Search a Bible verse · Source library · Sources and text rights
Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded
35 complete historical source paragraphs and 44 editorial footnotes. Author and edition credits are shown for each record; original wording is retained.
English translation and editorial credits: Blomfield Jackson.
Read the original source · Text reuse terms
φυτικός, of or belonging to φυτόν, or plant; but though φυτὸν is opposed to ξῷον, it is also used of any creature, and here seems to mean no more than the soul of physical life, and nothing beyond.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-1 · Original source
Orth.—What kind of soul? The reasonable soul, or that which is by some termed the phytic, vegetable, that is, vital? for the fable-mongering quackery of the Apollinarians compels us to ask unseemly questions.
The reference seems to be a loose combination of Numbers ix. 13. with Deut. xviii. 19
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-19 · Original source
Orth.—Hear the Lord God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” Moreover through the great Moses He saith “If a soul sin—” And again “It shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear that prophet shall be cut off.” And many other passages of the same kind may be found.
ἠ οἰκουμένη means of course the Empire and the adjacent countries, the “orbis veteribus notus.”
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-26 · Original source
Eran.—They gave this instruction to the unbelievers. Now the greater part of the world has professed the faith.
The metallic compound called electron is described by Strabo p. 146 as the mixed residuum, or scouring, (κάθαρμα) left after the first smelting of gold ore. Pliny (H. N. xxxiii. 23) describes it as containing 1 part silver to 4 gold. cf. Soph. Antig. 1038, and Herod. i. 50.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-67 · Original source
Orth.—Explain to us then in what sense you understand the expression “of two natures;” like gilded silver? like the composition of electron? like the solder made of lead and tin?
“ζῶον λογικόν θνητόν.” The definition may be compared with those of— Plato.—ζῶον ἄπτερον, δίπουν, πλατυώνυχον· ὃ μόνον τῶν ὄντων ἐπιστήμης τῆς κατὰ λόγους δεκτικόν ἐστι. Deff. Aristotle.—πολιτικὸν ζῶον. Pol. I. ii. 9.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-82 · Original source
Eran.—Then we define man as a mortal reasonable being.
καταποθῆναι i.e., was absorbed and made to disappear. Contrast the adsumptione Humanitatis in Deum (or "in Deo,” as the older mss. read) of the Athanasian Creed.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-100 · Original source
Eran.—I maintain that the Godhead remains and that the manhood was swallowed up by it.
Contrast Plato Gorgias §169 κατεαγότα τε εἴ του ἦν μέλη ἢ διεστραμμένα ζῶντος καὶ τεθνεῶτος ταῦτα ἔνδηλα, and Virgil Æn. vi. 494. “Atque hic Priamiden laniatum corpore toto Deiphobum vidit lacerum crudeliter ora.”
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-111 · Original source
Orth.—But the Lord, who raises the bodies of all men, unmaimed and unmarred (for lameness of limb and blindness of eye are unknown among them that are risen), left in His own body the prints of the nails, and the wound in His side, whereof are witnesses both the Lord Himself and the hand of Thomas.
Probably the λίθος in the stone on the Draught Board. So πάντα κινεὶν λίθον is to make every effort in the game.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-126 · Original source
Eran.—One ought “to stir every stone,” as the proverb says, to get at the truth; above all when it is a question of divine doctrines.
τοῦ ὄντως σώματως ἀντίτυπά ἐστι τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια. The view of Orthodoxus, it will be seen, is not that of the Roman confession. cf. note on p. 206.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-127 · Original source
Orth.—If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of the real body, therefore even now the body of the Lord is a body, not changed into nature of Godhead, but filled with divine glory.
The quotation is not from the canonical gospels. Eusebius (iii. 36) says he does not know from what source it comes. Jerome states it to be derived from the gospel lately translated by him, the gospel according to the Hebrews (Vir. Ill. 2). Origen ascribes the words to the “Doctrina Petri.” (de Princ. Præf. 8) Bp. Lightfoot, by whom the matter is fully discussed, (Ap. Fath. pt. II. Vol. ii. p. 295) thinks that either Jerome, more suo, was forgetful, or had a different recension of the gospel to the Hebrews from that used by Origen and Eusebius. Ignatius may be quoting a verbal tradition. Bp. Lightfoot further points out that Origen (l. c.) supposes the author of the Doctrina Petri to use this epithet ἀσώαατον not in its philosophical sense (= incorporeal) but as meaning composed of some subtle substance and without a gross body like man. Further Origen (c. Cels. V. 5) warns us that to Christians the word dæmon has a special connotation, in reference to the powers that deceive and distract men.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-132 · Original source
From the Epistle to the Smyrnæans: “I acknowledge and believe Him after His resurrection to be existent in the flesh: and when He came to them that were with Peter He said to them ‘Take; handle me and see, for I am not a bodiless dæmon.’ And straightway they took hold of him and believed.”
Probably the cxixth Ps. It is doubtful whether the work forms part of a Commentary on the Pss. or is quoted from a homily on this special Psalm.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-141 · Original source
Of the same from his work on the great Psalm:—
The word φεύγειν is not used of the Saviour in the Gospel. Joseph was bidden φεῦγε εἰς Αἴγυπτον. When our Lord was brought to the cliff overhanging Nazareth διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-142 · Original source
“When He had come into the world He was manifested as God and Man. His manhood is easy of perception because He is ahungered and aweary, in toil He is athirst, in fear He flees, in prayer He grieves; He falls asleep upon a pillow, He prays that the cup of suffering may pass from Him, being in an agony He sweats, He is strengthened by an angel, betrayed by Judas, dishonoured by Caiaphas, set at nought by Herod, scourged by Pilate, mocked by soldiers, nailed to a cross by Jews, He commends His spirit to the Father with a cry, He leans His head as He breathes His last, He is pierced in the side with a spear and rolled in fine linen, is laid in a tomb, and on the third day He is raised by the Father. No less plainly may His divinity be seen when He is worshipped by angels, gazed on by shepherds, waited for by Simeon, testified to by Anna, sought out by Magi, pointed out by a Star, at the wedding feast makes water wine, rebukes the sea astir by force of winds, and on the same sea walks, makes a man blind from birth see, raises Lazarus who had been four days dead, works many and various wonders, remits sins and gives power to His disciples.”
“Offeras transfigurandum altaribus.” The Benedictine Editors, by a curious anachronism, see here a reference to transubstantiation. But μεταποίησις, the word translated “transformation” implies no more than the being made to undergo a change, which may be a change in dignity without involving a change of substance. cf. pp. 200 and 201, where Orthodoxus distinctly asserts that the substance remains unchanged. Transubstantiation, definitely declared an article of faith in 1215, seems to have been first taught early in the 9th c. Vide Bp. Harold Browne on Art. xxviii.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-172 · Original source
“Refuse thou to allow that the body is by nature on a par with the Godhead. Even though thou believe the body of the Christ to be real and bring it to the altar for transformation, and fail to distinguish the nature of the body and of the Godhead we shall say to thee, ‘If thou offer rightly and fail to distinguish rightly, thou sinnest; hold thy peace.’ Distinguish what belongs naturally to us, and what is peculiar to the Word. For I had not what was naturally His, and He had not what was naturally mine, but He took what was naturally mine in order to make us partakers of what was His. And He received this not for confusion but for completion.”
In the Greek text the last sentence is unintelligible and apparently corrupt. The translation follows the Latin text from which the version in the citation of Theodoret varies in important particulars. The Greek text of the quotation runs:— Παυσάσθωσαν τοίνον οἱ λεγοντες ὡς ἡ τοῦ Λόγου φύσις εἰς σαρκὸς μεταβέβληται φύσιν· ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ μεταβληθεῖσα κατὰ τὴν αὑτὴν ἑρμηνείαν γεγενῆσθαι καὶ ἡ τοῦ Λόγου φύσις τοῖς τοῦ σώμὰτος παθήμασι σύμφθορος. & 169·Ετερον γάρ ἐστι τὸ προσλαβὸν καὶ ἕτερόν ἐστι τὸ προσληφθέν. Δύναμις ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρθένον, ὡς ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν λέγει ὅτι Δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι: & 135·λλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἦν τῆς Παρθένου τὸ τεχθέν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Θεία μὲν ἡ κατάβασις ἡ δὲ σύλληψις ἀνθρωπίνη· οὐκ αὐτὴ οῦν ἠδύνατο τοῦ τε σὠματος πνεῦμα καὶ τῆς θεότητος φύσις
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-176 · Original source
“Let them who say that the nature of the Word has been changed into nature of the body say so no more, lest by the same interpretation the nature of the Word seem to have been changed into the corruption of sin. For there is a distinction between what took, and what was taken. Power came over the Virgin, as in the words of the angel to her, ‘The power of the highest shall overshadow thee.’ But what was born was of the body of the Virgin, and on this account the descent was divine but the conception human. Therefore the nature of the flesh and of the godhead could not be the same.”
The passage quoted is not in the 43rd discourse de nova dominica but in the 40th on Holy Baptism.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-178 · Original source
From his discourse De nova dominica:—
This and another fragment in the Catena on St. John xix. 443, is all that survives of the works of Antiochus of Ptolemais, an eloquent opponent of Chrysostom at Constantinople, and like him, said to have a “mouth of gold.”
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-216 · Original source
Testimony of Antiochus, bishop of Ptolemais:—
Hilary of Poictiers, †a.d. 368. The treatise quoted is known as “de Trinitate,” and “contra Arianos,” as well as “de Fide.” The Greek of Theodoret differs considerably from the Latin. Of the first extract the original is nescit plane vitam suam nescit qui Christum Jesum ut verum Deum ita et verum hominem ignorat. Et ejusdem periculi res est, Christum Jesum vel Spiritum Deum, vel carnem nostri corporis denegare. Omnis ergo qui confitebitur me coram hominibus, confitebor et ego eum coram patre meo qui est in coelis. Qui autem negaverit me coram hominibus, negabo et ego eum coram patre meo, qui est in coelis. Haec Verbum caro factum loquebatur, et homo Jesus Christus dominus majestatis docebat; Mediator ipse in se ad salutem Ecclesiae constitutus et illo ipso inter Deum et homines mediatoris sacramento utrumque unus existeus, dum ipse ex unitis in idipsum naturis naturae utriusque res eadem est; ita tamen, ut neutro careret in utroque, ne forte Deus esse homo nascendo desineret, et homo rursus Deus manendo non esset. Haec itaque humanae beatitudinis fides vera est, Deum et hominem praedicare, Verbum et carnem confiteri: neque Deum nescire quod homo sit, neque carnem ignorare quod Verbum sit.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-217 · Original source
Testimony of the holy Hilarius, bishop and confessor,in his ninth book, “de Fide”:
Natus igitur unigenitus Deus ex Virgine homo, et secundum plenitudinem temporum in semetipso provecturus in Deum hominem hunc per omnia evangelici sermonis modum tenuit, ut se filium Dei credi doceret, et hominis filium prædicari admoneret: locutus et gerens homo universa quae Dei sunt, loquens deinde et gerens Deus universa quae hominis sunt; ita tamen, ut ipso illo utriusque generis sermone numquam nisi cum significatione et hominis locutus et Dei sit; uno tamen Deo patre semper ostenso, et se in natura unius Dei per nativitatis veritatem professo: nec tamen se Deo patri non et filii honore et hominis conditione subdente: cum et nativitas omnis se referat ad auctorem, et caro se universa secundum Deum profiteatur infirmam. Hinc itaque fallendi simplices atque ignorantes haereticis occasio est, ut quae ab eo secundum hominem dicta sunt, dicta esse secundum naturae divinae infirmitatem mentiantur: et quia unus atque idem est loquens omnia quae loquitur de se ipso omnia eum locutum esse contendant. Nec sane negamus, totum illum qui ejus manet, naturae suae esse sermonem. Sed si Jesus Christus et homo et Deus est; et neque cum homo, tum primum Deus; neque cum homo, tum non etiam et Deus; neque post hominem in Deo non totus homo totus Deus; unum atque idem necesse est dictorum ejus sacramentum esse, quod generis. Et cum in eo secundum tempus discernis hominem a Deo, Dei tamen atque hominis discerne sermonem. Et cum Deum atque hominem in tempore confiteberis, Dei atque hominis in tempore dicta dijudica. Cum vero ex homine et Deo rursus totius hominis, totius etiam Dei tempus intelligis, si quid illud ad demonstrationem ejus temporis dictum est, tempori coaptato quae dicta sunt: ut cum aliud sit ante hominem Deus, aliud sit homo et Deus, aliud sit post hominem et Deum totus homo totus Deus; non confundas temporibus; et generibus dispensationis sacramentum, cum pro qualitate generum ac naturarum, alium ei in sacramento hominis necesse est sermonem fuisse non nato, alium adhuc morituro, alium jam aeterno. Nostri igitur causa haec omnia Jesus Christus manens et corporis nostri homo natus secundum consuetudinem naturæ nostræ locutus est, non tamen omittens naturæ suae esse quod Deus est. Nam tametsi in partu ac passione ac morte naturæ nostræ rem peregit, res tamen ipsas omnes virtute naturæ suæ gessit.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-219 · Original source
Of the same from the same book:—
Severianus, like Antiochus of Ptolemais, was moved to leave his remote diocese (Gabala is now Gibili, not far south of Latakia) to try his fortunes as a popular preacher at Constantinople: There he met with success, and was kindly treated by Chrysostom, but he turned against his friend, and was a prime agent in the plots against him. The date of his death is unknown.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-223 · Original source
Testimony of Severianus, bishop of Gabala.
Cf. p. 154, note. Atticus was a determined opponent of heresy as well as of Chrysostom.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-224 · Original source
Testimony of Atticus, bishop of Constantinople.
The word in the text is the famous θεοτόκος, the watchword of the Nestorian controversy. It may be doubtful whether either the English “Mother of God” or the Latin “Deipara” exactly represents the idea intended to be expressed by the subtler Greek. Even Nestorius did not object to the Θεοτόκος when rightly understood. The explanation of the symbolum drawn up by Theodoret himself at Ephesus for presentation to the Emperor is “᾽Ενα χριστὸν, ἕνα υἱ& 232·ν, ἕνα κύριον ὁμολογοῦμεν. κατὰ ταύτην τῆς ἀσυγχύτου ἑνώσεως ἔννοιαν ὁμολογοῦμεν τὴν ἁγίαν, παρθένον θεοτόκον, διὰ τὸ τὸν θεὸν λόγον σαρκωθῆναι καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συλλήψεως ἑνῶσαι ἑαυτῷ τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς ληφθέντα ναόν.” The great point sought to be asserted was, the union of the two Natures. Gregory of Nazianzus (li. 738) says ῎Ει τις οὐ θεοτόκον τὴν Μαρίαν ὑπολαμβάνει χωρίς ἐστι τῆς Θεότητος
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-227 · Original source
“There is an union of two natures, wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In accordance with this perception of the unconfounded union we acknowledge the Holy Virgin as Mother of God because the Word of God was made flesh and was made man, and from the very conception united to Himself the temper taken from her.”
ἀσυγχύτως καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως. These adverbs recall the famous words of Hooker. Ecc. Pol. v. 54. 10. “There are but four things which concur to make complete the whole state of our Lord Jesus Christ: his Deity, his manhood, the conjunction of both, and the distinction of the one from the other being joined in one. Four principal heresies there are which have in those things withstood the truth: Arians, by bending themselves against the Deity of Christ; Apollinarians, by maiming and misinterpreting that which belongeth to his human nature; Nestorians, by rending Christ asunder, and dividing him into two persons; the followers of Eutyches, by confounding in his person those natures which they should distinguish. Against these there have been four most famous ancient general councils: the council of Nice to define against Arians; against Apollinarians the Council of Constantinople; the councilor Ephesus against Nestorians; against Eutychians the Chalcedon Council. In four words, ἀληθῶς, τελέως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀσυγχύτως, truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly; the first applied to his being God, and the second to his being Man, the third to his being of both One, and the fourth to his continuing in that one Both: we may fully by way of Abridgement comprise whatsoever antiquity hath at large handled either in declaration of Christian belief, or in refutation of the foresaid heresies. Within the compass of which four heads, I may truly affirm, that all heresies which touch but the person of Jesus Christ, whether they have risen in these later days, or in any age heretofore, may be with great facility brought to confine themselves.”
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-229 · Original source
“Therefore, as I said, while praising the manner of the incarnation, we see that two natures came together in inseparable union without confusion and without division, for the flesh is flesh and no kind of Godhead, although it was made flesh of God; in like manner the Word is God, and not flesh, although He made the flesh His own according to the œconomy.”
Gen. vi. 3, lxx. and Marg. in R.V.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-13 · Original source
Eran.—It calls them that are the slaves of flesh, flesh. For “God,” it is written, “said my spirit shall not always remain in these men, for they are flesh.”
Vide note on page 36.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-20 · Original source
Orth.—That of Arius to that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances: the other confounds the hypostases. Arius introduces three substances, and Sabellius makes one hypostasis instead of three. Tell me now, how ought we to heal both maladies? Must we apply the same drug for both ailments, or for each the proper one?
οἰκονουίαν. cf. p. 72, note.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-22 · Original source
Orth.—We shall therefore do our best to persuade them to accept also the doctrine of the manhood, and not to call the divine incarnation a mere appearance.
