier period of S. Cyril's Archiepiscopate written while he could still follow the example of earlier Fathers in the expression mingled as it were. S. Cyril says much the same in cap. 24 p. 232 d given above p. 192 note i: cap. 28 p. 252 c.
In his th Paschal homily (A.D. 420), after saying, " Hence as also our all-famous Father and Bishop Athanasius, the unswerving rule of the orthodox Faith, said in his own writings, 'Of two things unlike in nature hath a concurrence taken place, to wit of Godhead and Manhood: for Christ is one out of Both,'" S. Cyril proceeds, "And unspeakable and utterly incomprehensible was the mode of the mingling." Pasch. Hom. pp 302 fin., 103. And further on, " They worship, not parting off Him Alone That indwelt from the screen of His flesh, but One Ineffably mingled out of Both" etc. p. 104 d.
S. Cyril speaks of " as it were mingling the properties of the natures," in his Treatise de Inc. Unigeniti, p. 708 a (as above p. 144 note s), where he means that on account of the entirety of the Union, what belongs to the Godhead may be said of the manhood; e. g. he is speaking there on the words, For the bread of God is He which comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world, and says, " albeit how is it not true that the flesh hath not come down out of heaven, but was of a Virgin according to the Scriptures? And the Word is not eaten; but in countless expressions He is seen gathering both into One and mingling as it were one with another the properties of the natures;" he goes on to quote the words, He that came down from heaven (S. John iii.. 13), and, If ye shall see the son of man ascending up where He was before (ib. vi. 62), although the human nature came not down from Heaven, nor was it there before. Towards the end of the treatise (p. 712 init.), S. Cyril speaks of S. John, "all-but gathering the natures and bringing into a concurrence [μισγάγκειαν, properly, the meeting of mountain-glens, henceforth to become one glen] the force of the properties befitting each." Of the mingling to express His intimate union with us, see above p. 250 note i.
63. k contention. I have ventured to translate from the Syriac, the Edition has Union, the sense of which is less clear.
64. l The syriac translation has If, in place of Since given by the Manuscript in this place. If is also S. Cyril's reading elsewhere, and four passages of Origen are quoted for the same: there is a trace of the reading ἥ in S. Cyril (in xii Proph. 10 c, hom. 2 on Hebrews among fragments, v. 431) and ἥ and εἰ are often convertible. Just below the syriac translation gives is not weak in you but is mighty, the Greek manuscript gives as here translated.
65. m S. Cyril's chapter 7 is, "If any one say that Jesus as man has been in-wrought-in by God the Word and hath put on Him the glory of the Only-Begotten, as though Another than He, be he anathema." Both Theodoret and Andrew in their reply, quote this text, Theodoret apparently overlooking the words, as though Another than He, Andrew agreeing with the Chapter, yet fearing that the words used by the Apostles of the human nature, should haply be overlooked. The word in-wrought-in (ἐνηργῆσθαι) is the same that S. Paul uses when he says, For He that wrought effectually (ἐνεργήσας) in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the Same was mighty (ἐνήργησε) in me toward the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 8).
66. n The Syriac translation omits Throne.
67. o See above p. 165, note j.
68. p see above, in this treatise, p. 273; also above p. 161, and the exegesis of this verse against Arian objections in the short chapter 30 of the Thesaurus, pp. 258 sq. S. Cyril speaks of its being to the Glory of God the Father that His SON is consubstantial with Him, above pp. 74, 75, 139. See too de recta fide to the Empresses § 33, p. 169 d e, comment. on S. John, p. 674 O.T.
69. q In this place both the Syriac translation and the Greek ms. omit ὁ Κύριος but there is considerable variation in other places of S. Cyril: see Schol. § 4, above p. 189 and note there.
70. r See the verse explained in the same way of the SON's Generation from the FATHER, in S. Cyril's commentary on S. John, pp. 643, 644, 676 O.T.: and on xvii. 4, 5 p. 958 d, Greek.
71. s On the Passion being willed and not willed by the Incarnate Son, see above pp. 170 sqq: see especially that very famous chapter of S. Cyril's commentary on S.John, (pp.383 sqq. O.T.) which was so largely quoted in Act. 10 of the sixth General Council holden at Constantinople A. D. 680: also in S. Joan. lib. x. 1 (xiv. 30, 31) pp. 853 e 854 a b c, S. Cyril speaks of its being willed "out of reverence to the Father and love to Him."
72. t The Greek manuscript has Paul, the Syriac translation Peter.
73. u The Syriac translation reads, Jesus Christ.
74. x See above pp. 302 sqq. and notes f, g, h.
75. y See Disc. iii against Arians, § 31 fin.p. 444 O.T. note k, where this passage too is referred to.
76. z in order that we might--------Very Son. Thus both the Greek manuscript and the syriac translation here.
77. a see S. Iren. 1.10. 1; 6. 20. 2, and 21.1, pp. 33,497. O.T.
78. b To note g on page 303 maybe added another striking passage from S. Athanasius taken from his celebrated Letter to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, the same Letter which John Archbishop of Antioch and his Bishops set so much store by. With it may be compared S. Cyril's kindred expression in his Scholia § 13 fin. above p. 202, " the suffering is said to be His, because His too is that which suffered and He was in the suffering Body, He unknowing to suffer." S. Athanasius says, "And it was marvellous that He it was Who suffered and did not suffer, suffered for that His own Body suffered and He was in it while suffering, suffered not because the Word being God by Nature is Impassible. And He, the Unembodied, was in the suffering Body; the Body had within it the Impassible Word Which annulleth the weaknesses of His Body. And this He did and it happened thus, in order that Himself receiving ours and offering them in sacrifice might annul them, and clothing us now with what is His might cause the Apostle to say, This decaying must put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality. S. Ath. to Epictetus, § 6 t. i. 906."
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts