Damascus Orthodox faith 319
319 When the blessed Dionysius274 says that Christ exhibited to us some sort of novel theandric energy275 , he does not do away with the natural energies by saying that one energy resulted from the union of the divine with the human energy: for in the same way we could speak of one new nature resulting from the union of the divine with the human nature. For, according to the holy Fathers, things that have one energy have also one essence. But Ire wished to indicate the novel and ineffable manner in which the natural energies of Christ manifest themselves, a manner befitting the ineffable manner in which the natures of Christ mutually, permeate one another, and further how strange and wonder-rid and, in the nature of things, unknown was His life as man276 , and lastly the manner of the mutual interchange arising from the ineffable union. For we hold that the energies are not divided and that the natures do not energies separately, but that each conjointly in complete community with the other energises with its own proper energy277 . For the human part did not energise merely in a human manner, for He was not mere man; nor did the divine part energise only after the manner of God, for He was not simply God, but He was at once God and man. For just as in the case of natures we recognise both their union and their natural difference, so is it also with the natural wills and energies.
Note, therefore, that in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, we speak sometimes of His two natures and sometimes of His one person: anti the one or the other is referred to one conception. For the two natures are one Christ, and the one Christ is two natures. Wherefore it is all the same whether we say “Christ energises according to either of His natures,” or “either nature energises in Christ in communion with the other.” The divine nature, then, has communion with the flesh in its energising, because it is by the good pleasure of the divine will that the flesh is permitted to suffer and do the things proper to itself, and because the energy of the flesh is altogether saving, and this is an attribute not of human but of divine energy. On the other hand the flesh has communion with the divinity of the Word in its energising, because the divine energies are performed, so to speak, through the organ of the body, and because He Who energises at once as God and man is one and the same.
Further observe278 that His holy mind also performs its natural energies, thinking and knowing that it is God’s mind and that it is worshipped by all creation, and remembering the times He spent on earth and all He suffered, but it has communion with the divinity of the Word in its energising and orders and governs the universe, thinking and knowing and ordering not as the mere mind of man, but as united in subsistence with God and acting as the mind of God.
This, then, the theandric energy makes plain that when God became man, that is when He became incarnate, both His human energy was divine, that is deified, and not without part in His divine energy, and His divine energy was not without part in His human energy, but either was observed in conjunction with the other. Now this manner of speaking is called a periphrasis, viz., when one embraces two things in one statement279 . For just as in the case of the flaming sword we speak of the cut burn as one, and the burnt cut as one, but still hold that the cut and the burn have different energies and different natures, the burn having the nature of fire and the cut the nature of steel, in the same way also when we speak of one theandric energy of Christ, we understand two distinct energies of His two natures, a divine energy belonging to His divinity, and a human energy belonging to His humanity.
320 We confess281 , then, that He assumed all the natural and innocent passions of man. For He assumed the whole man and all man’s attributes save sin. For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us by force. For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man.
All, then, He assumed that He might sanctify all. He was tried and overcame in order that He might prepare victory for us and give to nature power to overcome its antagonist, in order that nature which was overcome of old might overcome its former conqueror by the very weapons wherewith it had itself been overcome.
The wicked one282 , then, made his assault from without, not by thoughts prompted inwardly, just as it was with Adam. For it was not by inward thoughts, but by the serpent that Adam was assailed. But the Lord repulsed the assault and dispelled it like vapour, in order that the passions which assailed him and were overcome might be easily subdued by us, and that the new Adam should save the old).
Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in Him after a natural manner when He permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it: but they were above nature because that which was natural did not in the Lord assume command over the will. For no compulsion is contemplated in Him but all is voluntary. For it was with His will that He hungered and thirsted and feared and died.
(He assumed, it is to be noted283 , the ignorant and servile nature284 . For it is man’s nature to be the servant of God, his Creator, and he does not possess knowledge of the future. If, then, as Gregory the Theologian holds, you are to separate the realm of sight from the realm of thought, the flesh is to be spoken of as both servile and ignorant, but on account of the identity of subsistence and the inseparable union the soul of the Lord was enriched with the knowledge of the future as also with the other miraculous powers. For just as the flesh of men is not in its own nature life-giving, while the flesh of our Lord which was united in subsistence with God the Word Himself, although it was not exempt from the mortality of its nature, yet became life-giving through its union in subsistence with the Word, and we may not say that it was not and is not for ever life-giving: in like manner His human nature does not in essence possess the knowledge of the future, but the soul of the Lord through its union with God the Word Himself and its identity in subsistence was enriched, as I said, with the knowledge of the future as well as with the other miraculous powers.
Observe further285 that we may not speak of Him as servant. For the words servitude and mastership are not marks of nature but indicate relationship, to something, such as that of fatherhood and sonship.For these do not signify essence but relation.
It is just as we said, then, in connection with ignorance, that if you separate with subtle thoughts, that is, with fine imaginings, the created from the uncreated, the flesh is a servant, unless it has been united with God the Word286 . But how can it be a servant when t is once united in subsistence? For since Christ is one, He cannot be His own servant and Lord. For these are not simple predications but relative. Whose servant, then could He be? His Father’s? The Son, then, would not have all the Father’s attributes, if He is the Father’s servant and yet in no respect His own. Besides, how could the apostle say concerning us who were adopted by Him, (So that you are no longer a servant but a son287 , if indeed He is Himself a servant? The word servant, then, is used merely as a title, though not in the strict meaning: but for our sakes He assumed the form of a servant and is called a servant among us. For although He is without passion, yet for our sake He was the servant of passion and became the minister of our salvation. Those, then, who say that He is a servant divide the one Christ into two, just as Nestorius did. But we declare Him to be Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, at once God and man, and all-knowing. For in Him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the hidden treasures288 .
322 (He is, moreover, said to grow in wisdom and age and grace289 , increasing in age indeed and through the increase in age manifesting the wisdom that is in Him290 ; yea, further, making men’s progress in wisdom and grace, and the fulfilment of the Father’s goodwill, that is to say, men’s knowledge of God and men’s salvation, His own increase, and everywhere taking as His own that which is ours. But those who hold that He progressed in wisdom and grace in the sense of receiving some addition to these attributes, do not say that the union took place at the first origin of the flesh, nor yet do they give precedence to the union in subsistence, but giving heed291 to the foolish Nestorius they imagine some strange relative union and mere indwelling, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm292 . For if in truth the flesh was united with God the Word from its first origin, or rather if it existed in Him and was identical in subsistence with Him, how was it that it was not endowed completely with all wisdom and grace? not that it might itself participate in the grace, nor share by grace in what belonged to the Word, but rather by reason of the union in subsistence, since both what is human and what is divine belong to the one Christ, and that He Who was Himself at once God and man should pour forth like a fountain over the universe His grace and wisdom and plenitude of every blessing.
323 The word fear has a double meaning. For fear is natural when the soul is unwilling to be separated from the body, on account of the natural sympathy and close relationship planted in it in the beginning by the Creator, which makes it fear and struggle against death and pray for an escape from it. It may be defined thus: natural fear is the force whereby we cling to being with shrinking293 . For if all things were brought by the Creator out of nothing into being, they all have by nature a longing after being and not after non-being. Moreover the inclination towards those things that support existence is a natural property of them. Hence God the Word when He became man had this longing, manifesting, on the one hand, in those things that support existence, the inclination of His nature in desiring food and drink and sleep, and having in a natural manner made proof of these things, while on the other hand displaying in those things that bring corruption His natural disinclination in voluntarily shrinking in the hour of His passion before the flee of death. For although what happened did so according to the laws of nature, yet it was not, as in our case, a matter of necessity. For He willingly and spontaneously accepted that which was natural. So that fear itself and terror and agony belong to the natural and innocent passions and are not under the dominion of sin.
Again, there is a fear which arises from treachery of reasoning and want of faith, and ignorance of the hour of death, as when we are at night affected by fear at some chance noise. This is unnatural fear, and may be thus defined: unnatural fear is an unexpected shrinking. This our Lord did not assume. Hence He never felt fear except in the hour of His passion, although He often experienced a feeling of shrinking in accordance with the dispensation. For He was not ignorant of the appointed time.
But the holy Athanasius in his discourse against Apollinarius says that He did actually feel fear. “Wherefore the Lord said: Now is My soul troubled294 . The ‘now’ indeed means just ‘when He willed,’ but yet points to what actually was. For He did not speak of what was not, as though it were present, as if the things that were said only apparently happened. For all things happened naturally and actually.” And again, after some other matters, he says,” In nowise does His divinity admit passion apart from a suffering body, nor yet does it manifest trouble and pain apart froth a pained and troubled soul, nor does it suffer anguish and offer up prayer apart from a mind that suffered anguish and offered up prayer. For, although these occurrences were not due to any overthrow of nature, yet they took place to shew forth His real being295 .” The words “these occurrences were not due to any overthrow of His nature,” prove that it was not involuntarily that He endured these things.
324 Prayer is an uprising of the mind to God or a petitioning of God for what is fitting. How then did it happen that our Lord offered up prayer in the case of Lazarus, and at the hour of His passion? For His holy mind was in no need either of any uprising towards God, since it had been once and for all united in subsistence with the God Word, or of any petitioning of God. For Christ is one. But it was because He appropriated to Himself our personality and took our impress on Himself, and became an ensample for us, and taught us to ask of God and strain towards Him, and guided us through His own holy mind in the way that leads up to God. For just as He296 endured the passion, achieving for our sakes a triumph over it, so also He offered up prayer, guiding us, as I said, in the way that leads up to God, and “fulfilling all righteousness297 “ on our behalf, as He said to John, and reconciling His Father to us, and honouring Him as the beginning and cause, and proving that He is no enemy of God. For when He said in connection with Lazarus, Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me. And I know that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me298 , is it not most manifest to all that He said this in honour of His Father as the cause even of Himself, and to shew that He was no enemy of God299 ?
Again, when he said, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: yet, not as I will but as Thou wilt300 , is it not clear to all301 that He said this as a lesson to us to ask help in our trials only from God, and to prefer God’s will to oar own, and as a proof that He did actually appropriate to Himself the attributes of our nature, and that He did in truth possess two wills, natural, indeed, and corresponding with His natures but yet in no wise opposed to one another? “Father” implies that He is of the same essence, but “if it be possible” does not mean that He was in ignorance (for what is impossible to God?), but serves to teach us to prefer God’s will to our own. For that alone is impossible which is against God’s will and permission302 . “But not as I will but as Thou wilt,” for inasmuch as He is God, He is identical with the Father, while inasmuch as He is man, He manifests the natural will of mankind. For it is this that naturally seeks escape from death.
Further, these words, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me303 ? He said as making our personality His own304 . For neither would God be regarded with us as His Father, unless one were to discriminate with subtle imaginings of the mind between that which is seen and that which is thought, nor was He ever forsaken by His divinity: nay, it was we who were forsaken and disregarded. So that it was as appropriating our personality that He offered these prayers305 .
325 It is to be observed306 that there are two appropriations307 : one that is natural and essential, and one that is personal and relative. The natural and essential one is that by which our Lord in His love for man took on Himself our nature and all our natural attributes, becoming in nature and truth man, and making trial of that which is natural: but the personal and relative appropriation is when any one assumes the person of another relatively, for instance, out of pity or love, and in his place utters words concerning him that have no connection with himself. And it was in this way that our Lord appropriated both our curse and our desertion, and such other things as are not natural: not that He Himself was or became such, but that He took upon Himself our personality and ranked Himself as one of us. Such is the meaning in which this phrase is to be taken: Being made a curse for our sakes308 .
326 The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of passion. For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity, and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering. For the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not share in the suffering of the body.
Observe, further309 , that we say that God suffered in the flesh, bat never that His divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh. For if, when the sun is shining upon a tree, the axe should cleave the tree, and, nevertheless, the sun remains uncleft and void of passion, much more will the passionless divinity of the Word, united in subsistence to the flesh, remain void of passion when the body undergoes passion310 . And should any one pour water over flaming steel, it is that which naturally suffers by the water, I mean, the fire, that is quenched, but the steel remains untouched (for it is not the nature of steel to be destroyed by water): much more, then, when the flesh suffered did His only passionless divinity escape all passion although abiding inseparable from it. For one must not take the examples too absolutely and strictly: indeed, in the examples, one must consider both what is like and what is unlike, otherwise it would not be an example. For, if they were like in all respects they would be identities, and not examples, and all the more so in dealing with divine matters. For one cannot find an example that is like in all respects whether we are dealing with theology or the dispensation.
327 Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin (for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of the world, nor was there any deceit found in His mouth311 ) He was not subject to death, since death came into the world through sin312 . He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus he delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant313 . Wherefore death approaches, and swallowing up the body as a bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a sinless and life-giving body, perishes, and brings up again all whom of old he swallowed up. For just as darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is death repulsed before the assault of life, and brings life to all, but death to the destroyer.
Wherefore, although314 He died as man and His Holy Spirit was severed from His immaculate body, yet His divinity remained inseparable from both, I mean, from His soul and His body, and so even thus His one hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases. For body and soul received simultaneously in the beginning their being in the subsistence315 of the Word, and although they were severed from one another by death, yet they continued, each of them, having the one subsistence of the Word. So that the one subsistence of the Word is alike the subsistence of the Word, and of soul and body. For at no time had either soul or body a separate subsistence of their own, different from that of the Word, and the subsistence of the Word is for ever one, and at no time two. So that the subsistence of Christ is always one. For, although the soul was separated from the body topically, yet hypostatically they were united through the Word.
328 The word corruption316 has two meanings317 . For it signifies all the human sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing with nails, death, that is, the separation of soul and body, and so forth. In this sense we say that our Lord’s body was subject to corruption. For He voluntarily accepted all these things. But corruption means also the complete resolution of the body into its constituent elements, and its utter disappearance, which is spoken of by many preferably as destruction. The body of our Lord did not experience this form of corruption, as the prophet David says, For Thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption318 .
Wherefore to say, with that foolish Julianus and Gaianus, that our Lord’s body was incorruptible, in the first sense of the word, before His resurrection is impious. For if it were incorruptible it was not really, but only apparently, of the same essence as ours, and what the Gospel tells us happened, viz. the hunger, the thirst, the nails, the wound in His side, the death, did not actually occur. But if they only apparently happened, then the mystery of the dispensation is an imposture and a sham, and He became man only in appearance, and not in actual fact, and we are saved only in appearance, and not in actual fact. But God forbid, and may those who so say have no part in the salvation319 . But we have obtained and shall obtain the true salvation. But in the second meaning of the word “corruption,” we confess that our Lord’s body is incorruptible, that is, indestructible, for such is the tradition of the inspired Fathers. Indeed, after the resurrection of our Saviour from the dead, we say that our Lord’s body is incorruptible even in the first sense of the word. For our Lord by His own body bestowed the gifts both of resurrection and of subsequent incorruption even on our own body, He Himself having become to us the firstfruits both of resurrection and incorruption, and of passionlessness320 . For as the divine Apostle says, This corruptible must put an incorruption321 .
329 The soul322 when it was deified descended into Hades, in order that, just as the Sun of Righteousness323 rose for those upon the earth, so likewise He might bring light to those who sit under the earth in darkness and shadow of death324 : in order that just as He brought the message of peace to those upon the earth, and of release to the prisoners, and of sight to the blind325 , and became to those who believed the Author of everlasting salvation and to those who did not believe a reproach of their unbelief326 , so He might become the same to those in Hades327 : That every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth328 . And thus after He had freed those who had been bound for ages, straightway He rose again from the dead, shewing us the way of resurrection.
1 (Gn 3,7 cf). Greg. Naz., Orat. 38 and 42; Greg. Nyss., Orat. Catech. c. 8.
2 Text, parei`den. Variant, periei`den.
3 (Gn 6,13 Gn 6,
4 Ibid. 11,7.
5 ejpistasiva, care, or dominion.
6 (Gn 18,I seqq.
7 Ibid 19,I seqq.
8 (Sg 2,24 Sg 2,
9 Greg. Naz., Orat. 12 and 38.
10 Text, pavlhn. Variant, plavsin, cf. “plasmationem” (Faber).
11 Text, pareivde. Variant, periei`den.
12 Greg. Nyss., Orat. Cathec., ch. 20 et seqq.
13 St. Jn 1,18.
14 (Ph 2,6 Ph 2,
15 “Condescends to His servants” is absent in some mss..
16 (Qo 1,10 Qo 1,
17 Greg. Nyss., Cat. ch 16.
18 Athan., De salut. adv. Christi.
19 Text, tou` Lovlou. Variant, tou` Qeou` Lovlou: so Dei Verbi (Faber).
20 St. Lc 1,27.
21 Hebr. 7,14.
22 St. Lc 1,28.
23 Ibid. 30, 31.
24 St. Mt 1,21.
25 St. Lc 1,34
26 “Of thee” is wanting in some mss.
27 St. Lc 1,35.
28 Ibid. 38.
29 Ibid. 27, 28
30 Greg. Naz., Orat. 38 and 42.
31 Cf). Athan., Ep. ad Serap., De Spiritu Sancto; Greg. Nyss., Contr. Apoll. 6, 25; Rufinus, Exp. Symb.; Tertullian, De Carne Christi and Contr. Prax.; Hilary, De Trin. II. 26.
32 Basil, Christi Nativ.
33 Cyril, Apolog. 5 and 8 anathem.
34 Cf). Greg. Naz., I Ep. ad Cledon; Cyril, I Ep. ad Nestor.; Theodor., ep. ad Joan. Antioch., &c.
35 Cyril., Epist. ad Monach.
36 Procl., Epist. 2 ad Arm.
37 rhn oijkonomivan, the oeconomy, the Incarnation.
38 Cod. R. 2428 adds here some statements taken from the Dissertation against the Nestorians.
39 kata; Monofusitw`n: these words are absent in mss.
40 Cf. Eulogius and also Polemon in the Collect. Contr. Severianos.
41 Max. Epist. ad Joan. cubic. p. 279.
42 Ibid. p. 286.
43 ejx ejtevrwn ta; aujtav.
44 Cf). Niceph. Call., Hist. xviii. 46.
45 Eulog. apud Max., t. 2,p. 145.
46 Cf). Sever., Ep. 2 ad Joannem.
47 Anast. Siniata, in JOdhgw`, ch. 9; Leontius, contr. Nest. et Entych.
48 Greg. Naz., Ep. ad Cled., I.
49 to;n aujto;n ejpidevcontai lo;gon th`" fuvsew"; perhaps—all admit the same account of the nature,—all can be dealt with in the same way in respect of nature.
50 Leontius, Contr. Sev. et Eutych. Max. loc. cit., p. 277.
51 Reading w[sper ejpi; ajtovmou, &c. These words are omitted in Cod. S. Hil. Reg. 10, Colb. 3, and N.
52 h[ suvgkrasin, h] ajnavkrasin. The mss. omit the latter.
53 The word Eujruchv". however, is omitted by the best copies.
54 Procl., Epist. 2 ad Arm.
55 Greg. Naz., Hom. 5. See also John’s Dialect., 65.
56 Leo papa, Epist. 10, ch. 4.
57 kata; to;n ajntidovsew" trovpon, in the way of a communication of properties.
58 dia` th`n eij" a[llhla tw`n merw`h pericwvrhsin. See Leont., De Sect., 7, Contr. Nest. et Eutych., I.
59 Leo papa, epist. 10, ch. 4.
60 (1Co 2,8 1Co 2,
61 St. Jn 3,13.
62 Cf). Athan., De Salut. adv. Christi; Greg. Naz., Orat. 38; Greg. Nyss., Contr. Apoll.; Leont., Contr. Nestor. et Eutych., bk. I; Thomas Aquinas, III., quaest. 16, art. 4, 5.
63 ei]do", form, class, species.
64 (Ps 45,7 Ps 45,
65 (Jb 1,I.
66 ajei; ajnaitivw" ejk Patrov".
67 Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
68 1Co 2,8.
69 Baruch 3,38: these words are absent in many mss.
70 Leont., Resp. ad argum. Sever.
71 For kai; th` aijtiarh` kai; uji>kh`, kai; th` aijtiath` kai; ejkporeuth` we get kai; th` aijtiatikh`, kai; poreuth’ in Cod. Colb. I, Cod. Reg. 3, and so Faber also.
72 oijkonomiva", incarnation.
73 Leont., Resp. ad argum. Sever.
74 See Leont., Act. 7. De Sect., with reference to one of the arguments of the Nestorians; also Greg. Naz., Orat. 36; Max., Ep. I ad Joan. Cubic.
75 Infr. ch. 7,: Basil, Epist. 40 and Bk). De Spir. Sanct ch. 17
76 ei\do", form, class, species.
77 These words are gound only in Cod. Reg. 2927.
78 The words ou`siva paqhthv and pevponqe are omitted in some editions.
79 Against Arias, Apollinaris, and the Severians.
80 (Col 2,9 Col 2,
81 Dion., De div. nom., ch. 2.
82 Athan., De salut. adv. Christ: Greg. Naz., Epist. I ad Cled. et Orat. I: Cyril, in Jn viii.
83 Cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. I, &c.
84 Greg., Orat. I, 38–51.
85 pericwrei`tai ujpo tou kreivttono".
86 Infr., ch. xviii.
87 ou suvnoiko". It is proposed to read aujtou` suvnoiko", or wj" suvnoiko".
88 Greg., Epist. I ad Cled.
89 Athan., De salut. adv. Christ.
90 Ephes. 2,6.
91 Text, ujpemfaivnonte". Variant, ejmfaivnomen.
92 ajparch;n tou` hjmerevrou furavmato".
93 suvnqeton genesqai th;n proteron ajplh`n ou\san tou` Lovgou ujpovsttasin, suvnqeton de; ejk duvo telei;wn fuvsewn.
94 Text, kai; crovnw kuhvsew". Various readings, kai trovpw kuhvsew": kai; crovnw kai; kuhvsew".
95 Cf). Ruf., Expos. symb.; Epiph., in the epilogue to his De Haer.; Joan. Scyth., Epist. Dionys. 4.
96 Maria" is absent in most mss.
97 Expositio fidei a Patribus Nicaenis contra Paul. Samos. III. p. conc. Ephes.
98 Commonit. ad Eulog. et Epist. 2 ad Succes.; cf. supr. ch. 6,et infr. ch. xi.
99 o[lo" me;n ou\u ejsti Qeo;" te;leio", oujc o[lon de; Oeov"
104 Greg. Naz., Orat. 51.
105 the following is added in R. 2927: ejn pa`si me;n h\n, kai; ujpe;r ta; pavnta, kai ejn th gavstri th`" Qeomhvtoro", ajllAE ejn taujth te, ejnergeva th`" sarkwvsew". This is assuredly and interpolation.
106 u. supr. ch. iii.
107 Leontius de sectis, Act. 3.
108 Directed against the Severians. See Leont., De Sect., Act. 7; Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
109 upo; to; sunece;" po;son ajna`gontai aij tou` Kurivou fuvdei", h] ijpo to; diwrismevnon.
110 Text, ajnavgontai. Variants, ajnafevrointo and diafevrointo.
111 miva ejpifavneia.
112 Cyril, De Anath. 8 cont. Theod.
113 The Apollinarians attacked the orthodox as ajnqrwpolavtrai, man-worshippers, and as making the Trinity a Quaternity by their doctrine of two perfect natures in Christ. see greg. Naz., Ep. I ad Cied.; Athanas., Ep. ad Epictet.; Anastas. Anitioch., De Operationibus; Cyril, Contr. Nestor. et Eutych. I.; Jn of Dam., Dialect. 29.
114 See Migne on the position of this section.
115 Another allegation of the Severian party is in view here. see Leont., De Sect., Act. 7, Contr. Nestor. et Eutych. I.; (Jn of Dam., Dialect. 29.
116 Leont., De sect., Act 7.
117 Dam., Epist. ad Jord. Archim.
118 Text, blavsfhmon. Variant, blasfhmivan.
119 Text, blavsfhmon. Variant, blasfhmivan.
120 (1Co 8,5 1Co 8,
121 These words which refer to the Holy Spirit are absent in R. 2930 and in 1Co viii., but are present in other Codices and in Basil, De Spirit. Sancto, and in Greg. Nazianz., Orat. 39, and further in the Damascene himself Parallel, and elsewhere, and could not be omitted here.
122 Orat. 39.
123 (Rm 11,36 Rm 11,
124 Vid. Epist. ad Jordan.
125 Orat. 42. at the beginning.
126 Epist. ad Petrum Fullonem; Theoph., Ad Arn. 5930.
127 See Niceph. Call., Hist. xviii. 51.
128 Conc. Chal., Act. I, at the end.
129 In Cod. S. Hil. is written above the line h[ qehlavtou ojrgh`" pauvsei, which explains the author’s meaning.
130 Niceph. Call., Hist. 18,51, speaks of this Hymn and also the fw`" ijlarovn as coming from the Apostles themselves. The writer of the Life of Basil supposed to be Amphilochius of Iconium, declares that the Trisagium was recited by Basil at Nicaea.
131 h] yilh` qewriva katanoei`tai.
132 This division is absent in some copies and is not restored in the old translation, but is not superfluous.
133 St. Jn 1,14.
134 tou` sidhvrou is absent in some codices and also in the old translation.
135 th;n oijkonomijan, the incarnation.
136 hj kaq1 hjmav" oujsiva.
137 Supr. ch. 6 and 7
138 Leont., De sect. Act. 8.
139 Cyril, Defens. II., Anath. cont. Thoed.
140 oj Qeo;" morfou`rai, h[toi oujsioutai to; ajllovtrion. Gregory of Nazianzum in his Carmen used the term oujsiou`sqai of the word after the assumption of our nature. See also Dionys., De div. nom., ch. 2 ; Ep. ad Carmen, 4 ; &c.
141 Dion., De div. nom., ch. 8.
142 See especially Greg. Naz., Ep. I ad Cled.; Theod., Haer. fab., 5,18.
143 Greg. Naz., Epist. I. ad Cledon.
145 Infr. ch. 18.
146 (1Co 15,21 1Co 15,
147 Greg. Naz., ibid.
148 (1Co 15,47 1Co 15,
149 (Ga 4,4 Ga 4,
150 cristotovko", as opposed to qeotovko".
151 Cyril, ad Monachos, Epist. I.
152 wj" ejphreazomevnhn is absent in Vegelinus.
153 i.e). Anointed One.
154 qeofovro", Deigerus. See Greg. Naz., Ep. 2, ad Cied. Basil, De Spir. Sanc., ch. 5, &c.
155 Cyril, cont. Nest., bk. I.
156 ajeiv is absent in Vegelinus.
157 oijkonomiva" lovgw, by reason of the incarnation.
158 Reading ginovmena, for which Cod. R. 2930 gives uJph`rcon.
159 Leo, Epist. 10, ad Flavian.
160 Max., Disp. cum Pyrrho.
161 Supr., bk. 2,ch. 22.
162 oijkonomiva"). incarnation.
163 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrho ; Anast. in JOdhgov", ch. 6, p. 40.
164 to; mevn ajplw`" qe;leinm qevlhsi", h[toi hj qelhtikh; duvnami".
166 qevlhton, willed, the thing willed.
167 qevlhma gnwmikovn). dispositional volition, will of judgment.
168 qelhtikovn, volitive. volitivum). volitive, is the Scholastic translation qelhtikovn.
169 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
170 Max., ibid.
171 Max., ibid.
172 qelhtikov", endowed with volition.
173 qevlhsi", will.
176 kai; kata; tou`to oij Patevre" to; hjmevteron ejn ejautw` tupw`sai aujto`n e[fhsan qevlhma: and according to this the Fathers said that He typified, moulded, had the form of our will in Himself.
177 Greg. Nyss., Cont. Apollin and others, Act. 10, sext. syn.
178 Max., Agatho pap. Epist. Syn. in VI Syn., Act. 4.
179 St. Mc 7,24
180 Max., ibid.
181 St. Mt 27,33 and 34; St. Jn 19,28 and 29
182 ejmpaqhv", passible, sensible, possessed of sensibility.
183 pavqo", sensibility.
184 In N. is added: kai; ei; e;n th` hjmevra to` pavqou" levgei J Pavter, eij dunato;n, parelqevtw to; pothvrion touto ajpj ejmou`. Plh;n oujc wj" ejgw; qevlw, ajll J wj" suv. AEIdou` duvo qelhvsei", qei>kh; a[ma kai; ajnqrwpivnh.
185 (Ph 2,8 Ph 2,
186 Max., ut supr.
187 tw`n ujpo; cei`ra ga;r tau`ta.
188 Orat. 36, some distance from the beginning.
189 Max., Disp. cum Pyrrh.
190 wj" suntrecouvsh" tq e[cei th`" proceirivsew", the choice, or decision, being synchronous with the moral disposition.
191 Max., Disp. cum Pyrrh.
192 prw`ton me;n, o[ti aij sunqevsei" tw`n ejn uJpostavsei o[ntwn, kai; ouj tw`n ejtevrw lovgw, kai; ouj iudivw qewroumevnwn eijsiv.
193 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
194 Max., Epist. ad marin.
196 Basil, on Ps xliv., or rather on Isiah 7,
197 (Is 7,16, sec. LXX.
198 Fusikai; men gavr eijsin aiJ ajretaiv; cf. Cicero, De leg. I.
199 Supr., bk. ii., ch. 30.
200 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
201 (Gn 1,26 Gn 1,
202 (1Co 7,25 1Co 7,
203 (Ps 73,3 Ps 73,
204 (Da 2,15). peri; tivno" djxh`lqen hj gnwvmh hJ ajnaidh;" au[th. In our A.V., Why is the decree so hasty from the king?
205 Text, kata; ei[kosi ojktw;: Variants, kata; koinou`, kata; poluv, secunda multa (old trans)., and secundum plurima (Faber). Maximus gave 28 meanings of gnwvmh.
206 Cf. Anast., De operationibus, I.; Joan. Scyth, Con. Sever. VIII., &c.
207 Supr. bk. ii.: Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
208 Orat. 37, near the beginning.
209 Anast. Antioch., De operationibus.
210 kai; aujto; to; ajpotelouvmenon; cf. Max., ad Marin. II.
211 Max. tom. ii., Dogmat. ad Marin., p. 124.
212 St. Mt 8,3.
213 St. Jn 6,11.
214 See Act. 10 sextae synodi.
215 Text, qehgovrou". Variant, qeofovrou".
216 Orat. de natura et hyp. Also in Basil. 43.
217 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
218 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
219 St. Jn 5,17.
220 Ibid. 19.
221 Ibid. 10,38.
222 Ibid. 5,36.
223 Ibid. 21.
224 Max., ibid.
225 Maxim., lib. De duab. vol. et Dial. cum Pyrrh.
226 St. Lc 8,54; Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
227 Max., ibid.
228 Max., ibid.
229 Text, hJ de; kata; fuvsin ejnevrgeia. Variant, eij dev.
230 Hom. 1.
231 Thes., xxxii., ch. 2; Act. 10, sextae Synodi.
232 The Monotheletes made much of the case of the raising of the daughter of Jairus. See Cyril, In Joan., p. 351; Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh., Epist. ad Nicand., epist. ad Mon. Sicil.; Scholiast in Collect. cont. Severum, ch. 20.
233 oi;kouomw`", in incarnate form.
234 Leo, Epist. cit.
235 ouj ga;r ajfV eJautou; pro;" ta; fusika; pajqh th;n oJrmh;n ejpoiei`to oujdAE aujth;n ejk tw`n luph w`n aJformh;n kai; paraivthsin.
236 The term is morfhv, as in Ph 2,6, 7.
237 Dion., ch. 2, De div. nom. et Epist. 4.
238 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
239 See the reply of Maximus in the Dialogue cum Pyrrh.
240 (Gn 1,31 Gn 1,
241 Max., Opusc. Polem., pp. 31, 32.
242 Leo, Epist. 10.
243 St. Mt 4,2.
244 Nyss., adv. Apoll.
245 Chrysost., Hom. in s. Thom.
246 diAE ajntwnumiva".
247 Cyril, in Joan., bk. viii.
248 This is directed to another argument of the Severians. Cf. Leont., De Sect., 7, Contr. Nest. et Eutych., I.
249 Epist. 2 ad Serap., towards the end; Collect., as above, c. 19.
250 Anast., Collect., ch. 19.
251 Epist. 1, ad Cledon.
252 Orat. 4, not far from the beginning.
253 Cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. 38, 39, 42, 51; Niceph., C.P. adv. Ep. Euseb., c. 50; Euthym., Panopl., II. 7.
254 Greg., Orat. 42.
255 Id., Orat. 39; Max. bk). De duabus voluntatibus.
256 Max., Epist. ad Nicandr.
257 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
258 Ibid. 35, p. 595.
259 St. Mc 7,24.
260 St. Mt 8,3.
261 Greg. Naz., Orat. 42.
262 Against the Apollinarians and the Monotheletes. Cf. Max., ut supra, II. p. 151.
263 Greg. Naz., Carm. sen. adv. Apollin., Epist. ad Cled., and elsewhere.
264 See also ch. 6 above, and Gregory’s lines against the Apollinarians.
265 St. Jn 1,14.
266 (Gn 46,27, ap. LXX.; Ac 7,14 Ac 7,
267 (Is 40,5 St. Lc 3,6 Lc 3,
268 St. Jn 8,40.
269 Sophron., Epist. Synod.
270 See Cyril, In Joann., ch. x.
271 St. Mt 26,39; St. Lc xxii. 22.
273 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.; Greg. Naz., Ep. 1, ad Cledon.
274 Dionys., Epist. 4, ad Caium.
275 See Severus, Ep. 3, ad Joann. Hegum.; Anastas., Sinait. Hodegus, p. 240
276 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
277 Leo, Epist. 1 ad Flav.
278 Perhaps from Joann. Scythop., bk. viii.; cf. Niceph., C.P. Antirrh., III. 59.
279 Max., Dogm. ad Marin., p. 43.
280 Or, sensibilities.
281 Cf. Greg. Nyss., Contr. Apoll.; Leont., De Sect., Act. 10; Anastas., Hodegus, 13. &c.
282 Cf. Athanas., De Salut., Adventu Christi.
283 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
284 Photius, Cod. 230; Eulog., bk. x., Ep. 35; Sophron., Ep. ad Serg.; Leont., De Sect., Act. 10.
285 Cf. Sophron., Ep. ad. Serg., who refers to the Duliani (AEDoulianoiv); the opinions of Felix and Elipandas, condemned at the Synod of Frankfort; and Thomas Aquinas, III., Quoest. 20, Art. 1.
286 Greg. Naz., Orat. 24.
287 (Ga 4,7 Ga 4,
288 (Col 2,3 Col 2,
289 St. Lc 2,52.
290 Athanas., Contr. Arian., bk. iv.; Greg. Naz., Ep. I. ad Cled., and Orat. 20; Cyril, Contr. Nest., bk. iii.; Greg. Nyss., Contr. Apoll., II. 28, &c.
291 Text has peiqomai: surely it should be peiqovmenoi.
292 (1Tm 1,1 1Tm 1,
293 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
294 St. Jn 12,27.
295 S. Athanas., De salutari adventu Christi, contra Apollinarem towards the end.
296 St. Matt., Greg. Naz, Orat. 36
297 St. Mt 3,15
298 St. Jn xi 42.
299 Greg, Naz., Orat. 42; Chyrs., Hom. 63 in Joan.
300 St. Mt 26,39
301 Chyrs. In Cat. In St. Mt xxvi
302 Greg., Orat. 36
303 St. Mt 27,46.
304 Greg., Orat. 36; Cyril, De recta fide; Athanas., Contr. Arian., bk. Iv.
305 Greg. Nyss., Orat. 38
306 Max. ad Marin. In solut. I dubit. Theod.
307 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36; Athanas., De Salut. Adv. Christi
308 (Ga 3,15 Ga 3,
309 Photius, Cod. 46
310 Athan., De salut. Adv. Christi
311 (Is 53,9 St. Jn 1,29 Jn 1,
312 (Rm 5,12 Rm 5,
313 Greg., Orat. 42
314 Cf). Epiph., Hoeres. 69; Greg. Nyss., Contr. Eunom., II. p. 55.
315 uJpovstasi", hypostasis.
316 Leont. De sect., Act. 10, and Dial.cont.Aphthartodoc.
317 Anast Sinait., Hodegus, p. 295
318 (Ps 16,10
319 Anast. Sinait., Hodegus, p. 293.
320 (1Co 15,20 1Co 15,
321 Ibid. 53.
322 Cf). Ruf., Expos. Symbol. Apost.; Cassian, Contr. Nestor, bk. vi.; Cyril, Calech. 14.
323 (Ml Iv. 2.
324 (Is Ix. 2.
325 (Is Lxi. I; St. Lc 4,19 Lc 4,
326 (1P 3,19 1P 3,
327 Iren., 4,45; Greg. Naz., Orat. 42.
328 (Ph 2,10, IV
Damascus Orthodox faith 319