The bearing of this on Theodoret’s relation to Nestorianism will be observed.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-35 · Original source
Orth.—Do you say that according to the divine Nature He had a mother?
οἰκονομία. Vide p. 72 n.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-46 · Original source
Eran.—God is his name by nature; man is the designation of the Incarnation.
This, it will be remembered is the analogy employed in the “Quicunque vult.”
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-80 · Original source
Orth.—I know it does not, for here the union is a natural union of parts that are coæval, created, and fellow slaves, but in the case of the Lord Christ all is of good will, of love to man, and of grace. Here too, though the union is natural, the proper qualities of the natures remain unimpaired.
Consult note on page 72.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-85 · Original source
Eran.—I should say that the divine Scripture uses some terms according to the theology and some according to the œconomy, and that it is wrong to apply what belongs to the œconomy to what belongs to the theology.
The allusion is to the fable of Saturn devouring his children at their birth.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-101 · Original source
Orth.—Fables of the Gentiles, all this, and follies of the Manichees. I am ashamed so much as to mention such things. The Greeks had their gods’ swallowings and the Manichees wrote of the daughter of light. But we reject such teaching as being as absurd as it is impious, for how could a nature absolute and uncompounded, comprehending the universe, unapproachable and infinite, have absorbed the nature which it assumed?
Phil. iii. 20, 21. Observe omission of “Christ.”
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-121 · Original source
Orth.—What has been already said indicates the body perfectly plainly; for what is seen is a body; but I will nevertheless point out to you that even after the assumption the body of the Lord is called a body. Hear the teaching of the Apostle, “For our conversation is in Heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” It was not changed into another nature, but remained a body, full however of divine glory, and sending forth beams of light. The bodies of the saints shall be fashioned like unto it. But if it was changed into another nature, their bodies will be likewise changed, for they shall be fashioned like unto it. But if the bodies of the saints preserve the character of their nature, then also the body of the Lord in like manner keeps its own nature unchanged.
Vide note on page 38.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-135 · Original source
“And he judges also them of Ebion. How can they be saved unless it was God who wrought their salvation on earth, or how shall man come to God unless God came to man?”
The only fragment of this work.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-136 · Original source
Testimony of the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, from his work on the distribution of the talents:—
Several fragments of this letter will be found in Dialogue III.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-137 · Original source
Of the same from his letter to a certain Queen:—
Proverbs viii. 22. Sept.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-144 · Original source
Of the same from his discourse on “The Lord formed me in the beginning of His ways”:—
The original here is corrupt.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-146 · Original source
“Paul did not say ‘conformed to the Son of God’ but ‘conformed to the image of His Son’ in order to point out a distinction between the Son and His image, for the Son, wearing the divine tokens of His Father’s Excellence, is an image of His Father; for since like are generated of like, offspring appear as very images of their parents, but the manhood which He wore is an image of the Son, as images even of different colours are painted on wax, some being wrought by hand and some by nature and likeness. Moreover the very law of truth announces this, for the bodiless spirit of wisdom is not conformed to bodily men, but the express image made man by the spirit bearing the same number of members with all the rest, and clad in similar form.”
Oratio Secunda contra Arianos. Ben. Ed. I. 1. 538.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-151 · Original source
From his Second Discourse against heresies:—
De incarnat. sacram. Chap. 6.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-162 · Original source
Of the same:—
De Fide ii. Chap. 9.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-164 · Original source
Of the same from his letter to the Emperor Gratianus:—
De incarn. sacram. Chap. 4.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-171 · Original source
Of the same against Apollinarius:—
Here the text is corrupt.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-182 · Original source
“He would be called God not of the Word, but of the visible creation, for how could He be God of Him that is absolutely God? Just so He is called Father, not of the visible creation, but of the Word. For He was of two-fold nature. Wherefore the one belongs absolutely to both, but the other not absolutely. For He is absolutely our God, but not absolutely our Father. And it is this conjunction of names which gives rise to the error of heretics. A proof of this lies in the fact that when natures are distinguished in thought, there is a distinction in names. Listen to the words of Paul. ‘The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, The Father of Glory,’—of Christ He is God, of glory Father, and if both are one this is so not by nature but by conjunction. What can be plainer than this? Fifthly let it be said that He receives life, authority, inheritance of nations, power over all flesh, glory, disciples or what you will; all these belong to the manhood.”
cf. p. 36. Here ὐπόστασις = person.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-222 · Original source
“It is ours to believe, but His to know, and so let God the Word Himself, after receiving all that is proper to man, be man, and let man after His assumption and reception of all that is God, be no other than God. It must not be supposed because He is said to have been incarnate and mixed that therefore His substance was diminished. God knows that He mixes Himself without the natural corruption, and He is mixed in reality. He knows also that He so received in Himself as that no addition of increment accrues to Himself, as also He knows He infused His whole self so as to incur no diminution. Let us not then, in accordance with our weak intelligence, and forming conjectures on the teaching of experience and the senses, suppose that God and man are mixed after the manner of things created and equal mixed together, and that from such a confusion as this of the Word and of the flesh a body as it were was made. God forbid that this should be our belief, lest we should suppose that after the manner of things which are confounded together two natures were brought into one hypostasis. For a mention of this kind implies destruction of both parts; but Christ Himself, containing but not contained, who examines us but is Himself beyond examination, making full but not made full, everywhere at one and the same time being Himself whole and pervading the universe, through His pouring out His own power, as being moved with mercy, was mingled with the nature of man, though the nature of man was not mingled with the divine.”
Ep. iv. Ed. Aub. V. ii. 23.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-225 · Original source
From his letter to Nestorius:—
Here Cyril adopts the terms of the document given in the preceding note.
Editorial footnote · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, editorial note cite_note-228 · Original source
“There is an union of two natures, wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In accordance with this perception of the unconfounded union we acknowledge the Holy Virgin as Mother of God because the Word of God was made flesh and was made man, and from the very conception united to Himself the temper taken from her.”
Eran.—It calls them that are the slaves of flesh, flesh. For “God,” it is written, “said my spirit shall not always remain in these men, for they are flesh.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 40 · Original source
Orth.—Then hear too the psalmist David—“Unto thee shall all flesh come.” Hear too, the prophet Isaiah foretelling “All flesh shall see the salvation of our God.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 49 · Original source
Orth.—Hear the Lord God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” Moreover through the great Moses He saith “If a soul sin—” And again “It shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear that prophet shall be cut off.” And many other passages of the same kind may be found.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 55 · Original source
Orth.—That of Arius to that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances: the other confounds the hypostases. Arius introduces three substances, and Sabellius makes one hypostasis instead of three. Tell me now, how ought we to heal both maladies? Must we apply the same drug for both ailments, or for each the proper one?
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 61 · Original source
Orth.—I will tell you the names. Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Bardesanes, Cerdo, and Manes, openly denied the humanity of Christ. On the other hand Artemon, Theodotus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and Photinus, fell into the diametrically opposite blasphemy; for they preach Christ to be man only, and deny the Godhead which existed before the ages. Arius and Eunomius make the Godhead of the only begotten a created Godhead, and maintain that He assumed only a body. Apollinarius confesses that the assumed body was a living body, but in his work deprives the reasonable soul alike of its honour and of its salvation. This is the contrariety of these corrupt opinions. But do you, with all due love of truth, tell us, must we institute a discussion with these men, or shall we let them go dashed down headlong and howling to their doom?
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 77 · Original source
Orth.—We shall therefore do our best to persuade them to accept also the doctrine of the manhood, and not to call the divine incarnation a mere appearance.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 107 · Original source
Orth.—He was a type of the reality: but the type has not all the qualities of the reality. Wherefore though Moses was not by nature God, yet, to fulfil the type, he was called a god. For He says “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh.” And then directly afterwards he assigns him also a Prophet as though to God, for “Aaron thy brother,” He says, “shall be thy Prophet.” But the reality is by nature God, and by nature man.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 133 · Original source
Orth.—And yet, as the generation He has of the Father is ineffable, He is spoken of as “without descent.” “Who” says the prophet “shall declare His generation?”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 169 · Original source
Orth.—Consider now too this point. The divine Apostle calls the Son the image of the Father; for he says “Who is the image of the invisible God?”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 185 · Original source
Orth.—Explain to us then in what sense you understand the expression “of two natures;” like gilded silver? like the composition of electron? like the solder made of lead and tin?
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 283 · Original source
Orth.—I know it does not, for here the union is a natural union of parts that are coæval, created, and fellow slaves, but in the case of the Lord Christ all is of good will, of love to man, and of grace. Here too, though the union is natural, the proper qualities of the natures remain unimpaired.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 332 · Original source
Eran.—I should say that the divine Scripture uses some terms according to the theology and some according to the œconomy, and that it is wrong to apply what belongs to the œconomy to what belongs to the theology.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 361 · Original source
Orth.—Fables of the Gentiles, all this, and follies of the Manichees. I am ashamed so much as to mention such things. The Greeks had their gods’ swallowings and the Manichees wrote of the daughter of light. But we reject such teaching as being as absurd as it is impious, for how could a nature absolute and uncompounded, comprehending the universe, unapproachable and infinite, have absorbed the nature which it assumed?
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 393 · Original source
Orth.—But the Lord, who raises the bodies of all men, unmaimed and unmarred (for lameness of limb and blindness of eye are unknown among them that are risen), left in His own body the prints of the nails, and the wound in His side, whereof are witnesses both the Lord Himself and the hand of Thomas.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 457 · Original source
Orth.—What has been already said indicates the body perfectly plainly; for what is seen is a body; but I will nevertheless point out to you that even after the assumption the body of the Lord is called a body. Hear the teaching of the Apostle, “For our conversation is in Heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” It was not changed into another nature, but remained a body, full however of divine glory, and sending forth beams of light. The bodies of the saints shall be fashioned like unto it. But if it was changed into another nature, their bodies will be likewise changed, for they shall be fashioned like unto it. But if the bodies of the saints preserve the character of their nature, then also the body of the Lord in like manner keeps its own nature unchanged.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 483 · Original source
Eran.—One ought “to stir every stone,” as the proverb says, to get at the truth; above all when it is a question of divine doctrines.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 486 · Original source
Orth.—If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of the real body, therefore even now the body of the Lord is a body, not changed into nature of Godhead, but filled with divine glory.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 493 · Original source
Orth.—You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 507 · Original source
From the Epistle to the Smyrnæans: “I acknowledge and believe Him after His resurrection to be existent in the flesh: and when He came to them that were with Peter He said to them ‘Take; handle me and see, for I am not a bodiless dæmon.’ And straightway they took hold of him and believed.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 513 · Original source
“And he judges also them of Ebion. How can they be saved unless it was God who wrought their salvation on earth, or how shall man come to God unless God came to man?”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 524 · Original source
“When He had come into the world He was manifested as God and Man. His manhood is easy of perception because He is ahungered and aweary, in toil He is athirst, in fear He flees, in prayer He grieves; He falls asleep upon a pillow, He prays that the cup of suffering may pass from Him, being in an agony He sweats, He is strengthened by an angel, betrayed by Judas, dishonoured by Caiaphas, set at nought by Herod, scourged by Pilate, mocked by soldiers, nailed to a cross by Jews, He commends His spirit to the Father with a cry, He leans His head as He breathes His last, He is pierced in the side with a spear and rolled in fine linen, is laid in a tomb, and on the third day He is raised by the Father. No less plainly may His divinity be seen when He is worshipped by angels, gazed on by shepherds, waited for by Simeon, testified to by Anna, sought out by Magi, pointed out by a Star, at the wedding feast makes water wine, rebukes the sea astir by force of winds, and on the same sea walks, makes a man blind from birth see, raises Lazarus who had been four days dead, works many and various wonders, remits sins and gives power to His disciples.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 542 · Original source
“He comes to the heavenly gates, angels travel with Him and the gates of the heavens are shut. For He hath not yet ascended into heaven. Now first to the heavenly powers flesh appears ascending. The Word then goes forth to the powers from the angels that speed before the Lord and Saviour, ‘Lift the Gates ye princes and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors and the King of glory shall come in.’”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 544 · Original source
“That he speaks of the body as conformed to those of men he teaches more clearly in his Epistle to the Philippians, ‘our conversation’ he says ‘is in Heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.’ And if by changing the form of the vile body of men He fashions it like unto His own body, then the false teaching of our opponents is shewn to be in every way worthless.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 553 · Original source
“And when he says ‘Wherefore God hath also highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name’ he speaks of the temple of the body, not of the Godhead, for the Most High is not exalted, but the flesh of the Most High is exalted, and to the flesh of the Most High He gave a name which is above every name. Nor did the Word of God receive the designation of God as a favour, but His flesh was held divine as well as Himself.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 566 · Original source
“I say that being in the form of God has the same force as being in God’s substance for as to have taken the form of a servant shews our Lord to have been of the substance of the manhood, so the statement that He was in the form of God attributes to Him the peculiar qualities of the divine substance.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 596 · Original source
“He would be called God not of the Word, but of the visible creation, for how could He be God of Him that is absolutely God? Just so He is called Father, not of the visible creation, but of the Word. For He was of two-fold nature. Wherefore the one belongs absolutely to both, but the other not absolutely. For He is absolutely our God, but not absolutely our Father. And it is this conjunction of names which gives rise to the error of heretics. A proof of this lies in the fact that when natures are distinguished in thought, there is a distinction in names. Listen to the words of Paul. ‘The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, The Father of Glory,’—of Christ He is God, of glory Father, and if both are one this is so not by nature but by conjunction. What can be plainer than this? Fifthly let it be said that He receives life, authority, inheritance of nations, power over all flesh, glory, disciples or what you will; all these belong to the manhood.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 612 · Original source
“Wherefore not before the passion, but after the passion, the Lord stood in the midst of the disciples when the doors were shut, that thou mayest know that thy natural body after being sown is ‘raised a spiritual body,’ and that thou mayest not suppose the body that is raised to be a different body. When Thomas after the resurrection doubted, He shews him the prints of the nails, He shews him the marks of the spears. But had He not power to heal Himself after the resurrection too, when even before the resurrection He had healed all men? But by shewing the prints of the nails He shews that it is this very body; by coming in when the doors were shut He shews that it has not the same qualities; the same body to fulfil the work of the incarnation by raising that which had become a corpse, but a changed body that it fall not again under corruption nor be subject again to death.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 634 · Original source
“For bethink thee what it is to see our nature riding on the Cherubim and all the power of heaven mustered round about it. Consider too Paul’s wisdom and how many terms he searches for that he may set forth the love of Christ to men, for he does not say simply the grace, nor yet simply the riches, but the ‘exceeding great riches of His grace in His kindness.’”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 646 · Original source
“But God made the gain greater than the loss, and exalted our nature to the royal throne. So Paul exclaims ‘And have raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places’ at His right hand.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 652 · Original source
“‘And when we were dead in sins He quickened us together in Christ;’ again Christ stands in the midst, and the work is wonderful. If the first fruits live we live also. He quickened both Him and us. Seest thou that all these things are spoken according to the flesh?”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 662 · Original source
“‘Who can express the noble acts of the Lord, or shew forth all His praise?’ who could express in words the greatness of His goodness toward us? Human nature is joined to Godhead, while both natures remain independent.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 677 · Original source
“Do you then see that thus God and man are confessed, so that death is predicated of man, and the resurrection of the flesh, of God; for consider the nature of God and the power of the resurrection, and recognise in the death the œconomy as touching man. And since both death and resurrection have been brought about in their own natures, bear in mind, I beg you, the one Christ Jesus, who was of both. I have shortly demonstrated these points to you to the end that we may remember both natures to have been in our Lord Jesus Christ ‘for being in the form of God He took the form of a servant.’”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 689 · Original source
“It is ours to believe, but His to know, and so let God the Word Himself, after receiving all that is proper to man, be man, and let man after His assumption and reception of all that is God, be no other than God. It must not be supposed because He is said to have been incarnate and mixed that therefore His substance was diminished. God knows that He mixes Himself without the natural corruption, and He is mixed in reality. He knows also that He so received in Himself as that no addition of increment accrues to Himself, as also He knows He infused His whole self so as to incur no diminution. Let us not then, in accordance with our weak intelligence, and forming conjectures on the teaching of experience and the senses, suppose that God and man are mixed after the manner of things created and equal mixed together, and that from such a confusion as this of the Word and of the flesh a body as it were was made. God forbid that this should be our belief, lest we should suppose that after the manner of things which are confounded together two natures were brought into one hypostasis. For a mention of this kind implies destruction of both parts; but Christ Himself, containing but not contained, who examines us but is Himself beyond examination, making full but not made full, everywhere at one and the same time being Himself whole and pervading the universe, through His pouring out His own power, as being moved with mercy, was mingled with the nature of man, though the nature of man was not mingled with the divine.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 696 · Original source
“There is an union of two natures, wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In accordance with this perception of the unconfounded union we acknowledge the Holy Virgin as Mother of God because the Word of God was made flesh and was made man, and from the very conception united to Himself the temper taken from her.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 707 · Original source
“Therefore, as I said, while praising the manner of the incarnation, we see that two natures came together in inseparable union without confusion and without division, for the flesh is flesh and no kind of Godhead, although it was made flesh of God; in like manner the Word is God, and not flesh, although He made the flesh His own according to the œconomy.”
Complete source paragraph · Dialogues, Chapter uncertain; original source section: The Unconfounded, source paragraph 711 · Original source